Adversity Score
Allocate opportunity by obstacles overcome, not identity alone
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 92%
Galloway argues for shifting affirmative action from identity alone toward an adversity score that asks whether an applicant has shown resilience and overcome obstacles. He cites the University of California system as his preferred example after its move away from race-based affirmative action. The proposed mechanism defines relevant disadvantages, assesses the barriers a person encountered relative to their resources, and gives a structured advantage to those who demonstrated achievement under harder conditions. Galloway says many current minority beneficiaries would remain eligible because race and household wealth remain correlated in the United States, while poor white applicants would be less likely to be excluded. That distributional claim is his argument in the episode, not an independently verified result here. Any implementation would require transparent factors, legal review, consistent evidence, and auditing for both historic and newly created inequities.
Origin
On The Diary of a CEO, Galloway describes the University of California's adversity-score approach while arguing for economically driven affirmative action.
Core principles
- 01Assess experienced disadvantage rather than treating identity as a complete proxy
- 02Resilience has meaning only in relation to documented obstacles and available resources
- 03Economic criteria can preserve support for disadvantaged minorities while including overlooked poor applicants
- 04A fair score needs transparent evidence, consistent weighting, and outcome review
How to run it
- 1
Define the remedial goal
State which unequal starting conditions the opportunity is intended to offset. Keep the goal tied to the institution's mission and governing law.
Pro tip Separate remedying limited access from rewarding hardship for its own sake.
Watch out Policy design in admissions, employment, and grants may require specialist legal review.
- 2
Choose adversity evidence
Select observable factors such as household resources, caregiving load, school opportunity, neighbourhood conditions, or major disruption. Define acceptable evidence and privacy boundaries.
Pro tip Use several factors so one crude proxy does not decide the score.
Watch out Do not demand invasive personal disclosure beyond what the decision genuinely requires.
- 3
Set the rubric first
Choose weights and thresholds before evaluating individual applicants. Explain how each factor connects to the stated goal.
Pro tip Test the rubric against anonymized historical cases before using it live.
Watch out Changing weights after seeing identities or preferred outcomes undermines consistency.
- 4
Assess achievement in context
Evaluate what the candidate accomplished relative to both obstacles and available support. Avoid equating suffering itself with readiness for the opportunity.
Pro tip Look for evidence of adaptation, persistence, and use of limited resources.
Watch out Adversity does not automatically establish merit, fit, or future performance.
- 5
Review distributional effects
Compare who would gain and lose under the new rubric with the previous system. Check whether intended disadvantaged groups remain served and whether overlooked applicants become visible.
Watch out A plausible fairness story is not a substitute for measured outcomes.
- 6
Audit and revise
Track outcomes, appeals, false proxies, and gaming after implementation. Revise factors through a documented process rather than ad hoc exceptions.
Pro tip Invite review from people affected by both the old and new systems.
Watch out No scoring system removes judgement or the risk of unintended discrimination.
In the wild
Galloway says he was raised by a single immigrant mother whose household income never exceeded $40,000. He received Pell grants rather than loans based on household income and presents himself as a beneficiary of economically targeted affirmative action.
→ The support directed resources toward a student from a low-income household without making race the sole criterion.
In a fictional admissions process, two applicants have similar results. One had extensive tutoring and a highly resourced school; the other cared for a sibling and attended a school with few advanced courses. A predeclared adversity rubric adds context without assuming either applicant's identity determines the decision.
→ The panel evaluates achievement relative to opportunity while retaining evidence and fit requirements.
Common mistakes
Replacing one crude proxy with another
Household income alone can also miss wealth, caregiving, school access, disability, discrimination, and other relevant barriers.
Scoring hardship instead of readiness
The framework contextualizes achievement; it does not make adversity sufficient evidence of merit or fit.
Declaring fairness before auditing
The distributional effects Galloway predicts must be measured rather than assumed from the policy's intent.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for institutions willing to document criteria, examine socioeconomic context, and audit the distributional effects of selection decisions.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal as a casual label for resilience, a substitute for legal review, or proof that structural discrimination no longer matters.
From the transcript
“they have what's called an adversity score now”
“has this kid shown resilience and an ability to overcome obstacles”
“we should be doing this based on class”
From the episode
Scott Galloway (US ELECTION SPECIAL): “I bet $358,000 That They Win The Election!”, “33% Chance Trump Dies In Office!”, “Men Will Have Less Sex If Trump Wins!”