Harvard is not alone. UC students Without 8th Grade Math Skills Skyrockets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This debate has been going on in California for years. Maybe the UC San Diego debacle has made it more apparent. The UC's admit based on high schools, not just merit of the general applicant pool. It is an equity driven way to avoid Prop 209.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1275465.page

Dominguez High has 1,600 students Dominguez High has 0 NMSF finalists and 0 Commended.
University High has 2,363 students. University High has 33 NMSF finalists, 102 Commended

Keep dreaming if you think their applications are being treated equally.

Dominguez High
Berkeley
21 Applied
6 Accepted
28% acceptance rate
UCLA
72 Applied
7 Accepted
7 Enrolled


University High
UC Berkeley
266 Applied
31 Accepted
14 Enrolled
11% acceptance rate
UCLA
294 Applied
24 Accepted
12 Enrolled

Equal acceptance rate for UCLA at both schools. FTR, I have lived in the Bay Area for 30 years and never heard of Dominguez High. Is this a cherry picked example to make a point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has devolved but much of the commentary now is about why test scores should be required for college admission. I respectfully do not think they should be. There is lots of research that shows SAT / ACT are biased to benefit Asians / Whites, and there are many reasons why URM do patently worse as a whole.

Lastly, most developed countries outside of the US don’t have admission exams. They use grades, coursework, and extra curriculars to decide who gets in. This inherently biased system of admissions exams using tests is a US thing, and it is geared to benefit those with means. Even the ones fighting the use of race based preference are the same ones using their means to gain an edge. It’s actually sickening.

Poor URM performance is directly linked to the massive percentage of single parent households in URM communities. Schools can’t fix it.

Yet UCSD has a near 90% graduation rate. Seems like things can be fixed.

You misunderstand. Schools can’t fix the disparity between URMs and non-URM academic performance. The much more qualified students not admitted are still more capable than the unqualified URMs that took their spot regardless of college graduation rate.

Nobody has a right to a spot, you really need to get your head around this simple concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate has been going on in California for years. Maybe the UC San Diego debacle has made it more apparent. The UC's admit based on high schools, not just merit of the general applicant pool. It is an equity driven way to avoid Prop 209.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1275465.page

Dominguez High has 1,600 students Dominguez High has 0 NMSF finalists and 0 Commended.
University High has 2,363 students. University High has 33 NMSF finalists, 102 Commended

Keep dreaming if you think their applications are being treated equally.

Dominguez High
Berkeley
21 Applied
6 Accepted
28% acceptance rate
UCLA
72 Applied
7 Accepted
7 Enrolled


University High
UC Berkeley
266 Applied
31 Accepted
14 Enrolled
11% acceptance rate
UCLA
294 Applied
24 Accepted
12 Enrolled

UC admissions are not based on High Schools, that is a myth. However, they do have a commitment to achieving a student population that broadly matches the regional distribution of students across the state. There is a group on DCUM that will not be satisfied until Berkely and UCLA are extensions of Gunn, Lynbrook, Monte Vista, Mission San Jose, Lowell and other Asian dominated High Schools in the Bay Area.

If they are light years more qualified, smarter and ready to excel then frankly they should make up the overwhelming majority.

Frankly you are wrong. Why? Because the state University system has a responsibility to the entire state and they need to take that responsibility seriously. Why? because if they don't you could end up with policies like those in Texas which would mean even fewer Bay Area kids getting into the top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate has been going on in California for years. Maybe the UC San Diego debacle has made it more apparent. The UC's admit based on high schools, not just merit of the general applicant pool. It is an equity driven way to avoid Prop 209.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1275465.page

Dominguez High has 1,600 students Dominguez High has 0 NMSF finalists and 0 Commended.
University High has 2,363 students. University High has 33 NMSF finalists, 102 Commended

Keep dreaming if you think their applications are being treated equally.

Dominguez High
Berkeley
21 Applied
6 Accepted
28% acceptance rate
UCLA
72 Applied
7 Accepted
7 Enrolled


University High
UC Berkeley
266 Applied
31 Accepted
14 Enrolled
11% acceptance rate
UCLA
294 Applied
24 Accepted
12 Enrolled

Equal acceptance rate for UCLA at both schools. FTR, I have lived in the Bay Area for 30 years and never heard of Dominguez High. Is this a cherry picked example to make a point?

I am sure that it was but they didn't do a very good job of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread has devolved but much of the commentary now is about why test scores should be required for college admission. I respectfully do not think they should be. There is lots of research that shows SAT / ACT are biased to benefit Asians / Whites, and there are many reasons why URM do patently worse as a whole.

Lastly, most developed countries outside of the US don’t have admission exams. They use grades, coursework, and extra curriculars to decide who gets in. This inherently biased system of admissions exams using tests is a US thing, and it is geared to benefit those with means. Even the ones fighting the use of race based preference are the same ones using their means to gain an edge. It’s actually sickening.

Can you cite that research?

White and Asian students have higher test scores, but that could either be discrimination of a reflection of disparate educational achievement.

The research I'm familiar with shows that it's the latter:

"Research has increasingly shown that standardized test scores contain real information, helping to predict college grades, chances of graduation and post-college success. ... Some people have worried that SAT scores are merely a proxy for income or race, Sacerdote noted, but the data should alleviate this concern. Within every racial group, students with higher scores do better in college.

Intuitively, the progressive position sounds as if it should reduce inequities. But data has suggested that some of these policies may do the opposite, harming vulnerable people.

In the case of standardized tests, those people are the lower-income, Black and Hispanic students who would have done well on the ACT or SAT but who never took the test because they didn’t have to. Many colleges have effectively tried to protect these students from standardized tests. In the process, the colleges denied some of them an opportunity to change their lives — and change society — for the better."

Free access to the NYT article quotes are from:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/07/briefing/the-misguided-war-on-the-sat.html?unlocked_article_code=1.108.WN--.GfzDVxMtBgk1&smid=url-share

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has devolved but much of the commentary now is about why test scores should be required for college admission. I respectfully do not think they should be. There is lots of research that shows SAT / ACT are biased to benefit Asians / Whites, and there are many reasons why URM do patently worse as a whole.

Lastly, most developed countries outside of the US don’t have admission exams. They use grades, coursework, and extra curriculars to decide who gets in. This inherently biased system of admissions exams using tests is a US thing, and it is geared to benefit those with means. Even the ones fighting the use of race based preference are the same ones using their means to gain an edge. It’s actually sickening.

Poor URM performance is directly linked to the massive percentage of single parent households in URM communities. Schools can’t fix it.

Yet UCSD has a near 90% graduation rate. Seems like things can be fixed.

You misunderstand. Schools can’t fix the disparity between URMs and non-URM academic performance. The much more qualified students not admitted are still more capable than the unqualified URMs that took their spot regardless of college graduation rate.

Nobody has a right to a spot, you really need to get your head around this simple concept.

And that's exactly the point. Everyone seems to think under-represented minority students from bad schools with a bad education have the "right" to go to the UCs and other good universities. But why do they have the "right" while really talented students from more middle class neighborhoods don't have the "right," despite way outperforming these chosen URM students academically?

In real life, parents that care about their kids will choose a less than ideal apartment or rental to get their kids into a good school zone. Why do these families and students have to give up their chance for a good college to accommodate the "rights" of shitty students from shitty schools from families that don't care about education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate has been going on in California for years. Maybe the UC San Diego debacle has made it more apparent. The UC's admit based on high schools, not just merit of the general applicant pool. It is an equity driven way to avoid Prop 209.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1275465.page

Dominguez High has 1,600 students Dominguez High has 0 NMSF finalists and 0 Commended.
University High has 2,363 students. University High has 33 NMSF finalists, 102 Commended

Keep dreaming if you think their applications are being treated equally.

Dominguez High
Berkeley
21 Applied
6 Accepted
28% acceptance rate
UCLA
72 Applied
7 Accepted
7 Enrolled


University High
UC Berkeley
266 Applied
31 Accepted
14 Enrolled
11% acceptance rate
UCLA
294 Applied
24 Accepted
12 Enrolled

UC admissions are not based on High Schools, that is a myth. However, they do have a commitment to achieving a student population that broadly matches the regional distribution of students across the state. There is a group on DCUM that will not be satisfied until Berkely and UCLA are extensions of Gunn, Lynbrook, Monte Vista, Mission San Jose, Lowell and other Asian dominated High Schools in the Bay Area.

If they are light years more qualified, smarter and ready to excel then frankly they should make up the overwhelming majority.

Frankly you are wrong. Why? Because the state University system has a responsibility to the entire state and they need to take that responsibility seriously. Why? because if they don't you could end up with policies like those in Texas which would mean even fewer Bay Area kids getting into the top schools.

They do take educating everyone seriously. This is why community colleges exist and UCs hold seats to admit a high %. This is why Cal states exist! Cal states are struggling to fill seats while UCs are scooping up unqualified kids. Those same unqualified kids would get a better education that would address their deep deficiencies because they are designed to do this.

It’s almost like busing where the UCs are hoping that top stat kids will go to low ranked UCs and Cal states to lift those up. They don’t though as those kids leave the state for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has devolved but much of the commentary now is about why test scores should be required for college admission. I respectfully do not think they should be. There is lots of research that shows SAT / ACT are biased to benefit Asians / Whites, and there are many reasons why URM do patently worse as a whole.

Lastly, most developed countries outside of the US don’t have admission exams. They use grades, coursework, and extra curriculars to decide who gets in. This inherently biased system of admissions exams using tests is a US thing, and it is geared to benefit those with means. Even the ones fighting the use of race based preference are the same ones using their means to gain an edge. It’s actually sickening.

Poor URM performance is directly linked to the massive percentage of single parent households in URM communities. Schools can’t fix it.

Yet UCSD has a near 90% graduation rate. Seems like things can be fixed.

You misunderstand. Schools can’t fix the disparity between URMs and non-URM academic performance. The much more qualified students not admitted are still more capable than the unqualified URMs that took their spot regardless of college graduation rate.

Nobody has a right to a spot, you really need to get your head around this simple concept.

And that's exactly the point. Everyone seems to think under-represented minority students from bad schools with a bad education have the "right" to go to the UCs and other good universities. But why do they have the "right" while really talented students from more middle class neighborhoods don't have the "right," despite way outperforming these chosen URM students academically?

In real life, parents that care about their kids will choose a less than ideal apartment or rental to get their kids into a good school zone. Why do these families and students have to give up their chance for a good college to accommodate the "rights" of shitty students from shitty schools from families that don't care about education?

Shitty students bc they scored low on a math test? I would argue there are shitty students and kids at the wealthy schools too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has devolved but much of the commentary now is about why test scores should be required for college admission. I respectfully do not think they should be. There is lots of research that shows SAT / ACT are biased to benefit Asians / Whites, and there are many reasons why URM do patently worse as a whole.

Lastly, most developed countries outside of the US don’t have admission exams. They use grades, coursework, and extra curriculars to decide who gets in. This inherently biased system of admissions exams using tests is a US thing, and it is geared to benefit those with means. Even the ones fighting the use of race based preference are the same ones using their means to gain an edge. It’s actually sickening.

Poor URM performance is directly linked to the massive percentage of single parent households in URM communities. Schools can’t fix it.

Yet UCSD has a near 90% graduation rate. Seems like things can be fixed.

You misunderstand. Schools can’t fix the disparity between URMs and non-URM academic performance. The much more qualified students not admitted are still more capable than the unqualified URMs that took their spot regardless of college graduation rate.

Nobody has a right to a spot, you really need to get your head around this simple concept.

And that's exactly the point. Everyone seems to think under-represented minority students from bad schools with a bad education have the "right" to go to the UCs and other good universities. But why do they have the "right" while really talented students from more middle class neighborhoods don't have the "right," despite way outperforming these chosen URM students academically?

In real life, parents that care about their kids will choose a less than ideal apartment or rental to get their kids into a good school zone. Why do these families and students have to give up their chance for a good college to accommodate the "rights" of shitty students from shitty schools from families that don't care about education?

Nobody has the right to any spot but the state has the right and the reason to ensure that the UC system (which is separate from the CSU system) maintains broad based support. And, this mess is a recent driven by the huge influx of tech families into the bay area over the past 25 years. It is not that long ago that this wasn't a contentious issue.

The simple truth is that for the most part the kids from the inland empire and the kids from Cupertino aren't competing for the same seats. URMs for the most part are not getting into CS, Engineering and Econ at UCB. They are getting into humanities seats. The admissions rates for Engineering/CS at UCB, UCLA, and other top UCs are far below the overall admissions rates and putting every single rural UC spot back into the pool isn't going to meaningfully change anything. For the typical kid from Cupertino HS where about 80% of the class applies to UCB the competition is the kid in the seat next to them, not some kid from Humboldt. The only thing that would change that is a huge expansion of seats at the top UCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate has been going on in California for years. Maybe the UC San Diego debacle has made it more apparent. The UC's admit based on high schools, not just merit of the general applicant pool. It is an equity driven way to avoid Prop 209.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1275465.page

Dominguez High has 1,600 students Dominguez High has 0 NMSF finalists and 0 Commended.
University High has 2,363 students. University High has 33 NMSF finalists, 102 Commended

Keep dreaming if you think their applications are being treated equally.

Dominguez High
Berkeley
21 Applied
6 Accepted
28% acceptance rate
UCLA
72 Applied
7 Accepted
7 Enrolled


University High
UC Berkeley
266 Applied
31 Accepted
14 Enrolled
11% acceptance rate
UCLA
294 Applied
24 Accepted
12 Enrolled

Equal acceptance rate for UCLA at both schools. FTR, I have lived in the Bay Area for 30 years and never heard of Dominguez High. Is this a cherry picked example to make a point?

Actually perfectly on point. This high school was not "cherry picked". You can pick any high school in California and you will see the same pattern: A low achieving high school receives proportionately the same number of acceptances to the "prestigious" UC's as a lower performing one.

University High is in Irvine. It has more than 100 commended National Merit Scholars and over 30 Semi-Finalists. Yet the acceptance rate for Berkeley and UCLA from students from University High will be the same as any other high school in California, even the ones where its graduates can't do third grade math. UC San Diego got hit in the head with a two by four with its equity drive. You don't have to wonder why, just look at how the UC's accept its students.

[Anonymous]

This was easy to predict. UC is a joke, and its priority has not been focused on attracting the best and brightest for at least 12 years. So glad these midwits are given a leg up for admission to the UC system - our nation's best research institutions. Well, at least a UC education is now "fair and equitable."

[Anonymous]

Here's an idea: FIX EDUCATION in primary and secondary grades, and get rid of the corrupt teachers' unions that don't care about educating our younger generation. If there are inequities, they should NOT be addressed at the end of the college admissions process. The "vulnerable" populations deserve access to the same kind of education that is offered in other districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate has been going on in California for years. Maybe the UC San Diego debacle has made it more apparent. The UC's admit based on high schools, not just merit of the general applicant pool. It is an equity driven way to avoid Prop 209.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1275465.page

Dominguez High has 1,600 students Dominguez High has 0 NMSF finalists and 0 Commended.
University High has 2,363 students. University High has 33 NMSF finalists, 102 Commended

Keep dreaming if you think their applications are being treated equally.

Dominguez High
Berkeley
21 Applied
6 Accepted
28% acceptance rate
UCLA
72 Applied
7 Accepted
7 Enrolled


University High
UC Berkeley
266 Applied
31 Accepted
14 Enrolled
11% acceptance rate
UCLA
294 Applied
24 Accepted
12 Enrolled

Equal acceptance rate for UCLA at both schools. FTR, I have lived in the Bay Area for 30 years and never heard of Dominguez High. Is this a cherry picked example to make a point?

Actually perfectly on point. This high school was not "cherry picked". You can pick any high school in California and you will see the same pattern: A low achieving high school receives proportionately the same number of acceptances to the "prestigious" UC's as a lower performing one.

University High is in Irvine. It has more than 100 commended National Merit Scholars and over 30 Semi-Finalists. Yet the acceptance rate for Berkeley and UCLA from students from University High will be the same as any other high school in California, even the ones where its graduates can't do third grade math. UC San Diego got hit in the head with a two by four with its equity drive. You don't have to wonder why, just look at how the UC's accept its students.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate has been going on in California for years. Maybe the UC San Diego debacle has made it more apparent. The UC's admit based on high schools, not just merit of the general applicant pool. It is an equity driven way to avoid Prop 209.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1275465.page

Dominguez High has 1,600 students Dominguez High has 0 NMSF finalists and 0 Commended.
University High has 2,363 students. University High has 33 NMSF finalists, 102 Commended

Keep dreaming if you think their applications are being treated equally.

Dominguez High
Berkeley
21 Applied
6 Accepted
28% acceptance rate
UCLA
72 Applied
7 Accepted
7 Enrolled


University High
UC Berkeley
266 Applied
31 Accepted
14 Enrolled
11% acceptance rate
UCLA
294 Applied
24 Accepted
12 Enrolled

Equal acceptance rate for UCLA at both schools. FTR, I have lived in the Bay Area for 30 years and never heard of Dominguez High. Is this a cherry picked example to make a point?

Actually perfectly on point. This high school was not "cherry picked". You can pick any high school in California and you will see the same pattern: A low achieving high school receives proportionately the same number of acceptances to the "prestigious" UC's as a lower performing one.

University High is in Irvine. It has more than 100 commended National Merit Scholars and over 30 Semi-Finalists. Yet the acceptance rate for Berkeley and UCLA from students from University High will be the same as any other high school in California, even the ones where its graduates can't do third grade math. UC San Diego got hit in the head with a two by four with its equity drive. You don't have to wonder why, just look at how the UC's accept its students.

But this is a terrible system. What about the single mothers that moved their kids into an apartment in a better school district so that she could protect her kids from the dysfunction, gangs, violence, and drugs in a bad district? And get a decent education?

Her kids get punished for her trying to do the right thing. But the meth-head who stayed in a terrible neighborhood with terrible schools and has an 18 year old kid with a 3rd grade level education and problems - that's the one California chooses for the full ride to Berkeley, because they're not as bad as the others from that school?

No thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate has been going on in California for years. Maybe the UC San Diego debacle has made it more apparent. The UC's admit based on high schools, not just merit of the general applicant pool. It is an equity driven way to avoid Prop 209.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1275465.page

Dominguez High has 1,600 students Dominguez High has 0 NMSF finalists and 0 Commended.
University High has 2,363 students. University High has 33 NMSF finalists, 102 Commended

Keep dreaming if you think their applications are being treated equally.

Dominguez High
Berkeley
21 Applied
6 Accepted
28% acceptance rate
UCLA
72 Applied
7 Accepted
7 Enrolled


University High
UC Berkeley
266 Applied
31 Accepted
14 Enrolled
11% acceptance rate
UCLA
294 Applied
24 Accepted
12 Enrolled

UC admissions are not based on High Schools, that is a myth. However, they do have a commitment to achieving a student population that broadly matches the regional distribution of students across the state. There is a group on DCUM that will not be satisfied until Berkely and UCLA are extensions of Gunn, Lynbrook, Monte Vista, Mission San Jose, Lowell and other Asian dominated High Schools in the Bay Area.

If they are light years more qualified, smarter and ready to excel then frankly they should make up the overwhelming majority.

Frankly you are wrong. Why? Because the state University system has a responsibility to the entire state and they need to take that responsibility seriously. Why? because if they don't you could end up with policies like those in Texas which would mean even fewer Bay Area kids getting into the top schools.

The dillusion is that this should start in college and not in pre-k, THAT is where CA needs to focus, geez, don't you see the big picture here???