Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

Sorry for Blacks

Berkeley

Asian 35%

White 21%

Hispanic 20%

International 13%

Two or more races 6%

Unknown 3%

Black 2%

American Indian 0%

Pacific Islander 0%

Blacks are 6% of the California population. They are underrepresented. No surprise there. Hispanics are too.

[Anonymous]

I suspect some Whites makred Hispanic at CalTech and Berkeley

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

What was the world get along before SAT/ACT scores?

How did the admissions world get along before test scores, I assume you're asking? Well, for a lot of colleges, their decision-making was less accurate. These are smart people deciding how to select a class, and they wouldn't use a metric that didn't help them get closer to what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

Sorry for Blacks

Berkeley

Asian 35%

White 21%

Hispanic 20%

International 13%

Two or more races 6%

Unknown 3%

Black 2%

American Indian 0%

Pacific Islander 0%

Blacks are 6% of the California population. They are underrepresented. No surprise there. Hispanics are too.

but but they are Test Blind, No SAT as you like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

SAT is racist
LMFAO are these people serious?

Ha. Your ignorance is showing. Google is your friend.

Yes, you should use it.

https://www.machronicle.com/is-the-sat-actually-racist/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harvard become majority Asian, won't it immediately become far less desirable for non-Asians?

For the same reason that many top black and white kids no longer have any interest in TJ?

more like they decided they coudn't compete?

Anyways, I think it'll auto-correct.
it gets less desirable for Asians as well.

a good byproduct affect could be more leveled colleges at least for top 50 100 schools.

The usual whites are stupid and can’t compete trope. I think white kids generally don’t want to be an an all Asian cultural environment (just like Asian and AA don’t want to be minority). It’s kind of human nature.

It’s not “human nature”. It’s how you’re viewed and treated by the majority in power that’s the critical — and often noxious— issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

SAT is racist
LMFAO are these people serious?

Ha. Your ignorance is showing. Google is your friend.

Yes, you should use it.

https://www.machronicle.com/is-the-sat-actually-racist/

Google is your friend

https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

Sorry for Blacks

Berkeley

Asian 35%

White 21%

Hispanic 20%

International 13%

Two or more races 6%

Unknown 3%

Black 2%

American Indian 0%

Pacific Islander 0%

Blacks are 6% of the California population. They are underrepresented. No surprise there. Hispanics are too.

Have you ever considered that there are a multitude of factors that explain under representation or are you comfortable with your knee jerk cry of racism? So intellectually lazy and stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

Sorry for Blacks

Berkeley

Asian 35%

White 21%

Hispanic 20%

International 13%

Two or more races 6%

Unknown 3%

Black 2%

American Indian 0%

Pacific Islander 0%

Blacks are 6% of the California population. They are underrepresented. No surprise there. Hispanics are too.

but but they are Test Blind, No SAT as you like.

Berkeley is but one school in the UC system, albeit at elite level.

Between Berkeley, UCLA and UC Davis, it's closer to 6% combined.

Not bad.

Will get better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

Sorry for Blacks

Berkeley

Asian 35%

White 21%

Hispanic 20%

International 13%

Two or more races 6%

Unknown 3%

Black 2%

American Indian 0%

Pacific Islander 0%

Blacks are 6% of the California population. They are underrepresented. No surprise there. Hispanics are too.

Have you ever considered that there are a multitude of factors that explain under representation or are you comfortable with your knee jerk cry of racism? So intellectually lazy and stupid.

You must not be an American.

Start brushing up on U.S. history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

What was the world get along before SAT/ACT scores?

How did the admissions world get along before test scores, I assume you're asking? Well, for a lot of colleges, their decision-making was less accurate. These are smart people deciding how to select a class, and they wouldn't use a metric that didn't help them get closer to what they want.

they only fed from prep school and they took kids the school recommended.

But they wanted kids from places other than prep schools so they turned to Carl Brigham to create a test.

Carl Brigham created the SAT after working with Yerkes on the Army IQ screener, known as the Army Alpha test. Brigham brought a clear bias to intelligence testing: He believed people of color were innately less intelligent than white people.

In his book "A Study of American Intelligence," Brigham "warned" that the decline of education would "proceed with an accelerating rate as the racial mixture becomes more and more extensive."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

What was the world get along before SAT/ACT scores?

How did the admissions world get along before test scores, I assume you're asking? Well, for a lot of colleges, their decision-making was less accurate. These are smart people deciding how to select a class, and they wouldn't use a metric that didn't help them get closer to what they want.

The SAT was "a near necessity for students applying to college." by the 1950s.
https://www.insider.com/how-the-sat-has-changed-over-the-past-90-years-2019-8#1950s-1960s-the-modern-sat-takes-shape-and-colleges-around-the-country-adopt-the-exam-as-a-standard-bar-for-entry-2

That's when the people who are now in their 80s were applying to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

Sorry for Blacks

Berkeley

Asian 35%

White 21%

Hispanic 20%

International 13%

Two or more races 6%

Unknown 3%

Black 2%

American Indian 0%

Pacific Islander 0%

Blacks are 6% of the California population. They are underrepresented. No surprise there. Hispanics are too.

but but they are Test Blind, No SAT as you like.

Berkeley is but one school in the UC system, albeit at elite level.

Between Berkeley, UCLA and UC Davis, it's closer to 6% combined.

Not bad.

Will get better.

Berkeley - Black 2%
UCLA - Black 3%


Doesn't seem like SAT is the problem, it got worse without SAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

Sorry for Blacks

Berkeley

Asian 35%

White 21%

Hispanic 20%

International 13%

Two or more races 6%

Unknown 3%

Black 2%

American Indian 0%

Pacific Islander 0%

Blacks are 6% of the California population. They are underrepresented. No surprise there. Hispanics are too.

but but they are Test Blind, No SAT as you like.

Berkeley is but one school in the UC system, albeit at elite level.

Between Berkeley, UCLA and UC Davis, it's closer to 6% combined.

Not bad.

Will get better.

Berkeley - Black 2%
UCLA - Black 3%


Doesn't seem like SAT is the problem, it got worse without SAT

Missed a school ( not surprised).

UC Davis has about the same percentage.

Just those 3 get you to state population percentage. There are many more UC schools as well. Not bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

Sorry for Blacks

Berkeley

Asian 35%

White 21%

Hispanic 20%

International 13%

Two or more races 6%

Unknown 3%

Black 2%

American Indian 0%

Pacific Islander 0%

Blacks are 6% of the California population. They are underrepresented. No surprise there. Hispanics are too.

but but they are Test Blind, No SAT as you like.

Berkeley is but one school in the UC system, albeit at elite level.

Between Berkeley, UCLA and UC Davis, it's closer to 6% combined.

Not bad.

Will get better.

Berkeley - Black 2%
UCLA - Black 3%


Doesn't seem like SAT is the problem, it got worse without SAT

Aren't these like worst among top 20 elite schools

Why are some people complaining about SAT?
What am I missing?
Irony