[bryan0]

here are the criteria they used in the adversity score:

Crime rate, Poverty rate, Housing values, Vacancy rate, Family environment, Median income, Single parent, Adversity score, Education level, ESL, High school environment, Undermatching, Curricular rigor, Free lunch rate, AP opportunity

Each school got a score.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-...

[twic]

Oxford does something a bit like this, but AFAICT only for getting interviewed; you still have to get the same exam results as anyone else, and you aren't given any advantage in the interviews:

https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-ox...

[pmyteh]

The former head of Green Templeton College, Oxford, did an analysis of the final results achieved by people from different backgrounds who had got into Oxford, and the conclusion was that those who came from fancier backgrounds did less well in their degrees than their poorer colleagues with similar entry scores. The hypothesis was that the private schools were very good at hothousing borderline students, but that this obviously stopped happening once they were admitted and got the same environment as everyone else.

This is one of the reasons that Oxford is beginning to seriously concern itself with background - it turns out that if you're already expecting top entry grades it's a good way of getting better students.

That, and its long-standing gross overrepresentation of children from posh schools is getting embarrassing.

[hpoe]

Looks like I am too late to edit my comment but I will acknowledge I was wrong about that those indicators seem to be reasonable and I could see myself possibly being in support of something like that not in the SAT itself but as a factor in admissions.