https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/opinion/minimum-wage-race-protests.html?smid=tw-share

Last Name 2

Student Name

Date

Course / section

Instructor Name

Representation: The Result of Fair Inclusion

On May 25, 2019, senior writer for The Century Foundation, Richard D. Kahlenberg, wrote and published an opinion piece titled “An Imperfect Adversity Score is Better Than Just Ignoring Adversity” which discusses the SAT standardized test implementing a portion of the test that takes into account the demographics each particular student who takes it. From where the familial situations that students grew up with to the poverty level of the schools they were to attend, this portion of the SAT would rate it on a scale from one to one-hundred of what kind of disadvantages students went through in hopes of scoring the test more fairly. Kahlenberg makes the argument that the SAT implementing the adversity score into the test would result in a positive outcome for minorities due to them gaining an increased chance of being admitted to colleges through this system and gaining representation when they are historically the most underrepresented group in the United States. Kahlenberg builds his credibility throughout this article by first of all mentioning his personal experience with the topic of college admissions, stating facts and statistics while citing reputable sources, and evoking both logical and emotional appeals to attempt to further strengthen his argument.

The audience that Kahlenberg seems to be targeting in this article are those who are against the implementation of the adversity test into standardized testing. He sees this portion of the test mostly as an opportunity for students who have grown up in low-income households to showcase that they can score just as high as those who have grown up in ideal situations. He, first of all, goes into this argument by stating research that was conducted by Anthony Carnevale of Georgetown University that found that “the most disadvantaged students, on average, score a whopping 784 points lower on the SAT (out of a possible 1600) than the most advantaged” (Kahlenberg). This compelling statistic displays the sheer separation that is shown between students that come from higher poverty-stricken situations than students who grew up within more ideal situations. He makes the argument that the students who grew up with lower-income families and in higher-crime neighborhoods and still manage to gain a higher score on the SAT are more likely to be successful and better students than the students who are from wealthier areas who manage to gain around the same score. This is the case because even though the lower-income students have access to less than higher-income students do, managing to pull off around a high score would speak wonders about that student’s ability to overcome adversity and be successful. This is an example of the logical appeal in that Kahlenberg displays the use of reasoning to come to this conclusion.

Kahlenberg also adds the emotional appeal to his argument by using examples of the adversity that many students who grow up in lower-income households are forced to face at an early age. He takes into account the many different situations that could result in a significant disadvantage for a student living in a lower-income household. These situations include growing up in violent neighborhoods, attending high poverty schools with very little access to basic supplies needed to be successful, and health problems that might’ve occurred to either the student or someone very close to them such as a family member. Kahlenberg’s main argument is that the SAT and other college admissions standardized tests do not already take the diverse set of disadvantages that many students face into consideration. Thus, this provides less context to the final score that universities judge when determining whether a student is fit for admission into their school or not (Kahlenberg). He argues that this low context way of scoring and judging standardized test scores provides an already disadvantaged group of students with nothing but more misrepresentation.

The ending of the article goes on to discuss how “it would be crazy for universities to admit students based solely on the SAT and adversity score” (Kahlenberg). This statement gives Kahlenberg more credibility in that he does not contradict his main argument that more than one factor needs to be taken into consideration regarding the topic of students gaining admission into a university. He discusses that along with both SAT and the adversity score, factors such as leadership roles and extracurricular activities need to be taken into consideration as well to make the entire admission process fair for all students. These examples that he uses slightly take away from his argument in that many students from lower-income areas do not have the same opportunities to take on the leadership roles and extracurricular activities that students from higher incomes do. There should be a varied scale of judgment based on the type of opportunities each student has to show their full potential.

I agree with the majority of the argument. Lower-income students should have the same opportunities to be admitted to higher quality universities as students from more ideal situations do. Adding the adversity test to the SAT and other college admissions standardized tests would be a proficient way to bring about equality and fairness to the world of college admissions. It would also provide more students who otherwise would not have the opportunity, to showcase their true academic abilities and further thrive without any economic obstacle.

Overall, Kahlenburg’s argument is quite compelling and he effectively uses both emotional and logical appeals to persuade his audience of the positive aspects of the adversity test.

Works Cited

Kahlenberg, Richard D. “An Imperfect SAT Adversity Score Is Better Than Just Ignoring

Adversity.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 25 May 2019, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/defense-sat-adversity-score/590278/.