NEWS: UC schools are dropping SAT requirement for class of 2021

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And what will happen, practically speaking, is that good testers will take the tests and submit scores anyway.

If the tests are actually offered at some point again this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the university can still consider SAT/ACT scores for students who submit then, doesn’t that put students who don’t submit at a disadvantage?

Let’s say you have two applicants who are equally qualified....but one submits a stellar SAT score, and one submits no score at all. Wouldn’t they be more likely
to admit the student with the strong test score?

Wondering if this change is more of a talking point than an actual change. Unless the process is “SAT blind”, I don’t see how it wouldn’t still be an advantage to submit test scores.

Thoughts?

Your instincts are correct. In the recent past, a number of schools have adopted this policy as a way 1) to increase diversity without explicitly abandoning their admissions requirements in re quality/rigor. Nearly anyone can get an impressive high GPA these days, owing to widespread rampant grade inflation. So a test-optional school can admit otherwise weak standardized test-takers without compromising the average GPA (or test scores) of admitted/enrolled students.

The second reason schools have adopted this optional test score policy is that they know the kids with good test scores will furnish them, and the applicants with mediocre or poor scores won't. Thus, the school will be able to report higher average test scores.

Lookie here, Ma. My USNWR ranking just went up! It's like magic!

I don't think this will affect the UC schools that much. It may, at the margins, enhance enrollment of favored minority groups -- the UC schools have been looking for a way around the law for years now, in order to discriminate in favor of favored groups -- but you have to believe that the least favored of all groups, Asian Americans, will continue to submit their test scores. They'd be crazy not to do so.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but do you actually KNOW how the test optional policies work in practice at most colleges? I have not been able to find anything from someone inside a college admissions office to confirm or refute your view.

Also, "discriminate" is not the word I would choose to describe efforts to diversify the student body, but I understand that you and I may disagree on this issue.

Well of course you haven't; to give you a straight answer would amount to a statement against interest, as the lawyers would say.

Maybe the Asian plaintiffs in the suit against Harvard will be able to get some admissions officers to testify under oath, and put that question to them. (If so, I expect the witnesses to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.)

BTW, the manner in which I've used the term discriminate is how it's used in the California law that bars race-based affirmative action in public college admissions.

[Anonymous]

^^^you must not have kids if you think nearly anyone can get a high GPA. Sounds like grumpy old man ranting. Grade inflation doesn’t eliminate relative performance. The kids at our school at the top are smart and work really hard. Colleges know how to sort the best performers from the rest.

[Anonymous]

If anything, in theory, it should be easier for colleges to separate the best performers at high schools that don't have grade inflation. I have some skepticism about colleges' ability to do so at high schools with lots of grade inflation. Comparing between high schools may be less clear-cut and AOs are human; I wonder whether the high gpa at more inflationary schools still wins out over the slightly lower one at some other high school, a sort of illusion, like the same amount of food on a small plate appearing bigger than when placed on a large plate.

[Anonymous]

But back to a key question from a prior post. Does anyone actually KNOW how test-optional colleges have been operating, or whether the UC system is going to operate differently? Is there any data out there?

By the way, Harvard actually lost its lawsuit after depositions were taken, although the case is on appeal. The people who sued emphasized the zero-sum theory of college admissions. If you act affirmatively in favor of one group, the argument goes, you are implicitly acting against other groups. Favoring athletes discriminates against non-athletes. Favoring legacies discriminates against non-legacies. Favoring underrepresented minorities discriminates against Caucasians and Asians. That's the argument.

In my opinion, and Harvard's, that kind of favoritism is not the same as "discrimination" toward any particular group, especially in the context of affirmative action. It's just a recognition that diversity within the school is good for the school and for society. Also, there are populations that tend to do well once admitted, and also do well after graduation, even though they don't do all as well on standardized tests. For this reason, many people are suspicious of standardized tests even though they do not discriminate in the traditional sense, in that the graders at the College Board don't know the race of any particular test taker. But the system as a whole can seem discriminatory, especially if the tests are accurate predictors for many students but not students from all groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But back to a key question from a prior post. Does anyone actually KNOW how test-optional colleges have been operating, or whether the UC system is going to operate differently? Is there any data out there?

By the way, Harvard actually lost its lawsuit after depositions were taken, although the case is on appeal. The people who sued emphasized the zero-sum theory of college admissions. If you act affirmatively in favor of one group, the argument goes, you are implicitly acting against other groups. Favoring athletes discriminates against non-athletes. Favoring legacies discriminates against non-legacies. Favoring underrepresented minorities discriminates against Caucasians and Asians. That's the argument.

In my opinion, and Harvard's, that kind of favoritism is not the same as "discrimination" toward any particular group, especially in the context of affirmative action. It's just a recognition that diversity within the school is good for the school and for society. Also, there are populations that tend to do well once admitted, and also do well after graduation, even though they don't do all as well on standardized tests. For this reason, many people are suspicious of standardized tests even though they do not discriminate in the traditional sense, in that the graders at the College Board don't know the race of any particular test taker. But the system as a whole can seem discriminatory, especially if the tests are accurate predictors for many students but not students from all groups.

My understanding is that the data out there is not that helpful, though test optional colleges obviously claim that it works.

And from a certain vantage point, perhaps test optional does work, in the sense that they feel they've been able to ferret out the students you mention, whose potential may not be reflected in a test score for various reasons. My doubt would be that they're able to ferret out the potential in all students across the board in the absence of test scores. In other words, it's a case by case thing.

GPAs come with their own set of issues at least insofar as distinguishing within the range of, say, 3.3-3.8, essentially the difference between a B+ and an A-. And there may be students for whom GPA is less predictive than test scores, for a whole other set of various reasons. At least, with holistic review, there's a chance for them too.

UCs posted their recent study: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf and statement from the faction wanting to eliminate them https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/additional-statement-sttf-report-feb20.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But back to a key question from a prior post. Does anyone actually KNOW how test-optional colleges have been operating, or whether the UC system is going to operate differently? Is there any data out there?

By the way, Harvard actually lost its lawsuit after depositions were taken, although the case is on appeal. The people who sued emphasized the zero-sum theory of college admissions. If you act affirmatively in favor of one group, the argument goes, you are implicitly acting against other groups. Favoring athletes discriminates against non-athletes. Favoring legacies discriminates against non-legacies. Favoring underrepresented minorities discriminates against Caucasians and Asians. That's the argument.

In my opinion, and Harvard's, that kind of favoritism is not the same as "discrimination" toward any particular group, especially in the context of affirmative action. It's just a recognition that diversity within the school is good for the school and for society. Also, there are populations that tend to do well once admitted, and also do well after graduation, even though they don't do all as well on standardized tests. For this reason, many people are suspicious of standardized tests even though they do not discriminate in the traditional sense, in that the graders at the College Board don't know the race of any particular test taker. But the system as a whole can seem discriminatory, especially if the tests are accurate predictors for many students but not students from all groups.

You've swallowed all the talking points that proponents of reverse discrimination traffic in; but, here's a test to prove me wrong: cite with specificity the empirical evidence that educational outcomes for all students improve as the direct result of racial diversity in the classroom. (I don't think this is a test you can pass.)

Second: since when did non-athletes and non-legacies become protected classes under the law? If the Asians used such an argument, or suggested such an argument, I very much doubt it was persuasive, let alone dispositive.

The Asians won their case because reverse discrimination, or race-based discrimination, is illegal as a matter of law (see Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment), even when practiced by a nominally private actor, such as Harvard. (Harvard is so entangled with the Feds financially that it falls under the aegis of the Constitution and protections afforded thereunder.)

I suspect that if Harvard is to prevail in its appeal, it will need to be able to pass the test I posed to you, above. And Harvard won't be able to do so. Because it's facially preposterous to argue, e.g., that white kids or Asian kids will be impaired and debilitated in terms of learning capacity and learning outcomes unless there are blacks and Hispanics in their classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But back to a key question from a prior post. Does anyone actually KNOW how test-optional colleges have been operating, or whether the UC system is going to operate differently? Is there any data out there?

By the way, Harvard actually lost its lawsuit after depositions were taken, although the case is on appeal. The people who sued emphasized the zero-sum theory of college admissions. If you act affirmatively in favor of one group, the argument goes, you are implicitly acting against other groups. Favoring athletes discriminates against non-athletes. Favoring legacies discriminates against non-legacies. Favoring underrepresented minorities discriminates against Caucasians and Asians. That's the argument.

In my opinion, and Harvard's, that kind of favoritism is not the same as "discrimination" toward any particular group, especially in the context of affirmative action. It's just a recognition that diversity within the school is good for the school and for society. Also, there are populations that tend to do well once admitted, and also do well after graduation, even though they don't do all as well on standardized tests. For this reason, many people are suspicious of standardized tests even though they do not discriminate in the traditional sense, in that the graders at the College Board don't know the race of any particular test taker. But the system as a whole can seem discriminatory, especially if the tests are accurate predictors for many students but not students from all groups.

_______________________________________________________

You've swallowed all the talking points that proponents of reverse discrimination traffic in; but, here's a test to prove me wrong: cite with specificity the empirical evidence that educational outcomes for all students improve as the direct result of racial diversity in the classroom. (I don't think this is a test you can pass.)

Second: since when did non-athletes and non-legacies become protected classes under the law? If the Asians used such an argument, or suggested such an argument, I very much doubt it was persuasive, let alone dispositive.

The Asians won their case because reverse discrimination, or race-based discrimination, is illegal as a matter of law (see Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment), even when practiced by a nominally private actor, such as Harvard. (Harvard is so entangled with the Feds financially that it falls under the aegis of the Constitution and protections afforded thereunder.)

I suspect that if Harvard is to prevail in its appeal, it will need to be able to pass the test I posed to you, above. And Harvard won't be able to do so. Because it's facially preposterous to argue, e.g., that white kids or Asian kids will be impaired and debilitated in terms of learning capacity and learning outcomes unless there are blacks and Hispanics in their classrooms.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what will happen, practically speaking, is that good testers will take the tests and submit scores anyway.

If the tests are actually offered at some point again this year.

College board is a money whore. They will find a way to get their $$$.

[Anonymous]

College Board has a huge interest in making it happen. My concern would be the addition of online testing and all that goes with it - cheating and subsequent devaluing of exisiting scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what will happen, practically speaking, is that good testers will take the tests and submit scores anyway.

If the tests are actually offered at some point again this year.

Plenty of juniors already have SAT scores, although may not have the chance to get it higher via retests. Our HS offered an SAT prep class in the Fall that was nearly all juniors and they all, including my DS, took it in December. Glad we got that done early!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what will happen, practically speaking, is that good testers will take the tests and submit scores anyway.

If the tests are actually offered at some point again this year.

Plenty of juniors already have SAT scores, although may not have the chance to get it higher via retests. Our HS offered an SAT prep class in the Fall that was nearly all juniors and they all, including my DS, took it in December. Glad we got that done early!

Yes, plenty have taken it but plenty haven't.

[Anonymous]

Vassar and Pomona are also going test-optional next year, as are Tufts, BU and Davidson. Seems like the SAT’s days may be numbered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vassar and Pomona are also going test-optional next year, as are Tufts, BU and Davidson. Seems like the SAT’s days may be numbered.

I think so too. How will colleges choose students? I feel bad for admissions offices...it will be very difficult and a lot of mistakes will be made. Many worthy students will lose out to students who are not as good students.

I think “good colleges” will become weaker. The best students will be spread across various colleges instead of concentrated in top 20. Maybe it’s a great equalizer, and I’m thinking beyond equalizing student opportunity, but equalizing university prestige.

[Anonymous]

GPAs are relatively meaningless, owing to grade inflation.

So, if schools drop standardized testing as a req't for admission, the who process becomes entirely subjective.

The schools will love this. What could go wrong?

Especially if you're Asian....