UC To Phase Out SAT and ACT Tests.
9,002 Views |
145 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by BearForce2
In addition to the racial issues noted, I remember at the Lair several years ago, one of the guest speakers had been in charge of undergraduate admissions at Cal. He noted that each year, Berkeley had more applicants with perfect ACT scores than there were open slots. He felt that with prep classes, it was not that difficult to ace the ACT. He noted that grades over a student's entire high school tenure was a better way of assessing applicants. They need not have a 4.0 from day one, but if they showed strong academic progress as they matured along with other measurables, they could be a valuable and successful student at Cal.
Almost 50% of college applications are over a 4.0. Grade inflation is real.
I don't understand. Why is a simple test bias against minorities?
The assault on objective truths and reality will be the undoing of civilization. I'm not saying the tests are perfect. Far from it. But after decades of research, it is probably the most objective out there. The notion that UC will develop its own test is laughable. That will never happen.
I mean is 2+2 = 4 biased against certain groups?
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
The assault on objective truths and reality will be the undoing of civilization. I'm not saying the tests are perfect. Far from it. But after decades of research, it is probably the most objective out there. The notion that UC will develop its own test is laughable. That will never happen.
I mean is 2+2 = 4 biased against certain groups?
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
hanky1 said:
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
Beginning? You're already there.
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.
hanky1 said:
I don't understand. Why is a simple test bias against minorities?
The assault on objective truths and reality will be the undoing of civilization. I'm not saying the tests are perfect. Far from it. But after decades of research, it is probably the most objective out there. The notion that UC will develop its own test is laughable. That will never happen.
I mean is 2+2 = 4 biased against certain groups?
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
Objectively, people from Harvard are the best and brightest. And that's why they've been so good at leading our nation.
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.
Should be good for recruiting. Just find some schools that are exceptional at grade inflation and get recruits to transfer.
Either you misunderstood or the is an idiot or they had an agenda. Likely the third. Because that is total bullshyte. Less than 0.2% get a perfect ACT score. There aren't enough perfect scores nationwide to fill Cal's class. 34 is 99th percentile.IssyBear said:
In addition to the racial issues noted, I remember at the Lair several years ago, one of the guest speakers had been in charge of undergraduate admissions at Cal. He noted that each year, Berkeley had more applicants with perfect ACT scores than there were open slots. He felt that with prep classes, it was not that difficult to ace the ACT. He noted that grades over a student's entire high school tenure was a better way of assessing applicants. They need not have a 4.0 from day one, but if they showed strong academic progress as they matured along with other measurables, they could be a valuable and successful student at Cal.
The GPA commentary is 1000000% moronic.
I got into Berkeley in 1968 as an out-of-state student despite unexceptional grades. I did it by scoring very well on the SAT and three achievement tests (what I think are now called the SATI II) in American History, English, and the easier of the Math tests.) My grades at Berkeley were unspectacular -- I spent most of my time working on the Daily Cal. I got into law school only because I aced the LSAT. I have to admit that I am a little sad that today I would have no shot at Berkeley.
FWIW (and I don't want to get political here), I was not from a hugely prosperous background. I just had an affinity for tests produced by the Educational Testing Service. Peace out!
FWIW (and I don't want to get political here), I was not from a hugely prosperous background. I just had an affinity for tests produced by the Educational Testing Service. Peace out!
Well, your premise is not an objective fact. Even if it were, the conclusion you draw from it is not really straight-line logic, either. Were you trying to point out a flaw in Hanky's argument by comparing it to an obviously illogical statement? If so what is the flaw in his reasoning?okaydo said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand. Why is a simple test bias against minorities?
The assault on objective truths and reality will be the undoing of civilization. I'm not saying the tests are perfect. Far from it. But after decades of research, it is probably the most objective out there. The notion that UC will develop its own test is laughable. That will never happen.
I mean is 2+2 = 4 biased against certain groups?
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
Objectively, people from Harvard are the best and brightest. And that's why they've been so good at leading our nation.
Speaking of the best and the brightest, I think we should all admit that, with a decision like this, a college is basically placing a lower emphasis on having the most academically inclined student body. Giving students admission preference for being first generation college, athletics, legacy status, disability, socioeconomic status or race are all implicit admissions that the college is less than totally committed to having the most academically inclined students and graduates. This is just one more concession along those lines. UC won't have student bodies that are as academically-inclined as previous classes. Some think that is worth the benefits, some think it is not.
I totally get why some companies put new recruits through tests during the interview process. These days, just because a candidate has a degree from a fancy college is not enough to assure the employer that the candidate has the kind of academic, book-learning type of intelligence that some jobs require. This latest decision just gives employers one more reason to be a little suspicious of the UC sheepskin.
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.
FuzzyWuzzy said:Well, your premise is not an objective fact. Even if it were, the conclusion you draw from it is not really straight-line logic, either. Were you trying to point out a flaw in Hanky's argument by comparing it to an obviously illogical statement? If so what is the flaw in his reasoning?okaydo said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand. Why is a simple test bias against minorities?
The assault on objective truths and reality will be the undoing of civilization. I'm not saying the tests are perfect. Far from it. But after decades of research, it is probably the most objective out there. The notion that UC will develop its own test is laughable. That will never happen.
I mean is 2+2 = 4 biased against certain groups?
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
Objectively, people from Harvard are the best and brightest. And that's why they've been so good at leading our nation.
Speaking of the best and the brightest, I think we should all admit that, with a decision like this, a college is basically placing a lower emphasis on having the most academically inclined student body. Giving students admission preference for being first generation college, athletics, legacy status, disability, socioeconomic status or race are all implicit admissions that the college is less than totally committed to having the most academically inclined students and graduates. This is just one more concession along those lines. UC won't have student bodies that are as academically-inclined as previous classes. Some think that is worth the benefits, some think it is not.
I totally get why some companies put new recruits through tests during the interview process. These days, just because a candidate has a degree from a fancy college is not enough to assure the employer that the candidate has the kind of academic, book-learning type of intelligence that some jobs require. This latest decision just gives employers one more reason to be a little suspicious of the UC sheepskin.
We've seen repeatedly on this board how Cal alumni from the 1980s and earlier say they'd stand never stand a chance of getting into UC Berkeley against the increased competition these days.
Yet those are the same alumni who helped make UC Berkeley one of the most academically inclined schools.
So UC Berkeley has a long history of accepting "inferior" students who aren't athletes, and yet the school has still been able to be top-notch.
Let's face it: UC Berkeley is flooded with applications from academically inclined, brilliant students that could fill several classes. That's why you here stories of people with 4.5 GPAs and near-perfect SAT scores and numerous extracuriculars getting rejected.
Will these smarter generations of students stop applying to UC Berkeley because there's no SAT requirement?
And if for employers, this is "more reason to be a little suspicious of the UC sheepskin," then this move won't change much.
Guys, you know me. I believe that poor people get the shaft in the process. But this isn't going to help. It is stupid and it is political. The faculty committee didn't support it. The president wanted it and a bunch of appointees voted it in.NYCGOBEARS said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california-sat-act.amp.html
UC basically looks at 3 things:
GPA
Test scores
Activities
They then look at these things based on the high school the kid goes to.
All three of those categories give advantages to the privileged.
They do not appear to look at activities too hard unless you have something amazing. Activities probably give the most advantage to the privileged. Wealthy families can get their kids into high level activities. They can pay for success. They also do bullshyte things like start a business in their kids name, run it and then have the kid say they did it. If you want to help underprivileged kids, don't emphasize activities.
So that leaves GPA and Test scores. Do those give advantages to the privileged, yes. But the UC schools have a way to deal with that. They review kids' applications in relation to their high school. They very much do make adjustments ahd require kids from privileged areas to have higher GPA's and test scores. It is actually quite significant. I for one entirely support that stance. Exactly because it is easier for privileged kids to get higher GPA's and scores.
Here is the problem. Do privileged kids have an advantage on the ACT and SAT? Yes. But the reason they have an advantage is because they have an advantage in everything. They have an advantage in life. The way to deal with that isn't to take away a tool from admissions. It is to use the tool appropriately.
Grade inflation in high school is a huge problem. As of a few years ago, 47% of grades given in high school are A's. I know these kids. Half the kids with straight A's are idiots. Seriously. The smart kids who get a 99% in a class have no way to distinguish themselves from kids that scrape 90% or worse, get 88% and then beg the teacher to give them an A, which half of them do because the next step is a parent screaming at them. GPA is a crappy indicator of anything. A large percentage of kids get straight A's.
Meanwhile, the ACT does distinguish kids. At the top of the scale, 0.2% get a perfect score. Less than a percent get a 35. Like a percent get a 34. This is an area where those kids who get 99% in school can distinguish themselves from the kids that slack off to a 90%.
The way you deal with it is look at kids compared to their schoolmates. If one school is lucky to have a kid with a 32, you consider that kid favorably to a kid that gets a 35 where their school has 10 kids with a 35. I support that.
But not factoring it in at all? Stupid. So my kids' school may have 40 kids with straight A's. Cal is going to take like 2-5. Right now, They may get 5-10 kids with 35 ACT scores. They are also going to get like 10 dunderheads with like a 26-28. Because they never deserved the straight A's in the first place. But UC will never know that.
And you know what? You can do the same thing at the underprivileged school. The kid who studies like hell and gets a 32 on the ACT should get in ahead of the kids AT THE SAME SCHOOL with a 25.
UC already does a good job of categorizing kids by privilege and accounting for it. Taking away the test score does not allow kids to distinguish themselves WITHIN THEIR GROUP.
High school grades are total bullshyte.
I'm sorry, but I've watched my kids work much harder than most of their peers and dramatically outperform them for most of their lives with very little reward. That test score is the main thing they were able to do. I have no issue with kids who work their ass off against all odds getting in over my kids with lower GPA and test scores. I absolutely have an issue with privileged slackers getting in over them. (Thankfully, my kids will be in college before this goes into effect).
As for the idea that UC will develop their own test - hey, I think college entrance tests could be dramatically improved and be much more predictive. If UC wants to work on that, great. It just isn't going to solve the issue they are trying to address. As long as families can pay for test prep, privileged kids will do better. And, in fact, if the UC comes up with a test and they don't get the rest of the country to adopt it, wealthier kids will have an advantage because now you need to prepare for 2 tests. It sounds to me like they really don't have any intention to develop the test. They are just placating the faculty.
Anyone who thinks this is a good development or will help underprivileged and minorities or is even needed to do so just doesn't understand the current situation. This is a brain dead idea.
okaydo, I know your heart is in the right place, but this move will change a lot. This is a massive victory for privileged morons who today skate to a 4.5 and pull a 26 on the ACT. They are the only ones that will benefit from this. Not kids from underprivileged backgrounds. UC admissions already takes that into account to make up for test scores.okaydo said:FuzzyWuzzy said:Well, your premise is not an objective fact. Even if it were, the conclusion you draw from it is not really straight-line logic, either. Were you trying to point out a flaw in Hanky's argument by comparing it to an obviously illogical statement? If so what is the flaw in his reasoning?okaydo said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand. Why is a simple test bias against minorities?
The assault on objective truths and reality will be the undoing of civilization. I'm not saying the tests are perfect. Far from it. But after decades of research, it is probably the most objective out there. The notion that UC will develop its own test is laughable. That will never happen.
I mean is 2+2 = 4 biased against certain groups?
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
Objectively, people from Harvard are the best and brightest. And that's why they've been so good at leading our nation.
Speaking of the best and the brightest, I think we should all admit that, with a decision like this, a college is basically placing a lower emphasis on having the most academically inclined student body. Giving students admission preference for being first generation college, athletics, legacy status, disability, socioeconomic status or race are all implicit admissions that the college is less than totally committed to having the most academically inclined students and graduates. This is just one more concession along those lines. UC won't have student bodies that are as academically-inclined as previous classes. Some think that is worth the benefits, some think it is not.
I totally get why some companies put new recruits through tests during the interview process. These days, just because a candidate has a degree from a fancy college is not enough to assure the employer that the candidate has the kind of academic, book-learning type of intelligence that some jobs require. This latest decision just gives employers one more reason to be a little suspicious of the UC sheepskin.
We've seen repeatedly on this board how Cal alumni from the 1980s and earlier say they'd stand never stand a chance of getting into UC Berkeley against the increased competition these days.
Yet those are the same alumni who helped make UC Berkeley one of the most academically inclined schools.
So UC Berkeley has a long history of accepting "inferior" students who aren't athletes, and yet the school has still been able to be top-notch.
Let's face it: UC Berkeley is flooded with applications from academically inclined, brilliant students that could fill several classes. That's why you here stories of people with 4.5 GPAs and near-perfect SAT scores and numerous extracuriculars getting rejected.
Will these smarter generations of students stop applying to UC Berkeley because there's no SAT requirement?
And if for employers, this is "more reason to be a little suspicious of the UC sheepskin," then this move won't change much.
As for people from the 1980's saying they wouldn't get in today, some of that is a misunderstanding and none of that is about accepting inferior students.
1. They don't understand that GPA's are much higher now
2. Many of them would probably have worked harder if they had to.
3. Some of them got in because there were fewer applicants in their class. But they were still the top applicants in their class.
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.
Grade inflation in high school is currently insane. This is going to add rocket fuel to that fire. Parents with UC aspirations for their children are going to go nuts over every A-. This is a terrible decision. No two ways about it.
Sebastabear said:
Grade inflation in high school is currently insane. This is going to add rocket fuel to that fire. Parents with UC aspirations for their children are going to go nuts over every A-. This is a terrible decision. No two ways about it.
As far as I'm concerned any university president that would push this is so out of touch they should be fired. Hopefully the reality of how bad this will be will sink in and be reversed before it goes into effect
I'm not thrilled with the concept that HS grades' importance is increased. If SAT/ACT scores are biased, then HS grades are worse. Personally I acknowledge that I was an unruly HS student (this has obviously not carried over to my adult life...). I would call out my HS teachers every time they made a mistake. At least half of them hated me. I remember getting a "C" in my first semester in US history from a teacher I particularly dogged. I needed to transfer to a different history teacher in order to salvage my drooping GPA. I doubt the concept of teacher's pets and pests has gone away.
Well, first I meant SAT not ACT. Sorry about that. The way I recall it, he said what I said he said, but I assume getting a 1600 on your SAT is equally rare. I didn't think to fact check him. His major points were that he valued grades over SAT scores and that his basic tie breaker for admitting an applicant was if they could demonstrate motivation and purpose. These are not always reflected in high SAT scores or GPAs, although you needed to be strong in both to make the initial cut.OaktownBear said:Either you misunderstood or the is an idiot or they had an agenda. Likely the third. Because that is total bullshyte. Less than 0.2% get a perfect ACT score. There aren't enough perfect scores nationwide to fill Cal's class. 34 is 99th percentile.IssyBear said:
In addition to the racial issues noted, I remember at the Lair several years ago, one of the guest speakers had been in charge of undergraduate admissions at Cal. He noted that each year, Berkeley had more applicants with perfect ACT scores than there were open slots. He felt that with prep classes, it was not that difficult to ace the ACT. He noted that grades over a student's entire high school tenure was a better way of assessing applicants. They need not have a 4.0 from day one, but if they showed strong academic progress as they matured along with other measurables, they could be a valuable and successful student at Cal.
The GPA commentary is 1000000% moronic.
As long as we're cherry-picking sentences to respond to: no, the most academically inclined probably won't stop applying to UC in the short run but more of them will get passed over. They will get passed over not because they weren't academically inclined enough but because others were selected for non-academic reasons - a phenomenon that is already occurring and one which will accelerate in frequency. Then, as the academic reputation of UC's student body declines over time, the most academically inclined might stop applying to UC in such great numbers, perhaps opening up more spots for those with the attributes the UC Regents - in their infinite wisdom - are looking for. Would that be such a terrible thing? It depends on what other benefits the policy might produce, and what you think UC should be. Wherever your value judgment falls on that question, is unlikely to improve the academic reputation of UC which, like it or not, is pretty much foundational to the success of the enterprise.okaydo said:FuzzyWuzzy said:Well, your premise is not an objective fact. Even if it were, the conclusion you draw from it is not really straight-line logic, either. Were you trying to point out a flaw in Hanky's argument by comparing it to an obviously illogical statement? If so what is the flaw in his reasoning?okaydo said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand. Why is a simple test bias against minorities?
The assault on objective truths and reality will be the undoing of civilization. I'm not saying the tests are perfect. Far from it. But after decades of research, it is probably the most objective out there. The notion that UC will develop its own test is laughable. That will never happen.
I mean is 2+2 = 4 biased against certain groups?
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
Objectively, people from Harvard are the best and brightest. And that's why they've been so good at leading our nation.
Speaking of the best and the brightest, I think we should all admit that, with a decision like this, a college is basically placing a lower emphasis on having the most academically inclined student body. Giving students admission preference for being first generation college, athletics, legacy status, disability, socioeconomic status or race are all implicit admissions that the college is less than totally committed to having the most academically inclined students and graduates. This is just one more concession along those lines. UC won't have student bodies that are as academically-inclined as previous classes. Some think that is worth the benefits, some think it is not.
I totally get why some companies put new recruits through tests during the interview process. These days, just because a candidate has a degree from a fancy college is not enough to assure the employer that the candidate has the kind of academic, book-learning type of intelligence that some jobs require. This latest decision just gives employers one more reason to be a little suspicious of the UC sheepskin.
We've seen repeatedly on this board how Cal alumni from the 1980s and earlier say they'd stand never stand a chance of getting into UC Berkeley against the increased competition these days.
Yet those are the same alumni who helped make UC Berkeley one of the most academically inclined schools.
So UC Berkeley has a long history of accepting "inferior" students who aren't athletes, and yet the school has still been able to be top-notch.
Let's face it: UC Berkeley is flooded with applications from academically inclined, brilliant students that could fill several classes. That's why you here stories of people with 4.5 GPAs and near-perfect SAT scores and numerous extracuriculars getting rejected.
Will these smarter generations of students stop applying to UC Berkeley because there's no SAT requirement?
And if for employers, this is "more reason to be a little suspicious of the UC sheepskin," then this move won't change much.
OaktownBear said:Guys, you know me. I believe that poor people get the shaft in the process. But this isn't going to help. It is stupid and it is political. The faculty committee didn't support it. The president wanted it and a bunch of appointees voted it in.NYCGOBEARS said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california-sat-act.amp.html
UC basically looks at 3 things:
GPA
Test scores
Activities
They then look at these things based on the high school the kid goes to.
All three of those categories give advantages to the privileged.
They do not appear to look at activities too hard unless you have something amazing. Activities probably give the most advantage to the privileged. Wealthy families can get their kids into high level activities. They can pay for success. They also do bullshyte things like start a business in their kids name, run it and then have the kid say they did it. If you want to help underprivileged kids, don't emphasize activities.
So that leaves GPA and Test scores. Do those give advantages to the privileged, yes. But the UC schools have a way to deal with that. They review kids' applications in relation to their high school. They very much do make adjustments ahd require kids from privileged areas to have higher GPA's and test scores. It is actually quite significant. I for one entirely support that stance. Exactly because it is easier for privileged kids to get higher GPA's and scores.
Here is the problem. Do privileged kids have an advantage on the ACT and SAT? Yes. But the reason they have an advantage is because they have an advantage in everything. They have an advantage in life. The way to deal with that isn't to take away a tool from admissions. It is to use the tool appropriately.
Grade inflation in high school is a huge problem. As of a few years ago, 47% of grades given in high school are A's. I know these kids. Half the kids with straight A's are idiots. Seriously. The smart kids who get a 99% in a class have no way to distinguish themselves from kids that scrape 90% or worse, get 88% and then beg the teacher to give them an A, which half of them do because the next step is a parent screaming at them. GPA is a crappy indicator of anything. A large percentage of kids get straight A's.
Meanwhile, the ACT does distinguish kids. At the top of the scale, 0.2% get a perfect score. Less than a percent get a 35. Like a percent get a 34. This is an area where those kids who get 99% in school can distinguish themselves from the kids that slack off to a 90%.
The way you deal with it is look at kids compared to their schoolmates. If one school is lucky to have a kid with a 32, you consider that kid favorably to a kid that gets a 35 where their school has 10 kids with a 35. I support that.
But not factoring it in at all? Stupid. So my kids' school may have 40 kids with straight A's. Cal is going to take like 2-5. Right now, They may get 5-10 kids with 35 ACT scores. They are also going to get like 10 dunderheads with like a 26-28. Because they never deserved the straight A's in the first place. But UC will never know that.
And you know what? You can do the same thing at the underprivileged school. The kid who studies like hell and gets a 32 on the ACT should get in ahead of the kids AT THE SAME SCHOOL with a 25.
UC already does a good job of categorizing kids by privilege and accounting for it. Taking away the test score does not allow kids to distinguish themselves WITHIN THEIR GROUP.
High school grades are total bullshyte.
I'm sorry, but I've watched my kids work much harder than most of their peers and dramatically outperform them for most of their lives with very little reward. That test score is the main thing they were able to do. I have no issue with kids who work their ass off against all odds getting in over my kids with lower GPA and test scores. I absolutely have an issue with privileged slackers getting in over them. (Thankfully, my kids will be in college before this goes into effect).
As for the idea that UC will develop their own test - hey, I think college entrance tests could be dramatically improved and be much more predictive. If UC wants to work on that, great. It just isn't going to solve the issue they are trying to address. As long as families can pay for test prep, privileged kids will do better. And, in fact, if the UC comes up with a test and they don't get the rest of the country to adopt it, wealthier kids will have an advantage because now you need to prepare for 2 tests. It sounds to me like they really don't have any intention to develop the test. They are just placating the faculty.
Anyone who thinks this is a good development or will help underprivileged and minorities or is even needed to do so just doesn't understand the current situation. This is a brain dead idea.
I think I read somewhere not too long ago that San Diego State's incoming freshman class had a higher average GPA than UC San Diego's for the first time ever. The two averages were very close, but SDSU's was a smidge higher. The two schools' average SAT's still had statistically meaningful differences. But without SAT's what we could be looking at in the future is half of those SDSU kids ending up at UCSD and half of the UCSD kids at SDSU. Because their GPA's (and presumably other attributes) were so similar, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
This is how I see it. Dropping the SAT requirement is a massive boon to students who go to "prestigious" high schools with lots of AP classes but happen to have low test-taking ability. Maybe tests are unfair to them. But you are not targeting POC at all with this change, and you just so happen to give students with wealthy parents who get them into said "prestigious" high schools and help them through a massive advantage in admissions. Huge coincidence here that most students who take lots of AP classes but do not do super well on the SAT happen to be rich.
This is completely political. If the plan is to develop a "UC-specific" test, why not have that test ready to go? This feels like the repeal Obamacare mantra and then we'll figure out a substitute. I'm not necessarily a fan of Obamacare but found it absurd to hear Republicans complain for years and then have no alternative ready to go.
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.
Strykur 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.
Totally agree with that. And that is a really unbiased way of looking at students. The only way to stand out now is to have AP classes sophomore and junior year with 5s on the tests. Make sure there are a lot of them completed.
Totally easy for rural schools, poor urban schools and other underperforming areas. That won't result in racial disparities at all.
This issue is an issue of social equality and achievement from poor neighborhoods- but you can't solve that by simply allowing poorly prepared Into the University where they will fail and be in a worse off position. You actually have to change the student before college. Otherwise just have a lottery.
hoop97 said:
This is completely political. If the plan is to develop a "UC-specific" test, why not have that test ready to go? This feels like the repeal Obamacare mantra and then we'll figure out a substitute. I'm not necessarily a fan of Obamacare but found it absurd to hear Republicans complain for years and then have no alternative ready to go.
There will be no substitute- Napolitano has destroyed the University on the way out.
FuzzyWuzzy said:As long as we're cherry-picking sentences to respond to: no, the most academically inclined probably won't stop applying to UC in the short run but more of them will get passed over. They will get passed over not because they weren't academically inclined enough but because others were selected for non-academic reasons - a phenomenon that is already occurring and one which will accelerate in frequency. Then, as the academic reputation of UC's student body declines over time, the most academically inclined might stop applying to UC in such great numbers, perhaps opening up more spots for those with the attributes the UC Regents - in their infinite wisdom - are looking for. Would that be such a terrible thing? It depends on what other benefits the policy might produce, and what you think UC should be. Wherever your value judgment falls on that question, is unlikely to improve the academic reputation of UC which, like it or not, is pretty much foundational to the success of the enterprise.okaydo said:FuzzyWuzzy said:Well, your premise is not an objective fact. Even if it were, the conclusion you draw from it is not really straight-line logic, either. Were you trying to point out a flaw in Hanky's argument by comparing it to an obviously illogical statement? If so what is the flaw in his reasoning?okaydo said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand. Why is a simple test bias against minorities?
The assault on objective truths and reality will be the undoing of civilization. I'm not saying the tests are perfect. Far from it. But after decades of research, it is probably the most objective out there. The notion that UC will develop its own test is laughable. That will never happen.
I mean is 2+2 = 4 biased against certain groups?
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
Objectively, people from Harvard are the best and brightest. And that's why they've been so good at leading our nation.
Speaking of the best and the brightest, I think we should all admit that, with a decision like this, a college is basically placing a lower emphasis on having the most academically inclined student body. Giving students admission preference for being first generation college, athletics, legacy status, disability, socioeconomic status or race are all implicit admissions that the college is less than totally committed to having the most academically inclined students and graduates. This is just one more concession along those lines. UC won't have student bodies that are as academically-inclined as previous classes. Some think that is worth the benefits, some think it is not.
I totally get why some companies put new recruits through tests during the interview process. These days, just because a candidate has a degree from a fancy college is not enough to assure the employer that the candidate has the kind of academic, book-learning type of intelligence that some jobs require. This latest decision just gives employers one more reason to be a little suspicious of the UC sheepskin.
We've seen repeatedly on this board how Cal alumni from the 1980s and earlier say they'd stand never stand a chance of getting into UC Berkeley against the increased competition these days.
Yet those are the same alumni who helped make UC Berkeley one of the most academically inclined schools.
So UC Berkeley has a long history of accepting "inferior" students who aren't athletes, and yet the school has still been able to be top-notch.
Let's face it: UC Berkeley is flooded with applications from academically inclined, brilliant students that could fill several classes. That's why you here stories of people with 4.5 GPAs and near-perfect SAT scores and numerous extracuriculars getting rejected.
Will these smarter generations of students stop applying to UC Berkeley because there's no SAT requirement?
And if for employers, this is "more reason to be a little suspicious of the UC sheepskin," then this move won't change much.
Here is a Los Angeles Times article from October 1999, written by a Cal alum, profiling the outgoing UC Berkeley admissions director Bob Laird, who oversaw admissions before and after the repeal of affirmative action.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-06-me-19406-story.html
The fall 1999 freshman class had 31,000 applicants for 8,450 admission slots.
Now here's the fall 2019 freshman class: 87,393 applicants for 14,336 admissions slots.
https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/berkeley/freshman-admission-profile.html
When I arrived at UC Berkeley in the mid-90s, I distinctly remember -- and I could be wrong about this -- the formula was that 50% of applicants were admitted because of purely academic reasons. They had boffo GPAs and SAT scores. And the other 50% were admitted for having good grades, but not VERY GOOD GRADES, but for other reasons. Their leadership roles. Extracuriculars Their race (this was just before the end of affirmative action). Their socioeconomic background. Etc. The reason this was was because that the university didn't want to have a flawless student body. They wanted students who -- god forbid -- got a C once, but who showed ability elsewhere. At the Daily Cal, we had several editors in chief (a white guy, an Asian female) who were spring admits who had 3.5ish GPAs. One ASUC president, a white guy and another spring admit who went on to serve in Iraq, also came with a 3.something GPA. These people went on to excel academically and in life. One of them was well-known to Steve Jobs, Peter Thiel and Mark Zuckerberg.
My point is that UC Berkeley has always tried to have a balanced student body. Not just have purely perfect students.
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.
How many of those 87,393 applicants and 14,336 admits were not academically inclined? How many of the 73,057 rejects were absolutely perfect?
Also, to restore UC Berkeley to its former glory (and to have more room for housing) should the university go back to admitting less than 10,000 students a year?
Recently retired teacher here.
FWIW, my SAT/ACT scores were probably what got me accepted to Cal, coming out of high school. The only review for the SAT tests I did was going over the prep questions and the advice that they send you when you sign up for the test.. For a couple of the ACT tests, I probably spent 15-20 hours reviewing on my own.
As I remember it, the original purpose of the SAT test was to identify students who had the APTITUDE (that was originally the A" in SAT) to succeed in college, but maybe hadn't manifested that aptitude yet in scholarly achievement (that's where grades and the ACTs came in). I hesitate to use the "dirty word" IQ tests, but that's sort of what they were, what with all the analogies and such. Sort of a reading/writing/math aptitude/IQ test. Of course, part of the problem started with all the test prep courses and all that, which gave the impression that kids from poorer families had a disadvantage on the tests. Well, that might be true, but it would be for a number of reasons, not strictly the fault of the test.
Anyway, I totally agree with OaktownBear that to discontinue use of the tests is "bullshyte". They should use them as one measure, not discontinue them. It's politically correct, participation trophy mentality.
All the metrics are flawed. OTB mentioned grade inflation. A problem at the high school I taught at was that there was tremendous inconsistency in grading, teacher to teacher. A number of times I called for discussions of what constituted an "A", a "B", a "C", etc, but it was taboo to even discuss it. For the record, I usually taught an elective class taken by kids who planned on going to college. Since it was an elective, I thought it would be okay to not be the toughest grader on the planet. Typical grades for my students would be 35% A/A- (never an "A+"), 40% B+/B/B-, 25% C/D/F. As a mentor to new teachers, my "survival advice" was to not be too too hard of a grader, don't give "F"s unless a kid absolutely deserved it and don't let your grading get you noticed, one way or the other. I mention this just to say that there are politics involved. Administrators don't want teachers to be such easy graders that it would be a story on the evening news, but the two things they want least of all are... a) a s***load of parent complaints and... b) a bunch of kids getting "F"s.
Another problem with over-reliance on grades is, what about the kid who is bored in high school, but will catch fire in college? What about the kid who had a bad high school semester or two, due to a family crisis, a bout with depression, or whatever? These were situations that the standardized tests were supposed to help with.
All the metrics can be gamed. Don't even talk to me about the essay, or "personal statement". I suppose the best way to go is to have a number of different types of metrics and to look at a kid's total "profile". Actually, I think that is sort of what the UC's have been doing... up to this point.
FWIW, my SAT/ACT scores were probably what got me accepted to Cal, coming out of high school. The only review for the SAT tests I did was going over the prep questions and the advice that they send you when you sign up for the test.. For a couple of the ACT tests, I probably spent 15-20 hours reviewing on my own.
As I remember it, the original purpose of the SAT test was to identify students who had the APTITUDE (that was originally the A" in SAT) to succeed in college, but maybe hadn't manifested that aptitude yet in scholarly achievement (that's where grades and the ACTs came in). I hesitate to use the "dirty word" IQ tests, but that's sort of what they were, what with all the analogies and such. Sort of a reading/writing/math aptitude/IQ test. Of course, part of the problem started with all the test prep courses and all that, which gave the impression that kids from poorer families had a disadvantage on the tests. Well, that might be true, but it would be for a number of reasons, not strictly the fault of the test.
Anyway, I totally agree with OaktownBear that to discontinue use of the tests is "bullshyte". They should use them as one measure, not discontinue them. It's politically correct, participation trophy mentality.
All the metrics are flawed. OTB mentioned grade inflation. A problem at the high school I taught at was that there was tremendous inconsistency in grading, teacher to teacher. A number of times I called for discussions of what constituted an "A", a "B", a "C", etc, but it was taboo to even discuss it. For the record, I usually taught an elective class taken by kids who planned on going to college. Since it was an elective, I thought it would be okay to not be the toughest grader on the planet. Typical grades for my students would be 35% A/A- (never an "A+"), 40% B+/B/B-, 25% C/D/F. As a mentor to new teachers, my "survival advice" was to not be too too hard of a grader, don't give "F"s unless a kid absolutely deserved it and don't let your grading get you noticed, one way or the other. I mention this just to say that there are politics involved. Administrators don't want teachers to be such easy graders that it would be a story on the evening news, but the two things they want least of all are... a) a s***load of parent complaints and... b) a bunch of kids getting "F"s.
Another problem with over-reliance on grades is, what about the kid who is bored in high school, but will catch fire in college? What about the kid who had a bad high school semester or two, due to a family crisis, a bout with depression, or whatever? These were situations that the standardized tests were supposed to help with.
All the metrics can be gamed. Don't even talk to me about the essay, or "personal statement". I suppose the best way to go is to have a number of different types of metrics and to look at a kid's total "profile". Actually, I think that is sort of what the UC's have been doing... up to this point.
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:
A couple of notes as someone who came out of this more recently:
- The testing industrial complex is a real thing. An industry has been created solely around learning to game these tests, the SAT/ACT specifically. This has lead to a ridiculous amount of time and money invested into being a good test taker, than it does into actually learning the material. I had friends went through batteries of classes and others whose families were convinced to invest in those classes because they didn't know any better. At the end the College Board gets to be the end-all, be-all arbiter with little to no oversight, and make a ton of money in the process.
- I believe class rank/school performance plays a far bigger role in this process than not. If you're in the top 1-10% of your school, it doesn't really matter if the rest of the bottom 90% has inflated grades because these are often considered relative to peers in addition to other qualities such as ECs or personal circumstances, not as an absolute metric. I see nothing about this changing post-SAT/ACT.
- From my understanding of admissions, after you reach a certain score (not perfect) folks stop putting much emphasis on the scores and start looking at other factors that might make the student an attractive choice
- The testing industrial complex is a real thing. An industry has been created solely around learning to game these tests, the SAT/ACT specifically. This has lead to a ridiculous amount of time and money invested into being a good test taker, than it does into actually learning the material. I had friends went through batteries of classes and others whose families were convinced to invest in those classes because they didn't know any better. At the end the College Board gets to be the end-all, be-all arbiter with little to no oversight, and make a ton of money in the process.
- I believe class rank/school performance plays a far bigger role in this process than not. If you're in the top 1-10% of your school, it doesn't really matter if the rest of the bottom 90% has inflated grades because these are often considered relative to peers in addition to other qualities such as ECs or personal circumstances, not as an absolute metric. I see nothing about this changing post-SAT/ACT.
- From my understanding of admissions, after you reach a certain score (not perfect) folks stop putting much emphasis on the scores and start looking at other factors that might make the student an attractive choice
This is very much like my story. High school class of '71. Good but not spectacular GPA. Good SAT scores -- the best in my class, I believe. But what I think got me into Cal was the fact that I was yearbook editor -- so I guess my extra-curriculars carried some weight.gardenstatebear said:
I got into Berkeley in 1968 as an out-of-state student despite unexceptional grades. I did it by scoring very well on the SAT and three achievement tests (what I think are now called the SATI II) in American History, English, and the easier of the Math tests.) My grades at Berkeley were unspectacular -- I spent most of my time working on the Daily Cal. I got into law school only because I aced the LSAT. I have to admit that I am a little sad that today I would have no shot at Berkeley.
FWIW (and I don't want to get political here), I was not from a hugely prosperous background. I just had an affinity for tests produced by the Educational Testing Service. Peace out!
Those great SAT scores? As soon as I got to Berkeley I became a little fish in a big pond. My roommate's scores were higher, and his best friend (also an incoming freshman) got a 1600.
I also would have no shot at getting in now.
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.FuzzyWuzzy said:As long as we're cherry-picking sentences to respond to: no, the most academically inclined probably won't stop applying to UC in the short run but more of them will get passed over. They will get passed over not because they weren't academically inclined enough but because others were selected for non-academic reasons - a phenomenon that is already occurring and one which will accelerate in frequency. Then, as the academic reputation of UC's student body declines over time, the most academically inclined might stop applying to UC in such great numbers, perhaps opening up more spots for those with the attributes the UC Regents - in their infinite wisdom - are looking for. Would that be such a terrible thing? It depends on what other benefits the policy might produce, and what you think UC should be. Wherever your value judgment falls on that question, is unlikely to improve the academic reputation of UC which, like it or not, is pretty much foundational to the success of the enterprise.okaydo said:FuzzyWuzzy said:Well, your premise is not an objective fact. Even if it were, the conclusion you draw from it is not really straight-line logic, either. Were you trying to point out a flaw in Hanky's argument by comparing it to an obviously illogical statement? If so what is the flaw in his reasoning?okaydo said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand. Why is a simple test bias against minorities?
The assault on objective truths and reality will be the undoing of civilization. I'm not saying the tests are perfect. Far from it. But after decades of research, it is probably the most objective out there. The notion that UC will develop its own test is laughable. That will never happen.
I mean is 2+2 = 4 biased against certain groups?
This is the beginning of our descent into madness.
Objectively, people from Harvard are the best and brightest. And that's why they've been so good at leading our nation.
Speaking of the best and the brightest, I think we should all admit that, with a decision like this, a college is basically placing a lower emphasis on having the most academically inclined student body. Giving students admission preference for being first generation college, athletics, legacy status, disability, socioeconomic status or race are all implicit admissions that the college is less than totally committed to having the most academically inclined students and graduates. This is just one more concession along those lines. UC won't have student bodies that are as academically-inclined as previous classes. Some think that is worth the benefits, some think it is not.
I totally get why some companies put new recruits through tests during the interview process. These days, just because a candidate has a degree from a fancy college is not enough to assure the employer that the candidate has the kind of academic, book-learning type of intelligence that some jobs require. This latest decision just gives employers one more reason to be a little suspicious of the UC sheepskin.
We've seen repeatedly on this board how Cal alumni from the 1980s and earlier say they'd stand never stand a chance of getting into UC Berkeley against the increased competition these days.
Yet those are the same alumni who helped make UC Berkeley one of the most academically inclined schools.
So UC Berkeley has a long history of accepting "inferior" students who aren't athletes, and yet the school has still been able to be top-notch.
Let's face it: UC Berkeley is flooded with applications from academically inclined, brilliant students that could fill several classes. That's why you here stories of people with 4.5 GPAs and near-perfect SAT scores and numerous extracuriculars getting rejected.
Will these smarter generations of students stop applying to UC Berkeley because there's no SAT requirement?
And if for employers, this is "more reason to be a little suspicious of the UC sheepskin," then this move won't change much.
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.
Featured Stories
See All