To be fair, this is kind of impressed on people when so many are judged by the name of the school on their diploma or a score they received in the first quarter of their life. There's no guarantee a Harvard accepted child will have a happier life than someone "destined" to be a fast food cashier, but when we pressure young kids with so much judgment before they even experience life, it feels like a race from the start.
Couple this with the lack of class mobility and sometimes people feel participating in that race was the only way to control your future.
I mean if we reversed this plan and said students from rich areas get bonus points on their SATs, wouldn't poor areas call it an unfair attack? Does that somehow prove that rich kids are systemtically oppressed? This vague statement is not some kind of proof of oppression, it's just wordplay.
Does anyone honestly believe the only way to provide that advantage is to fake their score? That kind of lazy thinking is what needs an adversity score to be considered good.
So if you make $125k/yr and I make $75k/yr, equality can only exist if you give me 25k? Should America all just average our salaries and call it a day?
If this score was unrealistically perfect and able to accurately account for every possible detail, maybe. If instead it just does a cheap job of assuming anyone with a certain set of data points is at a major disadvantage, nope.
The test claims to be measuring a students ability to learn in the first place, not just their current knowledge, so why not aim to make that more accurate instead of bypassing it?
Couple this with the lack of class mobility and sometimes people feel participating in that race was the only way to control your future.