University Of California Reaches Final Decision: No More Standardized Admission Testing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's fantastic. Study after study after study has confirmed the high correlation between family income and parental education and SAT and ACT scores. Generally speaking, high scores were born on third base. It doesn't make them any smarter.

There's vastly more SAT/ACT variance in similar income groups than between them. The UC system actually did the research and determined that standardized tests were the [b]single best predictor of college success. The UC system isn't removing standardized tests because they don't work; they're removing them because they do.

This is flatly wrong. Read p.25 of the report. HSGPA alone predicts 12% of variance in freshman gpa, SAT only models predict 10%. This is exactly consistent with the College Board’s research. What the report said was the SAT scores plus HSGPA is the best predictor, again consistent with the College Board’s research.


https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/sttf/sttf-report.pdf#page65

Page 25 is simply talking about table 3.1 and the slightly counterintuitive finding that test scores worked better than grades for underrepresented students. Look at the table (3.1) they're referencing. For all students, test scores explain 21% of the variance in grades and HS GPA explain 16%. I agree that both together are superior, as expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also believe this will have a domino effect.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2021/11/19/university-of-california-reaches-final-decision-no-more-standardized-admission-testing/?sh=624158562ec5

After years of debate and study, the University of California (UC) has reached a final decision to end the use of standardized admissions tests such as the ACT and SAT.

But, because of UC’s reputation and size, its decision to stop using the tests and to give up for now on finding any alternatives to them is expected to lead other institutions to the same conclusion, continuing the anti-test movement that’s become a national trend.

The fundamental problem with this approach is that it’s cruel to brilliant kids stuck in rotten schools that can’t tolerate brilliant kids.

Rich kids and kids from great schools shouldn’t get to compete by outprepping everyone else on standardized tests, but Matildas trapped in hateful, Choky schools should be able to use great standardized test scores to get top colleges’ attention, as a cry for help.

And, go on kids’ sites, and you can find many posts from low-income and moderate-income Black kids who’ve scored over 750 on at least one part of the SAT. I think the California universities should do an impact study to show they have other ways to identify kids who would have great SAT scores but who may have a hard time sucking up to rotten high school teachers well enough to get a 4.0 unweighted GPA.

[Anonymous]

According to DCUM, low-income brilliant children don't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: According to DCUM, low-income brilliant children don't exist.

They exist, they're just very rare.

[Anonymous]

2 points that haven’t been mentioned.

On, the SAT and AC are very preppable with minimal resources. My DD got an 8 point bump in science reasoning by working through the $20 For The Love of Science ACT prep book that was recommended on Amazon. 26 to 34. She just hadn’t understood what the section was testing. Nothing else moved more than a point, and she went from a 33 to a 35 total. You don’t need expensive prep. You need the self discipline to work through a paperback prep book and/or Khan Academy.

I can’t link to an app on my iPhone, but there is an interesting discussion on the applying to college subreddit about AOs who have told his years class that they will be relying heavily on APs scores, since SATs are out and It’s hard to determine what junior grades mean with so many kid in DL and a lot of cheating. They are using APs to validate junior year grades. My kid has 5 4s/5s banked, so her As from 10th and 11th are validated.

I found this really interesting. And it makes sense.

Of course, it’s only as reliable as any other info from Reddit, which is to say, who knows?

BTW, my kid is t apply to UCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's fantastic. Study after study after study has confirmed the high correlation between family income and parental education and SAT and ACT scores. Generally speaking, high scores were born on third base. It doesn't make them any smarter.

There's vastly more SAT/ACT variance in similar income groups than between them. The UC system actually did the research and determined that standardized tests were the [b]single best predictor of college success. The UC system isn't removing standardized tests because they don't work; they're removing them because they do.

This is flatly wrong. Read p.25 of the report. HSGPA alone predicts 12% of variance in freshman gpa, SAT only models predict 10%. This is exactly consistent with the College Board’s research. What the report said was the SAT scores plus HSGPA is the best predictor, again consistent with the College Board’s research.


https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/sttf/sttf-report.pdf#page65

Thanks, you’re right. Interesting that this result differs from what the College Board reports.
Page 25 is simply talking about table 3.1 and the slightly counterintuitive finding that test scores worked better than grades for underrepresented students. Look at the table (3.1) they're referencing. For all students, test scores explain 21% of the variance in grades and HS GPA explain 16%. I agree that both together are superior, as expected.

[Anonymous]

There are two different studies being discussed here — one re: whether prep works, and one re: whether test scores are predictive of success.

I posted above critical of the study that found prep didn’t work. TLDR: they manipulated the data to discount gains made by privileged kids (aka kids that are most likely to get effective tutoring).

I don’t disagree that test scores are predictive of success. The question is, what are the tests actually testing for? It is a fact that privileged kids — not only the wealthy, but those with involved parents who value education — do well in college. Prep can be expensive, but it can be done, as others have pointed out, for minimal cost. But how many kids would do that without parental encouragement and oversight? My kid didn’t do it, even with parental encouragement. They did do it when I paid for a tutor, and raised their ACT score from a 31 to a 34. That’s the difference between being eligible for elite schools and, well…not.

At the end of the day, my kid scored well enough that they will be benefitted by an emphasis on test scores. But this process did convince me that the test is, at best, an extremely inaccurate measure of raw intelligence, and throwing $$ at the problem can make a major difference. If all you care about is whether the kid has the background and support systems in place to succeed in college, that’s a good thing, I guess. But many (most) universities have decided that they don’t want to discriminate against bright kids who have happened to not to be born with those advantages.

It actually seems to me that test optional is the best of several highly imperfect options. Let the kids that have high test scores submit them (and expect that from privileged kids), but don’t hold it against kids who don’t have them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: According to DCUM, low-income brilliant children don't exist.

They exist, they're just very rare.

So, to be precise, all poors are stupid according to DCUM.

Please explain how the top specialized test-in high schools in NYC were up to 59% low-income students before the DeBlasio changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2 points that haven’t been mentioned.

On, the SAT and AC are very preppable with minimal resources. My DD got an 8 point bump in science reasoning by working through the $20 For The Love of Science ACT prep book that was recommended on Amazon. 26 to 34. She just hadn’t understood what the section was testing. Nothing else moved more than a point, and she went from a 33 to a 35 total. You don’t need expensive prep. You need the self discipline to work through a paperback prep book and/or Khan Academy.

I can’t link to an app on my iPhone, but there is an interesting discussion on the applying to college subreddit about AOs who have told his years class that they will be relying heavily on APs scores, since SATs are out and It’s hard to determine what junior grades mean with so many kid in DL and a lot of cheating. They are using APs to validate junior year grades. My kid has 5 4s/5s banked, so her As from 10th and 11th are validated.

I found this really interesting. And it makes sense.

Of course, it’s only as reliable as any other info from Reddit, which is to say, who knows?

BTW, my kid is t apply to UCs.

My DC’s private school doesn’t have AP classes and GPAs are a lot lower than you see in public schools that weight grades. I really believe this harmed their college admissions during the Covid test optional period (class of 2022).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 points that haven’t been mentioned.

On, the SAT and AC are very preppable with minimal resources. My DD got an 8 point bump in science reasoning by working through the $20 For The Love of Science ACT prep book that was recommended on Amazon. 26 to 34. She just hadn’t understood what the section was testing. Nothing else moved more than a point, and she went from a 33 to a 35 total. You don’t need expensive prep. You need the self discipline to work through a paperback prep book and/or Khan Academy.

I can’t link to an app on my iPhone, but there is an interesting discussion on the applying to college subreddit about AOs who have told his years class that they will be relying heavily on APs scores, since SATs are out and It’s hard to determine what junior grades mean with so many kid in DL and a lot of cheating. They are using APs to validate junior year grades. My kid has 5 4s/5s banked, so her As from 10th and 11th are validated.

I found this really interesting. And it makes sense.

Of course, it’s only as reliable as any other info from Reddit, which is to say, who knows?

BTW, my kid is t apply to UCs.

My DC’s private school doesn’t have AP classes and GPAs are a lot lower than you see in public schools that weight grades. I really believe this harmed their college admissions during the Covid test optional period (class of 2022).

You're the one who chose to pay for a school to do that to your kids chances. Blame yourself, not the colleges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: According to DCUM, low-income brilliant children don't exist.

They exist, they're just very rare.

So, to be precise, all poors are stupid according to DCUM.

Please explain how the top specialized test-in high schools in NYC were up to 59% low-income students before the DeBlasio changes.

Poor Asians, which aren't the poor kids that anyone who posted the original comment talks or cares about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: According to DCUM, low-income brilliant children don't exist.

They exist, they're just very rare.

All the more reason to take simple steps, like looking at low-income students’ SAT scores, to see if their GPAs give us an incomplete picture of their talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: According to DCUM, low-income brilliant children don't exist.

They exist, they're just very rare.

All the more reason to take simple steps, like looking at low-income students’ SAT scores, to see if their GPAs give us an incomplete picture of their talent.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

this is definitely just a move to increase application numbers

[Anonymous]

That’s a silly take.