sycasey said:

---

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?

---

The essay, their grades, and then have test in or out of math classes without being able to see the test in advance

Lucas Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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?

---

The essay, their grades, and then have test in or out of math classes without being able to see the test in advance

---

Cal representative (speaking at the high school where I taught at): "We're giving more weight to the Personal Statement (essay) than ever before!"

Me: "Just curious, how do you know if applicants wrote the Personal Statement themselves?"

Rep: "Um, uh, they HAVE TO write it themselves, under penalty of law. They attest to that."

Me: "Well, okay then."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scrapping-the-sat-wont-help-black-and-latino-students-11590532734

Scrapping the SAT Won't Help Black and Latino Students

Low-income minorities have more to lose than gain from the woke war on standardized testing.

Quote:

---

But we know from more than four decades of affirmative-action policies that admitting students to schools where they are underprepared to handle the work leads to less college completion than we'd otherwise see. And California ought to know this better than most states; after it moved to a system of race-blind admissions in 1996, college graduation rates for black and Hispanic students increased dramatically.

---

sycasey said:

---

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?

---

The tests are in many ways gamed and brutal to a lot of students, and I suspect unfair to some who do not have the means to keep up with others. But they do have an ability to separate students. High school grades as the deferred measure are much more flawed as a fair barometer. Adding layers helps differentiate; removing layers gives more room for subjectivity. Seems like the old combination is best with making some allowance on the test taking end for socio economics.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

The tests are in many ways gamed ... and I suspect unfair to some who do not have the means to keep up with others.

---

How is issuing an aptitude test "gaming" select students? These talking points continue to get peddled with no evidence because none exist.

Unfair to some who "don't have the means to keep up". Yeah, that's the point. To differentiate students based on cognitive abilities -- to weed out students who "can't keep up".

It's 2020 and there are tons of free SAT prep resources online.

https://blog.collegevine.com/your-guide-to-free-sat-prep-classes/


And one even in Berkeley.

https://ptps.berkeley.edu

For almost 25 years, the People's Test Preparation Service (PTPS)a non-profit, student-run organization at Cal Berkeleyhas offered free SAT assistance to students in the East Bay. Providing both 10-week long SAT prep courses and single-day workshops, those enrolled can expect dedicated teachers working hand-in-hand with students to ensure students success.

BearForce2 said:

---

It's 2020 and there's tons of free SAT prep resources online.

https://blog.collegevine.com/your-guide-to-free-sat-prep-classes/


And one even in Berkeley.

https://ptps.berkeley.edu

For almost 25 years, the People's Test Preparation Service (PTPS)a non-profit, student-run organization at Cal Berkeleyhas offered free SAT assistance to students in the East Bay. Providing both 10-week long SAT prep courses and single-day workshops, those enrolled can expect dedicated teachers working hand-in-hand with students to ensure students success.

---

Psssst - hey, Right Wing know-it-all: technology gap. Look it up.


Also, self prep is often counter productive. It often reinforces bad test taking habits at the expense of good ones.

But what do I know? I've only been in the tutoring/test prep/college application counseling field for 15 years. And I applaud the move away from standardized tests in the application process. All they really show is how good the student is at standardized tests, and how much the student prepared for the specific test. Both tests are very poor indicators of college success.

AunBear89 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

It's 2020 and there's tons of free SAT prep resources online.

https://blog.collegevine.com/your-guide-to-free-sat-prep-classes/


And one even in Berkeley.

https://ptps.berkeley.edu

For almost 25 years, the People's Test Preparation Service (PTPS)a non-profit, student-run organization at Cal Berkeleyhas offered free SAT assistance to students in the East Bay. Providing both 10-week long SAT prep courses and single-day workshops, those enrolled can expect dedicated teachers working hand-in-hand with students to ensure students success.

---

Psssst - hey, Right Wing know-it-all: technology gap. Look it up.


Also, self prep is often counter productive. It often reinforces bad test taking habits at the expense of good ones.

But what do I know? I've only been in the tutoring/test prep/college application counseling field for 15 years. And I applaud the move away from standardized tests in the application process. All they really show is how good the student is at standardized tests, and how much the student prepared for the specific test. Both tests are very poor indicators of college success.

---

15 years is long enough, please tell us what you know.

GBear4Life said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

The tests are in many ways gamed ... and I suspect unfair to some who do not have the means to keep up with others.

---

How is issuing an aptitude test "gaming" select students? These talking points continue to get peddled with no evidence because none exist.

Unfair to some who "don't have the means to keep up". Yeah, that's the point. To differentiate students based on cognitive abilities -- to weed out students who "can't keep up".

---

Eh, gamed "by" the students by was meant to indicate that those from more affluent families can spend hours in facitilities taking, having corrected, and being taught the mode in which questions are asked. In our area some of those companies like Future Focused, Opportunities for Learning, Aim High Tutors, The Princeton Review Tutoring service are some. Little tricks in math with the linkage of formulation to problem solving. Getting used to how questions are asked so that like my golf swing you don't make the same mistake over and over. That is the gaming to which I referred.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Eh, gamed "by" the students by was meant to indicate that those from more affluent families can spend hours in facitilities taking, having corrected, and being taught the mode in which questions are asked. Little tricks in math with the linkage of formulation to problem solving. Getting used to how questions are asked so that like my golf swing you don't make the same mistake over and over. That is the gaming to which I referred.

---

Poor people can spend just as much time prepping. The "only the rich can prep" angle to explain disparate test outcomes is not credible.

If a kid dreams of getting to a UC and believes he's got the cognitive skills to boot, but they cannot navigate the many resources (and time) available to them -- school, public library, etc -- in order to properly prep for an exam, than that kid has failed his first basic litmus test in life and is not "smart" enough to be considered by a UC let alone accepted by one. If you think to yourself "I can ace this exam but damn I'm poor!" and get stuck THERE, that's what community colleges are, in part, for.

The university, especially the highly sought out universities with more applicants than seats, is not an afterschool special aimed to make race-driven people feel good about their world. College admission is not a zero-sum game. A student not making it into one school does not mean they cannot go to college at another. There are more seats than butts in American schools. They will always have a seat somewhere. They don't need money, they don't need high scores, they just need a 2.0-2.5 GPA depending on the school. But nobody with the grades and extracurriculars to get into a UC but is terrible in the cognitive tests will always have a chair somewhere -- and at a reputable school.

Yeah, I don't doubt that in the aggregate a lot of students who get mediocre cognitive scores end up doing well in college (well = GPA close to other's who had higher scores) when college is filled with majors in the social sciences and the arts. In the technical fields, cognitive tests are the most reliable indicators we have. As one person said: "IQs don't help us predict who'd make the best ditch-diggers, but they are reliable in predicting who will be Medical Doctors."

AunBear89 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

It's 2020 and there's tons of free SAT prep resources online.

https://blog.collegevine.com/your-guide-to-free-sat-prep-classes/


And one even in Berkeley.

https://ptps.berkeley.edu

For almost 25 years, the People's Test Preparation Service (PTPS)a non-profit, student-run organization at Cal Berkeleyhas offered free SAT assistance to students in the East Bay. Providing both 10-week long SAT prep courses and single-day workshops, those enrolled can expect dedicated teachers working hand-in-hand with students to ensure students success.

---

Psssst - hey, Right Wing know-it-all: technology gap. Look it up.


Also, self prep is often counter productive. It often reinforces bad test taking habits at the expense of good ones.

But what do I know? I've only been in the tutoring/test prep/college application counseling field for 15 years. And I applaud the move away from standardized tests in the application process. All they really show is how good the student is at standardized tests, and how much the student prepared for the specific test. Both tests are very poor indicators of college success.

---

Then do job interviews measure a candidate's interviewing skills as opposed to capability to carry out the job duties? Maybe there is a nugget of truth to the "SAT shows how good someone is at taking the SAT" argument, but it's rather short sighted considering how much self discipline and ambition is necessary for most people to succeed in the SAT. This 2014 Slate article defends the SAT:

Quote:

---

Scores on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on IQ tests...IQ is of course not the only factor that contributes to differences in outcomes like academic achievement and job performance (and longevity). Psychologists have known for many decades that certain personality traits also have an impact. One is conscientiousness, which reflects a person's self-control, discipline, and thoroughness. People who are high in conscientiousness delay gratification to get their work done, finish tasks that they start, and are careful in their work, whereas people who are low in conscientiousness are impulsive, undependable, and careless (compare Lisa and Bart Simpson).

---

In other words, the SAT measures not only the ability to succeed in it, but whether a student is a "go out and get it" or "spoon feed and hand hold me" type.

SpartanBear20 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

It's 2020 and there's tons of free SAT prep resources online.

https://blog.collegevine.com/your-guide-to-free-sat-prep-classes/


And one even in Berkeley.

https://ptps.berkeley.edu

For almost 25 years, the People's Test Preparation Service (PTPS)a non-profit, student-run organization at Cal Berkeleyhas offered free SAT assistance to students in the East Bay. Providing both 10-week long SAT prep courses and single-day workshops, those enrolled can expect dedicated teachers working hand-in-hand with students to ensure students success.

---

Psssst - hey, Right Wing know-it-all: technology gap. Look it up.


Also, self prep is often counter productive. It often reinforces bad test taking habits at the expense of good ones.

But what do I know? I've only been in the tutoring/test prep/college application counseling field for 15 years. And I applaud the move away from standardized tests in the application process. All they really show is how good the student is at standardized tests, and how much the student prepared for the specific test. Both tests are very poor indicators of college success.

---

Then do job interviews measure a candidate's interviewing skills as opposed to capability to carry out the job duties? Maybe there is a nugget of truth to the "SAT shows how good someone is at taking the SAT" argument, but it's rather short sighted considering how much self discipline and ambition is necessary for most people to succeed in the SAT. This 2014 Slate article defends the SAT:

Quote:

---

Scores on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on IQ tests...IQ is of course not the only factor that contributes to differences in outcomes like academic achievement and job performance (and longevity). Psychologists have known for many decades that certain personality traits also have an impact. One is conscientiousness, which reflects a person's self-control, discipline, and thoroughness. People who are high in conscientiousness delay gratification to get their work done, finish tasks that they start, and are careful in their work, whereas people who are low in conscientiousness are impulsive, undependable, and careless (compare Lisa and Bart Simpson).

---

In other words, the SAT measures not only the ability to succeed in it, but whether a student is a "go out and get it" or "spoon feed and hand hold me" type.

---

IQ has been well established in the field and is found to be the most reliable psychometric.

Beware that anybody attempting to mitigate it's relevance and reliability in the field of psychometrics is either ignorant or has an ideological and political agenda and thus is dishonest, e.g. Aun Bear, Lucas Lee.

Is The University Of California Committing Suicide? Equity Vs. Excellence

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2020/05/26/is-the-university-of-california-committing-suicide-equity-vs-excellence/#5266da7f62c9

BearForce2 said:

---

Is The University Of California Committing Suicide? Equity Vs. Excellence
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2020/05/26/is-the-university-of-california-committing-suicide-equity-vs-excellence/#5266da7f62c9

---

darth vedder? no tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Vedder

snip from his wp bio inspires no confidence to left-coastal readers..
> Vedder serves as an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank known for mostly libertarian and conservative perspectives.

mea culpa: yes, i'm biased. and nope, don't listen to clever dude's siren songs from the dark side.

smh said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Is The University Of California Committing Suicide? Equity Vs. Excellence
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2020/05/26/is-the-university-of-california-committing-suicide-equity-vs-excellence/#5266da7f62c9

---

darth vedder? no tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Vedder

snip from his wp bio inspires no confidence to left-coastal readers..
> Vedder serves as an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank known for mostly libertarian and conservative perspectives.

mea culpa: yes, i'm biased. and nope, don't listen to clever dude's siren songs from the dark side.

---

i understand, some people prefer to be insulated.

The system is rigged for the rich and privileged. Old article but still relevant.
https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/255402-ivys-accept-greenwich-connecticut-untimed-sat-scores-why.html

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

The system is rigged for the rich and privileged. Old article but still relevant.
https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/255402-ivys-accept-greenwich-connecticut-untimed-sat-scores-why.html

---

Either there are a lot of students in Greenwich, CT that have mental disabilities that need extra time or the test administrators are getting bribed. Either way, there's no evidence this is a nationwide problem. In a previous post there are links to multiple websites that have free SAT prep material. Collectively, are they just as good as a paid SAT prep course? I think it depends on the student and their level of determination to study.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

The system is rigged for the rich and privileged. Old article but still relevant.
https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/255402-ivys-accept-greenwich-connecticut-untimed-sat-scores-why.html

---

Either there are a lot of students in Greenwich, CT that have mental disabilities that need extra time or the test administrators are getting bribed. Either way, there's no evidence this is a nationwide problem. In a previous post there are links to multiple websites that have free SAT prep material. Collectively, are they just as good as a paid SAT prep course? I think it depends on the student and their level of determination to study.

---

You keep saying this generally same thing over and over. Technically you may be correct but only technically. Yes, you can get it all from the "free" material, but have you ever witnessed the tutoring sessions that HS kids in affluent (meant, those who can afford) areas attend. The parental push in the sophomore and junior years is tremendous in many of these areas and hours are spent being shown the nuances of the test which a loner would have to decipher on one's own. There is a big, big difference that you are not acknowledging.

Now, if you were to take the type of student that approaches 1600 without help I would have to agree with you. But most of what you are seeing is 1300s trying to be 1400s; 1400s trying to be 1500s, etc. Those students benefit tremendously from tutoring. I have seen it with 3 of 4 family members including all in their friend groups. What you say is just not true in practice.

---

Bravo.

---

And that's why the death of the SAT as a measure of who our state university system should and shouldn't admit is to be championed, despite the objections of all the affluent moderate iceholes who benefited from it with their kids.

I was thinking of posting this Jon Wilner article in the main football forum, but I realized that it would likely become derailed with political discussion, so I'll just repost this as a sub discussion here.

Wilner gave his take on the UC SAT decision on Friday: it was "good news for the Cal and UCLA football programs":

Quote:

---

"It's one less barrier to admission," said Scott Carrell, an economics professor at UC Davis.

Carrell has a unique perspective on the development. He serves as UCD's Faculty Athletics Representative the liaison between athletics and academia and has studied the college admissions process in California.


[...]

"UCLA and Cal have tougher standards than most of their peers; that's true,'' Carrell said. "At many places, you just need the NCAA minimum to be admitted.

"Now that GPA will be the primary admissions factor at the UCs, it should be easier for them to assess the recruits' admissibility."

---

Back in 2007, then-Furd coach Jim Harbaugh caught controversy after suggesting that his alma mater Michigan lowered admission standards for football players while saying about his employer: "We're looking not for student-athletes, but scholar-athletes." Nine years later, David Shaw criticized satellite camps with a similar elitist POV: "It doesn't make sense for us to go hold a camp some place where there might be one person in the entire state that's eligible to get into Stanford."

SpartanBear20 said:

---

I was thinking of posting this Jon Wilner article in the main football forum, but I realized that it would likely become derailed with political discussion, so I'll just repost this as a sub discussion here.

Wilner gave his take on the UC SAT decision on Friday: it was "good news for the Cal and UCLA football programs":

Quote:

---

"It's one less barrier to admission," said Scott Carrell, an economics professor at UC Davis.

Carrell has a unique perspective on the development. He serves as UCD's Faculty Athletics Representative the liaison between athletics and academia and has studied the college admissions process in California.


[...]

"UCLA and Cal have tougher standards than most of their peers; that's true,'' Carrell said. "At many places, you just need the NCAA minimum to be admitted.

"Now that GPA will be the primary admissions factor at the UCs, it should be easier for them to assess the recruits' admissibility."

---

Back in 2007, then-Furd coach Jim Harbaugh caught controversy after suggesting that his alma mater Michigan lowered admission standards for football players while saying about his employer: "We're looking not for student-athletes, but scholar-athletes." Nine years later, David Shaw criticized satellite camps with a similar elitist POV: "It doesn't make sense for us to go hold a camp some place where there might be one person in the entire state that's eligible to get into Stanford."

---

GPA can't not be the primary admissions factor at the UC's, for grade inflation is real. Besides, a great American like Russell White never would have changed his life were he never to have attended this great university, even if the opportunity we gave him was accidental.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

The system is rigged for the rich and privileged. Old article but still relevant.
https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/255402-ivys-accept-greenwich-connecticut-untimed-sat-scores-why.html

---

Either there are a lot of students in Greenwich, CT that have mental disabilities that need extra time or the test administrators are getting bribed. Either way, there's no evidence this is a nationwide problem. In a previous post there are links to multiple websites that have free SAT prep material. Collectively, are they just as good as a paid SAT prep course? I think it depends on the student and their level of determination to study.

---

You keep saying this generally same thing over and over. Technically you may be correct but only technically. Yes, you can get it all from the "free" material, but have you ever witnessed the tutoring sessions that HS kids in affluent (meant, those who can afford) areas attend. The parental push in the sophomore and junior years is tremendous in many of these areas and hours are spent being shown the nuances of the test which a loner would have to decipher on one's own. There is a big, big difference that you are not acknowledging.

Now, if you were to take the type of student that approaches 1600 without help I would have to agree with you. But most of what you are seeing is 1300s trying to be 1400s; 1400s trying to be 1500s, etc. Those students benefit tremendously from tutoring. I have seen it with 3 of 4 family members including all in their friend groups. What you say is just not true in practice.

---

Tutoring may very well be a superior resource compared to free online material. However, you didn't factor in the level of effort that's required by the student.. Going through the motions of studying with tutoring sessions, doesn't necessarily result in significant higher scores. So your family members may be privileged but privilege is only half the story. Are you in favor of UC dropping the SAT?

BearForce2 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

The system is rigged for the rich and privileged. Old article but still relevant.
https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/255402-ivys-accept-greenwich-connecticut-untimed-sat-scores-why.html

---

Either there are a lot of students in Greenwich, CT that have mental disabilities that need extra time or the test administrators are getting bribed. Either way, there's no evidence this is a nationwide problem. In a previous post there are links to multiple websites that have free SAT prep material. Collectively, are they just as good as a paid SAT prep course? I think it depends on the student and their level of determination to study.

---

You keep saying this generally same thing over and over. Technically you may be correct but only technically. Yes, you can get it all from the "free" material, but have you ever witnessed the tutoring sessions that HS kids in affluent (meant, those who can afford) areas attend. The parental push in the sophomore and junior years is tremendous in many of these areas and hours are spent being shown the nuances of the test which a loner would have to decipher on one's own. There is a big, big difference that you are not acknowledging.

Now, if you were to take the type of student that approaches 1600 without help I would have to agree with you. But most of what you are seeing is 1300s trying to be 1400s; 1400s trying to be 1500s, etc. Those students benefit tremendously from tutoring. I have seen it with 3 of 4 family members including all in their friend groups. What you say is just not true in practice.

---

Tutoring may very well be a superior resource compared to free online material. However, you didn't factor in the level of effort that's required by the student.. Going through the motions of studying with tutoring sessions, doesn't necessarily result in significant higher scores. So your family members may be privileged but privilege is only half the story. Are you in favor of UC dropping the SAT?

---

Absolutely against dropping the SAT, ACT but still trying to recognize that it is not the do all, be all. Cal needs the best of the best to remain same.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Absolutely against dropping the SAT, ACT

---

That doesn't surprise me one bit.

LMAO

Suck it you white upper middle-class whites. Your last admission advantage just went away. Go marry a Bush, an Obama, or a Warren if you want in.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

According to Harvard, this is due to the coronavirus and the economy.

Garou said:

---

LMAO

Suck it you white upper middle-class whites. Your last admission advantage just went away. Go marry a Bush, an Obama, or a Warren if you want in.

---

LMAO. Been there done that as has my whole family tree. I'll just ride smoothly while you suck it up.

Do leftists believe paying off professional test takers so your child can get into USC is wrong if you can get away with it?

Thursday's print edition of the Daily Californian published a guest commentary by a student named Maria Richards that had been published online around a week earlier: UC, please keep SAT, ACT. Richards made a solid defense of standardized testing:

Quote:

---

...the UC system's decision was made in an outright disregard for the opinions of the UC Academic Senate's leadership assembly, consisting of the top professors from each UC campus, who voted unanimously in a 51-0 decision to keep the SAT/ACT.

The UC Academic Council's Standardized Testing Task Force conducted 18 months of research and analysis, producing a report in favor of keeping the SAT/ACT. A closer analysis reveals that eliminating the SAT/ACT will hinder the ability of colleges to predict applicants' future college success, rendering their admissions systems more prone to bias and subjectivity and more likely to adversely affect low-income applicants. This will disproportionately harm Black and Latinx applicants, who, according to a 2018 survey by the U.S. Census Bureau, on average, have lower incomes than whites and Asians do.

[...]

Without the SAT/ACT, there would be no objective test that reveals a schools' inadequacies, let alone a common yardstick to measure student achievement, handing schools a free pass to inflate grades without getting caught. A 2018 study by Seth Gershenson, an associate professor at American University, shows that grade inflation is more prevalent in affluent schools than it is in low-income schools.

Parents of rich students tend to wield more influence over schools and use it to pressure schools to inflate grades. Wealthier students can take AP or IB courses in order to boost their GPAs, while those same courses are usually not offered at low-income schools.

Grades are subject to more manipulation, which skews the playing field in favor of those who have the means and connections to game the system. Wasn't eliminating the SAT/ACT supposed to level the playing field?

---