And "test prep" is not "gaming the system". It's called doing the work to be successful lmao

It's the fundamental ingredient of work ethic. It's of great value that we often refer to as "practice". It's associated with character and virtue.

If it's so simple to just "prep" and ace the exam, well then if you DIDN'T ace the exam, you have no business being admitted, because that demonstrated you don't give a *****at worst or aren't cognitively up to par with your peers.

I do the vast majority of my communication with words. But I understand that an illiterate clod like yourself has to use funny memes and GIFs. You are incapable of developing your own ideas and expressing them articulately and succinctly. You be you.

AunBear89 said:

---

I do the vast majority of my communication with words. But I understand that an illiterate clod like yourself has to use funny memes and GIFs. You are incapable of developing your own ideas and expressing them articulately and succinctly. You be you.

---

QED

What this famous gif of Captain Mal Reynolds sitting in Serenity always brings to mind is the farking incompetence of Fox Studio's so-called Heads. Snipped from wikiwiki..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_(TV_series)
alt https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_(TV_series)

Quote:

---

Firefly consists of a two-hour pilot and thirteen one-hour episodes (with commercials). The series originally premiered in the United States on Fox in September 2002.. Although Whedon had designed the show to run for seven years, low ratings resulted in cancellation by Fox in December 2002 after only 11 of the 14 completed episodes had aired in the United States..

The A.V. Club cited several actions by the Fox network that contributed to the show's failure, most notably airing the episodes out of sequence, making the plot more difficult to follow. For instance, the double episode "Serenity" was intended as the premiere, and therefore contained most of the character introductions and back-story. However, Fox decided that "Serenity" was unsuitable to open the series, and "The Train Job" was specifically created to act as a new pilot. In addition, Firefly was promoted as an action-comedy rather than the more serious character study it was intended to be, and the showbiz trade paper Variety noted Fox's decision to occasionally preempt the show for sporting events .. ..

On March 12, 2009, the series was the winner of the first annual Hulu awards in the category "Shows We'd Bring Back".

---

BrownCoats Rule!

Quote:

---

You are incapable of developing your own ideas

---

As he parrots a quote for the 3rd time in about 20 minutes

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95817/replies/1756580

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95185/replies/1756576

Quote:

---

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain

---

EDIT: nevermind, it's like every post from the past week lol

https://bearinsider.com/account/profile/1021

contentious thread control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique

exercise left for students is decide which posters are which: sterile, or plain vanilla swarming pests?

GBear4Life said:

---

Quote:

---

You are incapable of developing your own ideas

---

As he parrots a quote for the 3rd time in about 20 minutes

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95817/replies/1756580

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95185/replies/1756576

Quote:

---

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain

---

EDIT: nevermind, it's like every post from the past week lol

https://bearinsider.com/account/profile/1021

---

Oh wow - I have a fanboy! Grab something handy and I'll sign it for you, junior.

"Marginalized cultures" LOL

Ever met a poor white kid who went to Cal? I did, and she found the place such a culture shock she dropped out after her first year, did a few semesters at her junior college back home, then transferred back and eventually graduated.

But doesn't quite align with a stupid view of things, does it.

why

Conservatives: SAT

As

A.Fleas: Dogs

B.Mushrooms: Compost

C. Linus: Blanket

D. Deodorant; Armpit

Don't worry, these changes are an example of the "price of progress".

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

This is the beginning of our descent into madness.

---

Beginning? You're already there.

---

No answer to a simple question and therefore, all you're left with is attack.

okaydo said:

---

Now look at what I posted above. UC Berkeley is accepting 70% more freshman applicants than it did 20 years before. And yet, many applicants with perfect GPAs and test scores and extracuriculars are getting rejected.

---

Where are you getting this information that many applicants with perfect GPA's and SAT's are getting rejected at Berkeley? Asian applicants to Harvard, yes.

OaktownBear said:

---

The question isn't whether smarter students will stop applying. It is how UC's will be able to distinguish the smarter students from the idiots when they all get straight A's.

---

The answer is UC doesn't want smarter students, they want something else from their student body, racial diversity.

71Bear said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california-sat-act.amp.html

---

https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/publications/research/defining-access-report-2018.pdf

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.

---

Does diversity of thought and ideas enrich the university as well or do all white and asian people in California think the same way?

Diversity is a sham if all the applicants are from Palo Alto High but white or Asian That's not diverse- they're the same. . Take kids who are the first in their family to go to college; a Hmong kid from the Valley, ditto a poor white kid, or an undocumented kid . Take a kid who is against gun control. Someone from prison would be good.

"Historic blow to higher education" - Wall Street Journal

https://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-college-testing-mistake-11590189601

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

The question isn't whether smarter students will stop applying. It is how UC's will be able to distinguish the smarter students from the idiots when they all get straight A's.

---

The answer is UC doesn't want smarter students, they want something else from their student body, racial diversity.

---

But then again, this prof is saying dropping the SAT is about politics and not diversity.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2020/05/23/dropping-the-sat-and-act-is-about-politics-not-diversity/#55a66aff2948

Strykur said:

---

"Marginalized cultures" LOL

Ever met a poor white kid who went to Cal? I did, and she found the place such a culture shock she dropped out after her first year, did a few semesters at her junior college back home, then transferred back and eventually graduated.

But doesn't quite align with a stupid view of things, does it.

---

A poor white kid at Cal is the loneliest person on campus because they're constantly reminded by the educational system and their own peers of their privilege.

Quote:

---

Do the SAT's and ACT's under-predict the academic performance of racial and ethnic minorities and low-income students at UC? Apparently not. Says the report: "Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for [High School] GPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income . . .".

---

This is from UC's own report.

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

Quote:

---

So, despite all this, why is UC dropping its use of standardized tests? The most likely answer is politics. According to the New York Times: "During the debate among the California regents this week [regarding standardized tests], numerous speakers used the word "racist" to describe the exams." It is a shame that racial grandstanding triumphed over the careful analysis of facts and data by the UC's own very distinguished, diverse panel of experts.

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2020/05/23/dropping-the-sat-and-act-is-about-politics-not-diversity/#2c663a562948

According to UC Regents, the SAT exam is racist?

okaydo said:

---

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.

---

Someone is upset that they can no longer Princeton Review their kids into good SAT scores.

---

There's still women's crew

Like many here, my initial reaction was not good. However, UC has a real opportunity to change to paradigm and implement a better plan, as well as be a leader in this. I inherently don't trust them to do that but I'm withholding judgment until I see what it is.

Like many here, my initial reaction was not good. However, UC has a real opportunity to change the paradigm and implement a better plan, as well as be a leader in this. I inherently don't trust them to do that but I'm withholding judgment until I see what it is.

BearForce2 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

The question isn't whether smarter students will stop applying. It is how UC's will be able to distinguish the smarter students from the idiots when they all get straight A's.

---

The answer is UC doesn't want smarter students, they want something else from their student body, racial diversity.

---

But under the guise of woke virtue signaling phrases like "equality".

To the extent that it is seen as truly an imperative measure to correct an unjust racial imbalance at UCs, it is underpinned by an egregrious and dangerous alternate reality and social-political ideology: that if you just admit more [insert underperforming identity group here] students who couldn't get in if their aptitude/IQ tests were recorded, that could be a fork in the road for blacks or hispanices. But these kids are going to college one way or the other, and admitting students who are behind the avg student curve in aptitude/IQ is only setting up said student for failure.

These are social constructionists. They believe everybody is equally capable, that while we openly acknowledge genetic biological differences in height, weight, muscle mass, metabolism, hair color, eye color, skin color, etc, the reality that there are genetic and biological differences from the neck up is beyond the pale, that if you just standardize the social environment and experiences, groups with different aptitudes, cultures, values, behaviors, attitudes etc every group will be represented equally in society proportional to their representation in the general population. This is such an utterly false ideology, and dangerously so.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Like many here, my initial reaction was not good. However, UC has a real opportunity to change the paradigm and implement a better plan, as well as be a leader in this. I inherently don't trust them to do that but I'm withholding judgment until I see what it is.

---

What's the paradigm that needs to change? The paradigm of trying to select the best students?

-If prepping for tests is so easy, that somehow the rich have privileged access to this prep (bullshyt), then if you don't ace the test and score similar to where your best peers are scoring, you have failed a basic litmus test that is not genetic or biological: work ethic, desire, attitude, preparation, etc. Every prestigious university should weed out such students IF they adhered to this faulty ideology.

-If the above is not true, and that scoring high is not simply just a matter of prep but actually also a test of your aptitude and cognitive skills, then how are these tests racially bias (by virtue of socioeconomic status)?

CalFan777 said:

---

Regardless of whether or not the SAT is racist and culturally biased, and some very smart people believe it is, if having a high SAT is predictive of success for URM and poor students, then it should be used to identify students who will excel at Cal.

To repeat what I and others have said, of the elements that go into college admissions, the SAT is far easier for poor students to excel at than the others. A poor student can do well on the SAT by being naturally good at tests or by self-study. The advantages rich, mainstream students have on the SAT, like having access to professional tutors, are minor compared to the advantages they have in schooling, parental support, access to extracurriculars, etc..

Sure the SAT may be racist, but of the things that go into the admissions process, it is by far the least racist. Compare doing ten free SAT practice tests to switching to a school with excellent college counselors, honors courses, and grade inflation. One is doable. The other isn't.

---

And from page 33 of the UC faculty senate's report on standardized testing, emphasis from original source:

Quote:

---

Under the current eligibility system, tests do identify otherwise ineligible applicants who come from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds. Admission tests find talented students who do not stand out in terms of high school grades alone. [...] Many students who do not qualify for ELC [Eligibility in the Local Context], (i.e., being in the top 9% of their classes based on HSGPA), become eligible to attend UC through statewide eligibility. Unlike ELC, statewide eligibility, which is also referred to as Index Eligibility, uses the SAT as well as GPA.

[...] about one quarter of all low-income, first-generation college and URM students who were guaranteed admission earned this guarantee through the statewide eligibility path, but not through ELC. This means that these students had relatively high SAT scores but their GPA was not high enough to guarantee them admission through ELC. This is a substantial proportion of these disadvantaged groups of students who would not have been guaranteed admission had they not had high SAT scores.

---

I have been a treasurer of a service club for over 30 years. For 30 years our service club has been awarding 4-year scholarships to Oakland High School graduates. Our current scholarship amount is $12,000 paid out at $3,000 a year.

I can tell you that the SAT/ACT results along with high school GPA play a major factor in determining who gets a scholarship. Another important factor is community service. In fact, our committee will often reject a student who has a superior scholarship but little or no community service.

I can tell you that a majority of the students who receive our scholarships are first-generation Asians, some of whom were not born in the US. In addition, at least 3 out of the 10 students who are awarded a scholarship each year are either Latino or Black.

This decision by the University of California shows that politics and political correctness are first and foremost in determining who gets admitted into the UC system.

The people on this forum are so full of shyte.

SAT/ACT test scores are about how many times you take it and what prep courses you can afford. Didn't study one second for it and got into Cal on one try. It's a shyte measure of anything.

Lucas Lee said:

---

The people on this forum are so full of *****

SAT/ACT test scores are about how many times you take it and what prep courses you can afford. Didn't study one second for it and got into Cal on one try. It's a **** measure of anything.

---

Cool logic.

So you angrily assert SAT scores don't matter because they're just a barometer of "access to prep courses" (false), which you claim is an endeavor solely for the rich (complete bulls**t), so why not eliminate them right?

You follow that awesome reasoning with a claim about how the test was a joke and you passed it in your sleep with NO prep, therefore the test is "useless".

If we follow the first donkey assertion, time and effort is the distinguishing variable, which everyone can "access", they everyone should get high scores if diligent about their preparation. If we follow your second donkey assertion, they're so easy anybody can get good scores, completely antithetical to the first donkey assertion.

Aptitude/IQ tests are more reliable in determining job performance than interviews, GPA, what college you graduated from. It is THE most important metric in a college application or job interview.

Lucas Lee said:

---

The people on this forum are so full of *****

SAT/ACT test scores are about how many times you take it and what prep courses you can afford. Didn't study one second for it and got into Cal on one try. It's a **** measure of anything.

---

I've been reading through this whole thread, and I don't think most people are claiming standardized test scores are perfect and unbiased. The issue is that other measures like grades and extracurriculars are not any better, and indeed are probably worse. So the question is, what does UC intend to use instead?

Lucas Lee said:

---

The people on this forum are so full of *****

SAT/ACT test scores are about how many times you take it and what prep courses you can afford. Didn't study one second for it and got into Cal on one try. It's a **** measure of anything.

---

The above is a complete contradiction. However, it would seem to indicate that a reason you got accepted into Cal is because you are smart. I mean, even though "the people that post on this forum are so full of ****" and you are one of these people. Maybe we are some smart s***!