This reminds of the time when I was 11 and I accidentally ended up cybering on AOL with (probably) some pedo in California. Bad memories. Will not repeat.
colleges have been getting more and more liberal over the years and the college admission process has known to be discriminating... see the lawsuits filed against Harvard. this is what the left does... they push feel-good narratives to kids who don't know any better, yet.... that's why the younger voter group tends to lean left, while after more life experience voters become more wise and start to lean right.. and having this control over the admission process will just make brain-washing the young so much easier.... this is not much different from how the dems treat the poor - I am not gonna give you any job opportunities... you stay poor, but vote for me and I will keep that welfare food stamp coming.. yes it does take a little bit of connecting-the-dots.... but everything is done with a motive... follow the money trail and everything will make sense.
The data disagrees with you. So much so it seriously cast doubt on your alleged "rags to riches" story you are setting up to tell. Even among the upper cohorts of the middle class mobility is very limited. Your relative success is probably woefully average when taken at the population level. You could argue some of the population statistics are a result of financial literacy but you have to also understand the systems put in place to keep people more broke than they should. To name a few: credit cards, bank loans, social media influencer selling, movies, television, etc. Before you claim "well those people are just stupid" again, the data disagrees. Careless spending is actually highest among the upper quartile of IQ contrary to popular belief. Even if you do make it and are the 99th percentile of your cohort you will, on average, fail to exceed a small multiple of the highest earner in your nuclear family. This is not surprising at all. People who come from wealth get more assistance in generating their own wealth by leveraging their parents. However, people who are given financial assistance (rather than life assistance) tend to do more poorly. This subject is very interesting because it implies that not only generational wealth is the only real wealth, but also the probability of escaping poverty or the middle class without assistance from your family early in life is vanishingly small. The cases where a person who was broke on the street suddenly making enough money to retire inside of one generation is nearly unheard of. You should listen to The Millionaire Next Door. They expound on the issue of class mobility and how it's not as simple as "I did it, so can you". To make a major class change within one generation is an accomplishment less than 0.5% of Americans can do. Wealth has, and always will be, made generationally. Unfortunately for the progenators of familial wealth, they very rarely get to live long enough to enjoy any of it. On topic: The SATs biasing their scores based on race and class has always been an unspoken but recognized subject for at least as long as I had been in the University circuit. The only surprising thing here is they are admitting it.
Overall I liked your posting, but I have to comment on the sentence above since some readers may misunderstand. With the new rating system the SAT score itself is not being adjusted. The College Board that administers the test is simply assigning a numeric score to the students income, quality of school, and 13 other factors; then giving the original SAT score and those 15 numeric scores to the university. The university is free to use those factors in any way it sees fit.
I have seen the 'social mobility data'... yes the US is not the highest... but this is still the land of opportunities... not necessarily a 'major class change', but to get to middle class all it takes is finishing high school. and it is surprising they are admitting it. main problem I have is this is all political.... getting votes, at the expense of smarter and harder working kids... and for the country as a whole this is net negative.
Yes, a fundamental difficulty that is unique to America is that we only ever get ~2 years of possible change. After that the politicking and empty promises begin again, and the new person who comes in spends their time undoing what the other person did for no other reason than to spite the previous incumbent.
It's called autocorrect We may have good writers, but have shitty readers. Some private company offers an extra data set for their customers and it's somehow scraping for votes
lol there is really no perfect solution... the alternative is we get a dictatorship system like China has... does wonders when it works, the country developed so fast in the past 30 years... but can be disastrous if/when it doesn't.