I take it that the UC system just wants to go away from testing period. For, if not, the AP tests are tougher than tough and relate directly to materials that student was studying for that year. Seems to me it would be a very good barometer. I know of students who did very well on the ACT and SAT and were a bit humbled (relatively speaking) by the AP tests. They all talk of AP Euro as being just a bear.OaktownBear said:Yes, they take AP classes but they don't need to take AP tests.Strykur said:Without AP classes how are students supposed to boost their GPAs?OaktownBear said:AP test scores are not requires and more and more schools aren't considering them at all. I would doubt that UC will be considering them in 4 years except for the engineering schoolsStrykur said:
That pretty much leaves AP test scores as the only valid standardized primer left to examine students, so expect that to take on renewed importance going forward.
UC To Phase Out SAT and ACT Tests.
8,837 Views |
145 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by BearForce2
5 years ago before I saw what high school today was like I would have been on your side and I would have been wrong because I would have been misinformed.okaydo said:Strykur said:Without AP classes how are students supposed to boost their GPAs?OaktownBear said:AP test scores are not requires and more and more schools aren't considering them at all. I would doubt that UC will be considering them in 4 years except for the engineering schoolsStrykur said:
That pretty much leaves AP test scores as the only valid standardized primer left to examine students, so expect that to take on renewed importance going forward.
My school only had 1 AP class before 11th grade. We didn't have that many AP classes after 10th grade. We had to compete to get into them. Only 25 students a year, for instance, were allowed to take AP Bio, or AP History, etc. I won a slot in AP English Language, then my teacher -- a Phd who was beloved by students, and who I had the previous year -- bolted for a better school 2 weeks into the semester. And we ended up with a teacher 23-year-old teacher fresh out of UCLA.
So I ended up taking some community college classes, which I think helped me stand out.
Anyways, I found this thread from yesterday interesting:
This is my kids' high school.
There are a million AP classes
The qualification for getting into an AP class is signing up. There is no competition.
Kids who detest sports play a sport so they can fulfill their PE credit after hours and get one more AP class.
In 90% of the AP classes you get an A if you are a mediocre student.
In 80% of the classes you get an A if you are a lousy student with a parent willing to scream at the teacher and principal.
If colleges are going to stop using tests and rely on GPA, the only way to make that work is to throw out the current GPA system and go to system that requires each class to document grades down to the percentage point based on defined tests and assignments. Kids who get 99% are flat out kicking the ass of the kids who get 90%.
If you saw the slackers and idiots who get straight A's at these schools, you wouldn't be for this move. Right now the ACT and SAT is the ONLY way to expose these kids. This move is a boon to affluent, lazy morons everywhere.
Regarding the above point, the curriculum for the AP classes is standardized. That doesn't mean the teacher's grading is accurate. They have a ton of pressure to just give A's or passing grades. The AP test isn't hard to pass and gives colleges assurance that students have mastered the material.
Personally, I think it is bull that kids get college credit for these classes, but universities like it, especially public ones, because it gets kids in and out of college faster. It is a total fiction that they are college level classes.
Almost all schools, not just UC's, have been going away from Subject tests and AP tests for admissions purposes. The AP tests are primarily used for giving course credits. The primary exception is engineering schools that want to see that you have mastered that subject matter.OdontoBear66 said:I take it that the UC system just wants to go away from testing period. For, if not, the AP tests are tougher than tough and relate directly to materials that student was studying for that year. Seems to me it would be a very good barometer. I know of students who did very well on the ACT and SAT and were a bit humbled (relatively speaking) by the AP tests. They all talk of AP Euro as being just a bear.OaktownBear said:Yes, they take AP classes but they don't need to take AP tests.Strykur said:Without AP classes how are students supposed to boost their GPAs?OaktownBear said:AP test scores are not requires and more and more schools aren't considering them at all. I would doubt that UC will be considering them in 4 years except for the engineering schoolsStrykur said:
That pretty much leaves AP test scores as the only valid standardized primer left to examine students, so expect that to take on renewed importance going forward.
I understand that, but my suggestion was using the APs to assist in admissions if not using SAT and/or ACT for same. You need something to separate the wheat from the chaff. And yes I also understand that some HS's AP courses are an easy A, but a lot are not. The big thing is that if the course is not absorbed and taught well the performance on the AP national test given in May will not be very good.OaktownBear said:Almost all schools, not just UC's, have been going away from Subject tests and AP tests for admissions purposes. The AP tests are primarily used for giving course credits. The primary exception is engineering schools that want to see that you have mastered that subject matter.OdontoBear66 said:I take it that the UC system just wants to go away from testing period. For, if not, the AP tests are tougher than tough and relate directly to materials that student was studying for that year. Seems to me it would be a very good barometer. I know of students who did very well on the ACT and SAT and were a bit humbled (relatively speaking) by the AP tests. They all talk of AP Euro as being just a bear.OaktownBear said:Yes, they take AP classes but they don't need to take AP tests.Strykur said:Without AP classes how are students supposed to boost their GPAs?OaktownBear said:AP test scores are not requires and more and more schools aren't considering them at all. I would doubt that UC will be considering them in 4 years except for the engineering schoolsStrykur said:
That pretty much leaves AP test scores as the only valid standardized primer left to examine students, so expect that to take on renewed importance going forward.
No testing will lead to more subjective admissions which in my opinion would be the end of the academic reputation of Cal. It would not be a disaster, but would be a drop.
The whole "we're doing this to make it easier for poor kids to get into Berkeley" line is just so transparently bogus it makes me physically angry thinking about it. Dropping the SAT doesn't make it easier for poor kids to get into college. It makes it harder.
Under the old system, college admissions officers made admissions decisions based on four criteria: Essays, resume, high school GPA, and test scores.
The first two overwhelmingly favor the privileged. You can pay $10,000 to have a college admissions "consultant" literally write your child's personal statement. Or $20,000 to send Little Mary on an all-expenses-paid "internship" extravaganza in Antarctica or whatever.
But high school GPA and SAT scores are at least superficially objective. Yes, there are expensive SAT bootcamps, personalized tutoring, etc. The rich are still advantaged...but the poor have a chance. You can buy a Princeton Review book for $40, or make copies of it at a public library. And there are *tons* of free materials available at places like Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/sat/full-length-sat-1/paper-sat-tests/a/full-length-sats-to-take-on-paper?modal=1.
I know parents hate "drill-and-kill," but you know what's nice about it? It costs nothing except your kid's time. If a high schooler is bright and motivated, she can get a top SAT score practicing with a paper, pencil, calculator, and watching free YouTube classes. It works: New York's top magnet high school, Stuyvesant, uses a test-based admissions system. ~50% of the kids qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. https://data.nysed.gov/studenteducator.php?year=2018&instid=800000046741
So now we've dropped the SAT. What's left? GPA, which is objective but difficult to compare across high schools...and the resume and essays, which are squishy and subjective and rich people literally buy.
I assume the University of California system *knows* this, given that their faculty report made the same points: https://edsource.org/2020/uc-report-upholds-test-scores-in-admissions-while-critics-pledge-to-fight-on/623299. But they don't care, because this isn't about making Berkeley accessible to the impoverished. It's about something else.
And look, I think there are some reasonable moral arguments for affirmative action. But if Janet Napolitano wants to bring it back, she needs to get Proposition 209 repealed. Not do it backdoor by banning the SAT. This isn't Janet Napolitano's university system. It's the people of California's. And in 1996 they told her that affirmative action is illegal.
Under the old system, college admissions officers made admissions decisions based on four criteria: Essays, resume, high school GPA, and test scores.
The first two overwhelmingly favor the privileged. You can pay $10,000 to have a college admissions "consultant" literally write your child's personal statement. Or $20,000 to send Little Mary on an all-expenses-paid "internship" extravaganza in Antarctica or whatever.
But high school GPA and SAT scores are at least superficially objective. Yes, there are expensive SAT bootcamps, personalized tutoring, etc. The rich are still advantaged...but the poor have a chance. You can buy a Princeton Review book for $40, or make copies of it at a public library. And there are *tons* of free materials available at places like Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/sat/full-length-sat-1/paper-sat-tests/a/full-length-sats-to-take-on-paper?modal=1.
I know parents hate "drill-and-kill," but you know what's nice about it? It costs nothing except your kid's time. If a high schooler is bright and motivated, she can get a top SAT score practicing with a paper, pencil, calculator, and watching free YouTube classes. It works: New York's top magnet high school, Stuyvesant, uses a test-based admissions system. ~50% of the kids qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. https://data.nysed.gov/studenteducator.php?year=2018&instid=800000046741
So now we've dropped the SAT. What's left? GPA, which is objective but difficult to compare across high schools...and the resume and essays, which are squishy and subjective and rich people literally buy.
I assume the University of California system *knows* this, given that their faculty report made the same points: https://edsource.org/2020/uc-report-upholds-test-scores-in-admissions-while-critics-pledge-to-fight-on/623299. But they don't care, because this isn't about making Berkeley accessible to the impoverished. It's about something else.
And look, I think there are some reasonable moral arguments for affirmative action. But if Janet Napolitano wants to bring it back, she needs to get Proposition 209 repealed. Not do it backdoor by banning the SAT. This isn't Janet Napolitano's university system. It's the people of California's. And in 1996 they told her that affirmative action is illegal.
I agree with a lot of this. We disagree agree on one main point: I don't think the UC system is trying to make a back door for Affirmative Action. They know Affirmative Action is not only against the California Constitution but, at least under the current conservative regime, against the US Constitution. All the talk about POC is a red herring. This move benefits the children of rich helicopter parents regardless of race.
Moon is cynical the about the UC system wanting money and power.He is right. I am cynical of "white liberals" who say they are trying to help POC but really, almost always, are trying to help themselves and their progeny. You aren't going to see white and Asian kids being rejected by Cal in favor or black and Hispanic kids. Cal is going to remain largely white and Asian. The difference who gets in: it is now much harder for poor students to standout from the crowd and make-up for their subpar public schools.
Also, the current SAT is nothing like how the SAT used to be. You should look at some of the questions.
Moon is cynical the about the UC system wanting money and power.He is right. I am cynical of "white liberals" who say they are trying to help POC but really, almost always, are trying to help themselves and their progeny. You aren't going to see white and Asian kids being rejected by Cal in favor or black and Hispanic kids. Cal is going to remain largely white and Asian. The difference who gets in: it is now much harder for poor students to standout from the crowd and make-up for their subpar public schools.
Also, the current SAT is nothing like how the SAT used to be. You should look at some of the questions.
The problem for all students as I see it is for students from sub par high schools to get in. It will just make it harder in that the source school must be looked at when the academic credentials are evaluated and the admissions officers need decide.
A comparison of sorts is the current admission at Ivy League schools with regards to who really gets in. With three in college in the last six years I hear more and more that you have "one foot in the bucket" if you want to get into an Ivy from a public school. Then some of them and their friends wind up at same and there is a confirmation. The Ivies know what they can expect from prep schools and the Choates, etc. of the world. They don't really know about any consistency from PS 37. Where will the preponderance of acceptances come if it must be subjective? I think we know. Glad #4 is in and on his way. Next year will be a different kind of "Bear" for applicants to Cal.
A comparison of sorts is the current admission at Ivy League schools with regards to who really gets in. With three in college in the last six years I hear more and more that you have "one foot in the bucket" if you want to get into an Ivy from a public school. Then some of them and their friends wind up at same and there is a confirmation. The Ivies know what they can expect from prep schools and the Choates, etc. of the world. They don't really know about any consistency from PS 37. Where will the preponderance of acceptances come if it must be subjective? I think we know. Glad #4 is in and on his way. Next year will be a different kind of "Bear" for applicants to Cal.
https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/publications/research/defining-access-report-2018.pdfNYCGOBEARS said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california-sat-act.amp.html
The Regents are on the right track. The University of California is by and for the people of California. It is not by and for a select subset Of the population (the wealthy and privileged). Diversity enriches the University because it gives students an opportunity to interact with people from different socio-economic and racial backgrounds thus broadening their knowledge regarding the people with whom they will living and working in the future.
California is changing. The University needs to reflect that change if it is to remain relevant.
Quick note - all Presidents are bound by the US Constitution whether they are conservative or progressive. To suggest affirmative action "under the current conservative regime" is unconstitutional suggests that it would be constitutional under a progressive "regime". Not true. Either it is or is not constitutional regardless of who sits in the White House. The Supreme Court makes that call not the President.CalFan777 said:
I agree with a lot of this. We disagree agree on one main point: I don't think the UC system is trying to make a back door for Affirmative Action. They know Affirmative Action is not only against the California Constitution but, at least under the current conservative regime, against the US Constitution. All the talk about POC is a red herring. This move benefits the children of rich helicopter parents regardless of race.
Moon is cynical the about the UC system wanting money and power.He is right. I am cynical of "white liberals" who say they are trying to help POC but really, almost always, are trying to help themselves and their progeny. You aren't going to see white and Asian kids being rejected by Cal in favor or black and Hispanic kids. Cal is going to remain largely white and Asian. The difference who gets in: it is now much harder for poor students to standout from the crowd and make-up for their subpar public schools.
Also, the current SAT is nothing like how the SAT used to be. You should look at some of the questions.
Lots of talk about grade inflation. how do recent SAT scores compare to 25 years ago? My grandaughter is at Irvine because her SATs weren't high enough for Cal. But they were higher than my son's was in 1986. She had a higher GPA from HS also. He got in to Cal with no problem.
CalFan777 said:
I agree with a lot of this. We disagree agree on one main point: I don't think the UC system is trying to make a back door for Affirmative Action. They know Affirmative Action is not only against the California Constitution but, at least under the current conservative regime, against the US Constitution. All the talk about POC is a red herring. This move benefits the children of rich helicopter parents regardless of race.
Moon is cynical the about the UC system wanting money and power.He is right. I am cynical of "white liberals" who say they are trying to help POC but really, almost always, are trying to help themselves and their progeny. You aren't going to see white and Asian kids being rejected by Cal in favor or black and Hispanic kids. Cal is going to remain largely white and Asian. The difference who gets in: it is now much harder for poor students to standout from the crowd and make-up for their subpar public schools.
Also, the current SAT is nothing like how the SAT used to be. You should look at some of the questions.
Agreed with you, Timtiger, and OaktownB. Taking away test scores while leaving other metrics in place hurts the poor kids much more. And actually favors the well off.
Personal example from the mid 90s, I came from a poor family with one working parent on min wage. MY SAT prep was 9 old tests (3 in each college Board booklet for about $9) and locking myself in apartment for hours without interruption. Took some 13 AP tests on reduced fees or fee waivers. Since i had no essays or activities to speak of, without the test scores i would not have been at Cal. Same for LSAT.
Now that UC is going away from tests, you bet that my little Cupcakes will be signed up for all sorts of internships and leadership roles to set them apart from other applicants for Class of 2030. Daddy will pay for it. Heck, i'll get the first year associates to write college essays for my little Cupcakes as part of their job evaluation!
They sure seem higher to me, but I think that misses the point. Todays applicants aren't competing against your son's 1986 application. They are competing against their peers who took the test at the same time. And very few of them get perfect scores even now. There is still differentiation at the top - it's just more compressed than it used to be.kelly09 said:
Lots of talk about grade inflation. how do recent SAT scores compare to 25 years ago? My grandaughter is at Irvine because her SATs weren't high enough for Cal. But they were higher than my son's was in 1986. She had a higher GPA from HS also. He got in to Cal with no problem.
The problem with relying on high school grades exclusively is that they are in no way "standardized". Schools who have tried to somewhat hold the line on actually handing out Bs (forget Cs and Ds - those are long gone) are getting eviscerated. And this move will basically make it impossible. Every kid with college aspirations will be coming out with a 4.0 From every school and I can assure their level of smarts and college preparedness are not going to be the same.
This is just a ridiculous move by the regents.
One imperfect way to distinguish all the 4.0s is class rankings--have the kids compete against peers from same schools.
Test scores shouldn't have to be the sole factor but they should at least be a factor.
Test scores shouldn't have to be the sole factor but they should at least be a factor.
kelly09 said:
Lots of talk about grade inflation. how do recent SAT scores compare to 25 years ago? My grandaughter is at Irvine because her SATs weren't high enough for Cal. But they were higher than my son's was in 1986. She had a higher GPA from HS also. He got in to Cal with no problem.
I posted this upthread, and I'll post it again: When Bob Laird, the admissions director from 1993 to 2000 (before and after affirmative action) took over in 1993, there were 19,800 applicants, per this 1999 LA Times article (written by then-Times educational writer Kenneth R. Weiss, by the way a former Daily Cal editor in chief.)
By 1999, there were 31,000 for 8,450 slots
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-06-me-19406-story.html
By 2019, there were 87,393 applicants for 14,336 slots.
https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/berkeley/freshman-admission-profile.html
When your son applied in 1986, I have no idea how many high school students actually applied total. But if it was nearly 20,000 applicants in 1993, then perhaps it was fewer or around the same in 1986.
The point is it's way, way easier to get in in the 80s when there were a lot fewer applicants, then now when there are way, way more applicants.
Sebastabear said:They sure seem higher to me, but I think that misses the point. Todays applicants aren't competing against your son's 1986 application. They are competing against their peers who took the test at the same time. And very few of them get perfect scores even now. There is still differentiation at the top - it's just more compressed than it used to be.kelly09 said:
Lots of talk about grade inflation. how do recent SAT scores compare to 25 years ago? My grandaughter is at Irvine because her SATs weren't high enough for Cal. But they were higher than my son's was in 1986. She had a higher GPA from HS also. He got in to Cal with no problem.
The problem with relying on high school grades exclusively is that they are in no way "standardized". Schools who have tried to somewhat hold the line on actually handing out Bs (forget Cs and Ds - those are long gone) are getting eviscerated. And this move will basically make it impossible. Every kid with college aspirations will be coming out with a 4.0 From every school and I can assure their level of smarts and college preparedness are not going to be the same.
This is just a ridiculous move by the regents.
Interesting question, kelley09. Approximately 25 years ago (give or take five years), faced with declining SAT scores, they recalibrated the scale so that the scores would be appear higher. Thus, a "700" this century represents less answers correct than that same score in, say, 1980.
True story. What I don't recall is exactly when they did this, or if they recalibrated all at once or gradually over, say, a period of 3-5 years.
Good comments, Sebastabear, about the state of grading in high schools.
Big C said:Sebastabear said:They sure seem higher to me, but I think that misses the point. Todays applicants aren't competing against your son's 1986 application. They are competing against their peers who took the test at the same time. And very few of them get perfect scores even now. There is still differentiation at the top - it's just more compressed than it used to be.kelly09 said:
Lots of talk about grade inflation. how do recent SAT scores compare to 25 years ago? My grandaughter is at Irvine because her SATs weren't high enough for Cal. But they were higher than my son's was in 1986. She had a higher GPA from HS also. He got in to Cal with no problem.
The problem with relying on high school grades exclusively is that they are in no way "standardized". Schools who have tried to somewhat hold the line on actually handing out Bs (forget Cs and Ds - those are long gone) are getting eviscerated. And this move will basically make it impossible. Every kid with college aspirations will be coming out with a 4.0 From every school and I can assure their level of smarts and college preparedness are not going to be the same.
This is just a ridiculous move by the regents.
Interesting question, kelley09. Approximately 25 years ago (give or take five years), faced with declining SAT scores, they recalibrated the scale so that the scores would be appear higher. Thus, a "700" this century represents less answers correct than that same score in, say, 1980.
True story. What I don't recall is exactly when they did this, or if they recalibrated all at once or gradually over, say, a period of 3-5 years.
Good comments, Sebastabear, about the state of grading in high schools.
They did do that. But I don't know if they changed it back because it was met with controversy. But I took the SAT about 25 years ago, and I remember the changes. That was also when, I believe, they changed the "A" from Aptitude to Assessment.
Here's a history of all the SAT changes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#2002_changes_%E2%80%93_Score_Choice
The word is that the parents of the college applicants of today would, for the most part, not get in. The expression "this is not your daddy's Cal (U$C, 'furd, whatever) seems to be true. Numbers much, much greater. Just look at population of California in the 80skelly09 said:
Lots of talk about grade inflation. how do recent SAT scores compare to 25 years ago? My grandaughter is at Irvine because her SATs weren't high enough for Cal. But they were higher than my son's was in 1986. She had a higher GPA from HS also. He got in to Cal with no problem.
Let me add, that one way to make if fair is to have class rank in your high school available to the UCs. The institutions pretty much know the relative "hardness" factor of high schools not only in California, but I would suspect throughout the USA.
>The point is it's way, way easier to get in in the 80s when there were a lot fewer applicants, then now when there are way, way more applicants.
This is sort of true. But sort of not.
Back in the 80's Berkeley admitted students from CA equal to 3% of the public HS seniors graduating. Today that figure is.... 3%. So if Berkeley is admitting the top 3% of HS graduates, that benchmark has remained relatively constant for decades.
That may change in the next few years. The inflow of foreign students will greatly diminish. That will make admission easier. The inflow of out of state students will probably also diminish. That again makes admission easier. But the % of CA HS seniors who accept a Berkeley admission will probably increase - these students typically select between Berkeley and out of state private universities. And as with foreign and out of state students, the attractiveness of traveling a long distance repeatedly over the course of a school year is waning. The higher yield (% of accepted students who enroll) will reverse decades of decreasing yield for Berkeley. And that will make admission harder. Not clear how that will play out over the longer term, although for this year it clearly made admission easier for CA applicants.
This is sort of true. But sort of not.
Back in the 80's Berkeley admitted students from CA equal to 3% of the public HS seniors graduating. Today that figure is.... 3%. So if Berkeley is admitting the top 3% of HS graduates, that benchmark has remained relatively constant for decades.
That may change in the next few years. The inflow of foreign students will greatly diminish. That will make admission easier. The inflow of out of state students will probably also diminish. That again makes admission easier. But the % of CA HS seniors who accept a Berkeley admission will probably increase - these students typically select between Berkeley and out of state private universities. And as with foreign and out of state students, the attractiveness of traveling a long distance repeatedly over the course of a school year is waning. The higher yield (% of accepted students who enroll) will reverse decades of decreasing yield for Berkeley. And that will make admission harder. Not clear how that will play out over the longer term, although for this year it clearly made admission easier for CA applicants.
After some quick research, you can't compare old SAT scores to new SAT scores easily.
1. The test has changed multiple times.
2. The percentiles of specific scores have changed multiple times (90th percentile is a different score now than say 10 years ago and say 10 years before that).
3. Even if you could adjust for the above two problems, the population of test takers is much different. Most students take the SAT or ACT now. A much greater percentage of students go to college. This prevents comparing median scores now from median scores in say the 1980s. Many foreign students take the SAT now and most are very good students. This distorts the right tail of the distribution.
1. The test has changed multiple times.
2. The percentiles of specific scores have changed multiple times (90th percentile is a different score now than say 10 years ago and say 10 years before that).
3. Even if you could adjust for the above two problems, the population of test takers is much different. Most students take the SAT or ACT now. A much greater percentage of students go to college. This prevents comparing median scores now from median scores in say the 1980s. Many foreign students take the SAT now and most are very good students. This distorts the right tail of the distribution.
Then at the top high schools students would be rewarded for not taking PE and not doing unweighted electives like Newspaper, Woodshop, Art, and Student Government. Someone who was already bilingual would be discouraged from learning another language so they could take advanced classes sooner. ETC...
Now, maybe those problems aren't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but this is a hard problem.
Now, maybe those problems aren't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but this is a hard problem.
What evidence is there that objective tests discriminate against anyone? The truth is that objective tests do not yield the results that these grossly overpaid educrats want. These educrats, to whom we have unfortunately entrusted our university, do not share our goals. I believe that the goals of most of us are meritocratic. The goals of these educrats are Stalinist.
I agree with many of your points especially regarding SAT resources on the Internet. It's 2020, for crying out loud! Additionally, regarding consultants and the privileged - the recent college admissions scandal (with the forged sports photos) showed exactly the type of system gaming of "holistic" admissions that the SAT is intended to keep in check! While it should be acknowledged that admissions scandal central figure Rick Singer did commit SAT fraud, the grade inflation that goes on in high schools is far far worse if "barely better" is inappropriate.tigertim said:
The whole "we're doing this to make it easier for poor kids to get into Berkeley" line is just so transparently bogus it makes me physically angry thinking about it. Dropping the SAT doesn't make it easier for poor kids to get into college. It makes it harder.
Under the old system, college admissions officers made admissions decisions based on four criteria: Essays, resume, high school GPA, and test scores.
The first two overwhelmingly favor the privileged. You can pay $10,000 to have a college admissions "consultant" literally write your child's personal statement. Or $20,000 to send Little Mary on an all-expenses-paid "internship" extravaganza in Antarctica or whatever.
But high school GPA and SAT scores are at least superficially objective. Yes, there are expensive SAT bootcamps, personalized tutoring, etc. The rich are still advantaged...but the poor have a chance. You can buy a Princeton Review book for $40, or make copies of it at a public library. And there are *tons* of free materials available at places like Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/sat/full-length-sat-1/paper-sat-tests/a/full-length-sats-to-take-on-paper?modal=1.
I know parents hate "drill-and-kill," but you know what's nice about it? It costs nothing except your kid's time. If a high schooler is bright and motivated, she can get a top SAT score practicing with a paper, pencil, calculator, and watching free YouTube classes. It works: New York's top magnet high school, Stuyvesant, uses a test-based admissions system. ~50% of the kids qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. https://data.nysed.gov/studenteducator.php?year=2018&instid=800000046741
So now we've dropped the SAT. What's left? GPA, which is objective but difficult to compare across high schools...and the resume and essays, which are squishy and subjective and rich people literally buy.
I assume the University of California system *knows* this, given that their faculty report made the same points: https://edsource.org/2020/uc-report-upholds-test-scores-in-admissions-while-critics-pledge-to-fight-on/623299. But they don't care, because this isn't about making Berkeley accessible to the impoverished. It's about something else.
And look, I think there are some reasonable moral arguments for affirmative action. But if Janet Napolitano wants to bring it back, she needs to get Proposition 209 repealed. Not do it backdoor by banning the SAT. This isn't Janet Napolitano's university system. It's the people of California's. And in 1996 they told her that affirmative action is illegal.
Just three months ago, a UC audit found flaws with admissions process for athletes and artists. And on the very day that the UC voted to eliminate the SAT/ACT, Lori Loughlin agreed to plead guilty for her role in the admissions scandal.
Bottom line: When it comes to public policy, the measurements come from outcomes, not intentions. For instance, Prop. 209 opponents fail to see the outcomes ("a steady increase in minority graduation rates in both the UC and the CSU systems") beyond Square One (the reductions in enrollment among certain minority groups).
And for what it's worth, the full 200+ page Senate Faculty report that recommended against making the UC test optional is here. From the executive summary:
Quote:
...standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.
The task force concluded there are
And finally, I shall put my personal UC application experience in here. Back in the fall of 2008, I applied to Davis, Irvine, and San Diego with a ~3.3 GPA, ~2050 SAT, and minimal extracurriculars in an above average suburban public high school in San Jose. My graduating class was quite competitive with many students who were accepted to those UCs (and a few to Berkeley and LA). I was not accepted to all three schools, but Merced and Riverside did offer me "free admission" (which I declined for San Jose State largely for financial/academic reasons). So I doubt that I could've been accepted to the UCs I applied to if they were "test optional".Quote:
...pragmatic concerns about how campuses would evaluate and compare applicants who submit standardized test scores relative to applicants who do not; whether and how campuses would impute, explicitly or implicitly, test scores to applicants; and ethical concerns about how to treat students in the two groups fairly. The current UC admissions practice of putting each applicant's test scores into context by comparing them to all applicants from the same school, thus allowing readers to identify students who performed exceptionally well given available opportunities, could no longer be used if students could choose whether or not to submit their test scores.
Put it this way: Several UC schools, like, Berkeley, already use a holistic admissions process. If they want to discount the SAT and weigh other factors more, they can. And the SAT a useful metric -- it correlates decently well with college academic performance.CalFan777 said:
I agree with a lot of this. We disagree agree on one main point: I don't think the UC system is trying to make a back door for Affirmative Action. They know Affirmative Action is not only against the California Constitution but, at least under the current conservative regime, against the US Constitution. All the talk about POC is a red herring. This move benefits the children of rich helicopter parents regardless of race.
Moon is cynical the about the UC system wanting money and power.He is right. I am cynical of "white liberals" who say they are trying to help POC but really, almost always, are trying to help themselves and their progeny. You aren't going to see white and Asian kids being rejected by Cal in favor or black and Hispanic kids. Cal is going to remain largely white and Asian. The difference who gets in: it is now much harder for poor students to standout from the crowd and make-up for their subpar public schools.
Also, the current SAT is nothing like how the SAT used to be. You should look at some of the questions.
The only reason for them to drop the test is to make it harder for outside auditors to figure out who got in, and why. And the only reason to be worried about outside auditors is...Proposition 209, i.e. affirmative action.
Here's why: If you're using race as a factor in admissions, it's pretty easy to figure out ... if you're also using the SAT. Black and Hispanic applicants, in aggregate, underperform white and Asian students on standardized testing. I can't tell you *why* that is -- some mixture of poverty, parental educational achievement, after-effects of decades of discrimination -- but they do. We all know this. So if you're collecting SAT scores on all your applicants and admitting black and Hispanic students who would not have been admitted were they white or they Asian, someone can sue the UC system, get all the files, and hire a few economists to show the public what you're doing.
The plaintiffs in the Harvard admissions suit already tried this a little less than a year ago. So far they've lost in court, but it embarrassed Harvard, and they're appealing the case.
The University of California doesn't want to be in Harvard's position. So, solution: Drop the SAT.
If you don't think that Berkeley *desperately* and *sincerely* wants to increase the number of black and Hispanic admits, I don't know what to say ... speak with admissions, Berkeley professors, etc? Look at how much money they spend on outreach? Read the NY Times? This has been a California liberal white whale for over two decades.
Ah, you inadvertently bring up my point. Conservatives are obsessed with African Americans at Harvard because it matches the proportion of African Americans in the populace, about 13-15%. How much of that is due to AA? You can't only use SAT scores. Interestingly, 20-25% of Harvard's classes are legacy admits. There over 42,000,000 African Americans in the US. There are under 400,000 Harvard Alumni (largely white liberals). Do you notice anything?tigertim said:Put it this way: Several UC schools, like, Berkeley, already use a holistic admissions process. If they want to discount the SAT and weigh other factors more, they can. And the SAT a useful metric -- it correlates decently well with college academic performance.CalFan777 said:
I agree with a lot of this. We disagree agree on one main point: I don't think the UC system is trying to make a back door for Affirmative Action. They know Affirmative Action is not only against the California Constitution but, at least under the current conservative regime, against the US Constitution. All the talk about POC is a red herring. This move benefits the children of rich helicopter parents regardless of race.
Moon is cynical the about the UC system wanting money and power.He is right. I am cynical of "white liberals" who say they are trying to help POC but really, almost always, are trying to help themselves and their progeny. You aren't going to see white and Asian kids being rejected by Cal in favor or black and Hispanic kids. Cal is going to remain largely white and Asian. The difference who gets in: it is now much harder for poor students to standout from the crowd and make-up for their subpar public schools.
Also, the current SAT is nothing like how the SAT used to be. You should look at some of the questions.
The only reason for them to drop the test is to make it harder for outside auditors to figure out who got in, and why. And the only reason to be worried about outside auditors is...Proposition 209, i.e. affirmative action.
Here's why: If you're using race as a factor in admissions, it's pretty easy to figure out ... if you're also using the SAT. Black and Hispanic applicants, in aggregate, underperform white and Asian students on standardized testing. I can't tell you *why* that is -- some mixture of poverty, parental educational achievement, after-effects of decades of discrimination -- but they do. We all know this. So if you're collecting SAT scores on all your applicants and admitting black and Hispanic students who would not have been admitted were they white or they Asian, someone can sue the UC system, get all the files, and hire a few economists to show the public what you're doing.
The plaintiffs in the Harvard admissions suit already tried this a little less than a year ago. So far they've lost in court, but it embarrassed Harvard, and they're appealing the case.
The University of California doesn't want to be in Harvard's position. So, solution: Drop the SAT.
If you don't think that Berkeley *desperately* and *sincerely* wants to increase the number of black and Hispanic admits, I don't know what to say ... speak with admissions, Berkeley professors, etc? Look at how much money they spend on outreach? Read the NY Times? This has been a California liberal white whale for over two decades.
As for the UC system, of course some liberals truly want to increase POC representation. The Faculty has written many letters urging the University to do that. Read Spartan Bear's post above. The Faculty does not want to get rid of standardized testing and its own study found that standardized testing HELPED poor and POC applicants. Why would liberal administrators want to get rid of standardized testing when it helps POC applicants overall and the Faculty is against it? Oh, I am sure you are right that they are trying to sneak more black applicants in, which would be just horrible!
This change is going to help two groups: (i) private school students; and (ii) students who would fall in traditional affirmative action categories. Other students attending public schools - particularly competitive high schools - will be the losers.
Private school parents and schools are in the best position to manipulate grades. In addition to the ability to leverage the private school, these parents will send their children to online or "summer" school classes to pump up grades - that already happens with standardized tests being an equalizer. Add to that better than average recommendations and privilege, and they will present nicely.
I expect UC admissions will continue to look for ways to boost affirmative action admits. They have been looking to to so ever since prop 209 and eliminating standard test scores will help immensely. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the "replacement" UC test never comes to fruition (or takes years to implement).
Students attending competitive high schools where competition is cutthroat and there is less grade inflation will suffer the most. In all candor, there is little reason for parents to send their students to those schools - better off transferring if you can.
Private school parents and schools are in the best position to manipulate grades. In addition to the ability to leverage the private school, these parents will send their children to online or "summer" school classes to pump up grades - that already happens with standardized tests being an equalizer. Add to that better than average recommendations and privilege, and they will present nicely.
I expect UC admissions will continue to look for ways to boost affirmative action admits. They have been looking to to so ever since prop 209 and eliminating standard test scores will help immensely. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the "replacement" UC test never comes to fruition (or takes years to implement).
Students attending competitive high schools where competition is cutthroat and there is less grade inflation will suffer the most. In all candor, there is little reason for parents to send their students to those schools - better off transferring if you can.
How else am I going to signal my virtue to everyone if I can't support alternate realities?hanky1 said:NYCGOBEARS said:hanky1 said:
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
Beginning? You're already there.
I will give anyone $10K if they can convincingly explain to me why 2+2 = 4 is biased against minorities. I'm dead serious. That's basically what we're saying with this decision.
Descent into madness.
This all day long.tigertim said:
The whole "we're doing this to make it easier for poor kids to get into Berkeley" line is just so transparently bogus it makes me physically angry thinking about it. Dropping the SAT doesn't make it easier for poor kids to get into college. It makes it harder.
Under the old system, college admissions officers made admissions decisions based on four criteria: Essays, resume, high school GPA, and test scores.
The first two overwhelmingly favor the privileged. You can pay $10,000 to have a college admissions "consultant" literally write your child's personal statement. Or $20,000 to send Little Mary on an all-expenses-paid "internship" extravaganza in Antarctica or whatever.
But high school GPA and SAT scores are at least superficially objective. Yes, there are expensive SAT bootcamps, personalized tutoring, etc. The rich are still advantaged...but the poor have a chance. You can buy a Princeton Review book for $40, or make copies of it at a public library. And there are *tons* of free materials available at places like Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/sat/full-length-sat-1/paper-sat-tests/a/full-length-sats-to-take-on-paper?modal=1.
I know parents hate "drill-and-kill," but you know what's nice about it? It costs nothing except your kid's time. If a high schooler is bright and motivated, she can get a top SAT score practicing with a paper, pencil, calculator, and watching free YouTube classes. It works: New York's top magnet high school, Stuyvesant, uses a test-based admissions system. ~50% of the kids qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. https://data.nysed.gov/studenteducator.php?year=2018&instid=800000046741
So now we've dropped the SAT. What's left? GPA, which is objective but difficult to compare across high schools...and the resume and essays, which are squishy and subjective and rich people literally buy.
I assume the University of California system *knows* this, given that their faculty report made the same points: https://edsource.org/2020/uc-report-upholds-test-scores-in-admissions-while-critics-pledge-to-fight-on/623299. But they don't care, because this isn't about making Berkeley accessible to the impoverished. It's about something else.
And look, I think there are some reasonable moral arguments for affirmative action. But if Janet Napolitano wants to bring it back, she needs to get Proposition 209 repealed. Not do it backdoor by banning the SAT. This isn't Janet Napolitano's university system. It's the people of California's. And in 1996 they told her that affirmative action is illegal.
SAT/ACT, i.e. IQ tests, are the most reliable measures of aptitude and cognitive capacities. They have strong correlations with income.
IQ tests are in fact bias -- they are bias in favor of intelligence (not knowledge or attitude or work ethic) and bias against a lack of intelligence, which are reflected in the score it produces.
More employers are having candidates take tests like the Wonderlic before interviews to weed out the folks who look good on paper (grades, "activities", education credentials, school attended) but managed to achieve all they had despite struggling with moderate vocabulary and concepts of logic and basic math. This applies less to the Ivy league graduate who graduated with honors in mathematics, but broadly speaking where most people go to schools with only moderately difficult or easier screening methods.
Here's what this direction secretly acknowledges: black and brown people are stupid (or rather less smart) in the aggregate, so we need to eliminate the most objective measure of cognitive aptitude to scale the gap. The IQ tests certainly reflect this gap in cognitive abilities between races, but the powers that be don't have the guts to be transparent about it. And what is UC's mission? Don't straddle the fence, pick a lane. Can't have your cake and eat it too: signal "virtue" with policy that purports to increase minority (black and brown, not yellow) enrollment and claim the UC's message is to admit the "best and brightest" of our communities
Again, as Hanky and others have noted, the incessant desire to create alternative realities under the guise of some moral purpose will be the end of us. Not religion, not who occupies the WH, not war.
GBear4Life said:How else am I going to signal my virtue to everyone if I can't support alternate realities?hanky1 said:NYCGOBEARS said:hanky1 said:
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
Beginning? You're already there.
I will give anyone $10K if they can convincingly explain to me why 2+2 = 4 is biased against minorities. I'm dead serious. That's basically what we're saying with this decision.
Descent into madness.
This is the type of patronizing bull**** that should piss off minorities. It's like Reid commenting on Obama's dialect or using "ain't". Why assume that someone who is a different color cannot succeed in standard academics. Well meaning progressives need to stop with the kind plantation owner mentality bull***** Provide some basic dignity to everyone.
Imagine being an employee where employee of the month and applicable bonus were doled out based on objective achievement like accounts closed or sales tallied, and the winners were overwhelming one particular race, so the company took away objective measures. Culture would be destroyed virtually overnight.calbear93 said:GBear4Life said:How else am I going to signal my virtue to everyone if I can't support alternate realities?hanky1 said:NYCGOBEARS said:hanky1 said:
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
Beginning? You're already there.
I will give anyone $10K if they can convincingly explain to me why 2+2 = 4 is biased against minorities. I'm dead serious. That's basically what we're saying with this decision.
Descent into madness.
This is the type of patronizing bull**** that should piss off minorities. It's like Reid commenting on Obama's dialect or using "ain't". Why assume that someone who is a different color cannot succeed in standard academics. Well meaning progressives need to stop with the kind plantation owner mentality bull***** Provide some basic dignity to everyone.
Hey - moron - 2+2=4 is not on the test. But you know that. Or don't you? So hard to tell with typical dishonest Shute RWNJs like you come up with these days.
The test is culturally biased because it can be easily gamed with test prep - something lots of kids from marginalized cultures don't have financial access to.
The test is culturally biased because it can be easily gamed with test prep - something lots of kids from marginalized cultures don't have financial access to.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
AunBear89 said:
Hey - moron - 2+2=4 is not on the test. But you know that. Or don't you? So hard to tell with typical dishonest Shute RWNJs like you come up with these days.
The test is culturally biased because it can be easily gamed with test prep - something lots of kids from marginalized cultures don't have financial access to.
So what's your point?
If an 18 year old doesn't know the answer to 2+2, he can also 'game it' by hiring a tutor. Or he can just invest the time himself and learn 2+2 without a tutor.
I taught myself 2+2 just fine. I also taught myself how to take the SATs without a test prep class decades ago. It literally cost me $15 to buy that test prep book. I studied with it and did just fine. Today, it's easier than ever to practice w the SATs and not spend any money with 1000s of practice questions on the Internet. The money thing is a red herring. And I say this growing up in a family who's parents sold shiet at the flea market to make ends meet.
By virtually every metric from 1990-2014 I would be considered politically moderate. But since the world has lost its mind the past 6 years I'm suddenly a right wing nut job. Um Ok.
How about this: stop patronizing people and lowering the bar to help them 'succeed'. Honestly what's really racist is the patronizing and demeaning attitude of some who are convinced minorities can't succeed under the same rules.
The elimination of aptitude/IQ tests is to accommodate those who CANNOT compete with their top achieving peers no matter how much time and investment is put into preparation for it. It's for those who didn't win the genetic lottery. The UC can't actually say this.hanky1 said:AunBear89 said:
Hey - moron - 2+2=4 is not on the test. But you know that. Or don't you? So hard to tell with typical dishonest Shute RWNJs like you come up with these days.
The test is culturally biased because it can be easily gamed with test prep - something lots of kids from marginalized cultures don't have financial access to.
So what's your point?
If an 18 year old doesn't know the answer to 2+2, he can also 'game it' by hiring a tutor. Or he can just invest the time himself and learn 2+2 without a tutor.
I taught myself 2+2 just fine. I also taught myself how to take the SATs without a test prep class decades ago. It literally cost me $15 to buy that test prep book. I studied with it and did just fine. Today, it's easier than ever to practice w the SATs and not spend any money with 1000s of practice questions on the Internet. The money thing is a red herring. And I say this growing up in a family who's parents sold shiet at the flea market to make ends meet.
By virtually every metric from 1990-2014 I would be considered politically moderate. But since the world has lost its mind the past 6 years I'm suddenly a right wing nut job. Um Ok.
How about this: stop patronizing people and lowering the bar to help them 'succeed'. Honestly what's really racist is the patronizing and demeaning attitude of some who are convinced minorities can't succeed under the same rules.
I don't know when getting into a top rated university was a birth right. If you are even in the running to be considered at a top university, there are dozens upon dozens of quality universities who would love to have you.
A better way to de facto be able to admin more black and hispanics is to virtually ban out of state admissions. At least that would make sense and align with UC's mission to an extent.
AunBear89 said:
Hey - moron - 2+2=4 is not on the test. But you know that. Or don't you? So hard to tell with typical dishonest Shute RWNJs like you come up with these days.
The test is culturally biased because it can be easily gamed with test prep - something lots of kids from marginalized cultures don't have financial access to.
Do you have a point - other than the one on the top of your head?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Yes. That you're so stupid it leaves me speechless.AunBear89 said:
Do you have a point
So stupid, in fact, that you didn't understand a straightforward GIF.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Add Portal Edge Defender Deamontae Diggs
by Jim McGill
NFL Draft results and their relation to Collegiate success
by Bear Insider