UCs are considering reinstating SAT and ACT tests for admission

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will the SAT change the amount of pages students can read?

Students who perform well on a timed standardized test will have demonstrated that they can read and digest written material under timed conditions. Therefore, the students are likely to be more capable of completing longer assigned readings for homework.

How will the sat change the amount of pages students can read? It shows they can read faster and comprehend base texts quicker than peers (though many students get decent scores without reading the texts), but it doesn’t show that they can sustain a novels worth of reading

It's a measuring stick. Without it, nothing shows that they can or can't sustain a novel's worth of reading.

It’s a shit measuring stick. It’s like trying to evaluate if someone should be an engineer by asking them their times tables quickly.

It is a far better measuring stick than test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will the SAT change the amount of pages students can read?

The purpose of SAT is not to do what you said. It is to increase the likelihood that students who can read well are admitted to UCs. At a poorly resourced high school in California, two 4.0 students with the same ECs can have fairly different math/reading ability that isn't reflected in their GPA due to grade inflation. By being test blind, schools have no way to tell their ability apart, potentially leading to the weaker 4.0 student getting admitted over the stronger one. This weaker student is the source of UC professors' complaint. By removing test blind, the schools can now better assess their math/reading ability and make a more informed decision. At the end of the day, the poorly resourced high school still has one student admitted. It is not losing its spot to an affluent high school. It just sends the stronger student to the UCs.

^^^^^^ What she said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will the SAT change the amount of pages students can read?

The purpose of SAT is not to do what you said. It is to increase the likelihood that students who can read well are admitted to UCs. At a poorly resourced high school in California, two 4.0 students with the same ECs can have fairly different math/reading ability that isn't reflected in their GPA due to grade inflation. By being test blind, schools have no way to tell their ability apart, potentially leading to the weaker 4.0 student getting admitted over the stronger one. This weaker student is the source of UC professors' complaint. By removing test blind, the schools can now better assess their math/reading ability and make a more informed decision. At the end of the day, the poorly resourced high school still has one student admitted. It is not losing its spot to an affluent high school. It just sends the stronger student to the UCs.

The entire purpose of the SAT was to find the bright kids who didn't have the opportunity to go to Andover, Choate, St. Albans and so on - the usual lame students that glided through Harvard and Yale with gentleman Cs. There really was an attempt in the 80s and 90s to be pretty merit focused. And the SAT was a means to that end.

Obviously, things are different today. Colleges like Berkeley and other universities are going through contortions to dismiss tests as racist. But again. the entire purpose of standardized tests was to find smart kids of every background and get them into the top universities.

I don't know if parents here are just nervous to be honest, but no the SAT is not to normalize the field. We have too many unqualified first gen students with no business going to an elite schools. It is okay for wealthier people to be in better positions and places. That's just life.

If we actually cared about merit, first the college admissions process is entirely too late. Second, we'd look at peer nations with much better rigorous standardized exams. You can get a 750 on the math section of the SAT and be completely unprepared for an engineering major. That's bonkers, but it is how we appease the DEI crowd. The point is there are too many students who shouldn't be at these schools, and that is okay. Hierarchy is not bad.

[Anonymous]

Would only help applicants like mine, whose 1600 wasn’t even taken into consideration during the admissions process.

Worked out anyway, but maybe a Regents scholarship would have been the suitable reward for doing something only 100 - 150 of the nation’s nearly 4,000,000 HS graduates pull off every year.

[Anonymous]

Anyone still advocating for "test blind" needs to go and crawl back under a rock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS had a 790 on the math SAT and 750 RW SAT and didn't get in. Only UC he got into was UC Santa Cruz.

Meanwhile he got into Williams, Tufts, Carleton, Wesleyan, WashU and more.

Similar story here. It’s all about the PiQs and a high GPA (low rigor is fine).

Low rigor won’t get you into a top UC, especially if you are from a competitive region. In the Bay Area a 1550 along with a 4.5 and lots of APs is required to have a decent shot. At many schools if you aren’t ELC (top 9%) you are pretty much screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would only help applicants like mine, whose 1600 wasn’t even taken into consideration during the admissions process.

Worked out anyway, but maybe a Regents scholarship would have been the suitable reward for doing something only 100 - 150 of the nation’s nearly 4,000,000 HS graduates pull off every year.

Your kid had 600, not 1600. Quit making things up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS had a 790 on the math SAT and 750 RW SAT and didn't get in. Only UC he got into was UC Santa Cruz.

Meanwhile he got into Williams, Tufts, Carleton, Wesleyan, WashU and more.

Similar story here. It’s all about the PiQs and a high GPA (low rigor is fine).

Low rigor won’t get you into a top UC, especially if you are from a competitive region. In the Bay Area a 1550 along with a 4.5 and lots of APs is required to have a decent shot. At many schools if you aren’t ELC (top 9%) you are pretty much screwed.

Yes I know that the UCs are test blind. But, Navience is your friend and looking at our Bay Area private it is easy to see that only kids with top test scores get in. The UCs admissions system is really good at filtering and finding the best kids at a school. It really speaks to just how weak many CA public schools really are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would only help applicants like mine, whose 1600 wasn’t even taken into consideration during the admissions process.

Worked out anyway, but maybe a Regents scholarship would have been the suitable reward for doing something only 100 - 150 of the nation’s nearly 4,000,000 HS graduates pull off every year.

Your kid had 600, not 1600. Quit making things up.

You are so dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS had a 790 on the math SAT and 750 RW SAT and didn't get in. Only UC he got into was UC Santa Cruz.

Meanwhile he got into Williams, Tufts, Carleton, Wesleyan, WashU and more.

Similar story here. It’s all about the PiQs and a high GPA (low rigor is fine).

Low rigor won’t get you into a top UC, especially if you are from a competitive region. In the Bay Area a 1550 along with a 4.5 and lots of APs is required to have a decent shot. At many schools if you aren’t ELC (top 9%) you are pretty much screwed.

Yes I know that the UCs are test blind. But, Navience is your friend and looking at our Bay Area private it is easy to see that only kids with top test scores get in. The UCs admissions system is really good at filtering and finding the best kids at a school. It really speaks to just how weak many CA public schools really are.

Admission gets us are from a low quality school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would only help applicants like mine, whose 1600 wasn’t even taken into consideration during the admissions process.

Worked out anyway, but maybe a Regents scholarship would have been the suitable reward for doing something only 100 - 150 of the nation’s nearly 4,000,000 HS graduates pull off every year.

One and done 600?

[Anonymous]

If US News ranking considered student qualifications, this will change quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DS had a 790 on the math SAT and 750 RW SAT and didn't get in. Only UC he got into was UC Santa Cruz.

Meanwhile he got into Williams, Tufts, Carleton, Wesleyan, WashU and more.

Same SAT score for my son. He did get into a “higher” UC, but not Cal or UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If US News ranking considered student qualifications, this will change quickly.

US News cares more about equity than merit. That's why UC Merced is ranked close to be a top 50 college in the country.

If thousands or UCSD students can't do middle school math and UC Berkeley students are deficient in Algebra and Trig and reading, imagine what the student body at UC Merced is like? It has over a 90% acceptance rate, yield under 10%, pre-test banned average SATs of 1070.

The UC system use to be the envy of the country. Now it is a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would only help applicants like mine, whose 1600 wasn’t even taken into consideration during the admissions process.

Worked out anyway, but maybe a Regents scholarship would have been the suitable reward for doing something only 100 - 150 of the nation’s nearly 4,000,000 HS graduates pull off every year.

I'm pretty sure it is more than 100-150. More like 800ish