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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is definitely just a move to increase application numbers

UC schools don't need help finding applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really would have hurt me. I was a great student, but I know that my score of 1500 on the SAT is what got me into my top college.

But you don't know that. You were already a great student. You probably had great letters of recommendation. You probably wrote well. Did they REALLY need the SAT to tell them you were qualified/competitive/etc?

DP. Two candiates with equal applications, but one has a 1500 and the other has 1300 - the 1500 is more qualified. This is about chosing between people.

The severe and mistaken presupposition this position and ones like it begin with is that admissions is like a track meet where the fastest times rank and claim the available prizes.

It isn't.

The colleges get to pick who they want to build the class they want. It they want to pick a candidate who is lower in every single academic category because they think they are a nice kid who will be an asset on the campus, they get to. That's it. They get to, as long as they violate no laws. Even if you think that is a bad decision by them, it is their decision to make.

Once you understand that, you understand why many people feel test scores are a detriment to the process.

For the record I am not anti-test and both my kids did well on theirs, including a first-time 36 and I am sure that helped their Ivy admission. But the schools get to choose who they want, just like employers get to hire who they want based on their own criteria - they don't have to hire the highest GPA.

Personally, I think that's fine for all private colleges, but state supported universities should be required to use more objective criteria. High performing students should not be shut out of the flagship in favor of "nice kids".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really would have hurt me. I was a great student, but I know that my score of 1500 on the SAT is what got me into my top college.

But you don't know that. You were already a great student. You probably had great letters of recommendation. You probably wrote well. Did they REALLY need the SAT to tell them you were qualified/competitive/etc?

DP. Two candiates with equal applications, but one has a 1500 and the other has 1300 - the 1500 is more qualified. This is about chosing between people.

The severe and mistaken presupposition this position and ones like it begin with is that admissions is like a track meet where the fastest times rank and claim the available prizes.

It isn't.

The colleges get to pick who they want to build the class they want. It they want to pick a candidate who is lower in every single academic category because they think they are a nice kid who will be an asset on the campus, they get to. That's it. They get to, as long as they violate no laws. Even if you think that is a bad decision by them, it is their decision to make.

Once you understand that, you understand why many people feel test scores are a detriment to the process.

For the record I am not anti-test and both my kids did well on theirs, including a first-time 36 and I am sure that helped their Ivy admission. But the schools get to choose who they want, just like employers get to hire who they want based on their own criteria - they don't have to hire the highest GPA.

Personally, I think that's fine for all private colleges, but state supported universities should be required to use more objective criteria. High performing students should not be shut out of the flagship in favor of "nice kids".

And how does any school know if your child is a “nice kid”? Most don’t do interviews.
Social engineering is garbage and we will see the results of this experiment in 4 years when graduation rates decline. Either that - or there will be a shift in academic standards in grading. No surprise California schools in this boat.

[Anonymous]

That’s equity for ya!

[Anonymous]

This is just a method for the UC schools to start affirmative action again and limit the number of asians/whites and increase underrepresented minorities. When you had objective scores there was difficulty getting around that. Now that there are no scores it's up the admissions officers to decide which grades from which schools and what extra curriculars are more important for their classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just a method for the UC schools to start affirmative action again and limit the number of asians/whites and increase underrepresented minorities. When you had objective scores there was difficulty getting around that. Now that there are no scores it's up the admissions officers to decide which grades from which schools and what extra curriculars are more important for their classes.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just a method for the UC schools to start affirmative action again and limit the number of asians/whites and increase underrepresented minorities. When you had objective scores there was difficulty getting around that. Now that there are no scores it's up the admissions officers to decide which grades from which schools and what extra curriculars are more important for their classes.

+1

+2, the director of admissions at Berkely said he wants UCB to become a Hispanic serving institution. Without Aff Action this is the only other way to do it. Last year their avg gpa dropped to 3.7 from 3.9