Over 280 University of California STEM faculty members have signed an open letter calling on the UC Board of Regents to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

High performing students from low performing schools shouldn't be barred, and wouldn't be under a test-required environment.

Low performing students, be they from high or low performing schools, should be barred from top UCs where they will perform poorly and likely delay graduation and possibly drop out with five figures in debt, and instead be directed to Cal States where the standards aren't quite so demanding and the university environment is tailored to teaching the kids (rather than expecting the kids to more or less self-teach the material)

Where would you set the SAT bar?

How about use the threshold from international students from poor area?

[Anonymous]

The SAT is such an overrated measure, as in, the expectation that every school have like a 1500+ average SAT. Here's some historical averages from 2012 of various schools:
Amherst College 1320-1530
California Institute of Technology 1460-1590
Columbia University, Columbia College 1400-1570
Dartmouth College 1350-1560
Georgetown University 1290-1490
Harvard University 1390-1590
Johns Hopkins University 1310-1510
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1410-1570
Stanford University 1360-1550
University of California, Berkeley 1250-1510
University of California, Los Angeles 1170-1430
Williams College. 1310-1530

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

Back when UCs used standardized tests they could verify that a smart student from a low performing high school had the preparation to be able to succeed at UC. Now there is no outside verification through a standardized test and rampant grade inflation.

What if someone has a bad SAT but does well in calculus?

An A in calc is meaningless - you would no that if you read the UCAS report (many of the remedial students has As in calc). A 5 in the AP exam is meaningful, but AP scores for senior year don't come before results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make a post when the regents actually listen and Berkeley is test required. Berkeley undergrad has never really been Stanford…

Yet it was Stanford Professor, Jo Boaler, that set the state standards leading to the current math crisis in CA (and beyond). Where is the accountability? She falsified studies, scammed schools to hear about her flawed studies watering down math elementary and high school math standards (over the objection of parents and teachers), but remains a well-paid prof at Stanford?

Your issue is school administrators, not Boaler. What is with people here and letting admin get away with being terrible at their jobs but being hellbent on blaming teachers and academics?

Admin's job is to make the school look good, which means inflating grades to boost grad rates. You can't blame schools for behaving in their own self interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make a post when the regents actually listen and Berkeley is test required. Berkeley undergrad has never really been Stanford…

Yet it was Stanford Professor, Jo Boaler, that set the state standards leading to the current math crisis in CA (and beyond). Where is the accountability? She falsified studies, scammed schools to hear about her flawed studies watering down math elementary and high school math standards (over the objection of parents and teachers), but remains a well-paid prof at Stanford?

Your issue is school administrators, not Boaler. What is with people here and letting admin get away with being terrible at their jobs but being hellbent on blaming teachers and academics?

Admin's job is to make the school look good, which means inflating grades to boost grad rates. You can't blame schools for behaving in their own self interest.

Admin are responsible for running the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

Back when UCs used standardized tests they could verify that a smart student from a low performing high school had the preparation to be able to succeed at UC. Now there is no outside verification through a standardized test and rampant grade inflation.

What if someone has a bad SAT but does well in calculus?

An A in calc is meaningless - you would no that if you read the UCAS report (many of the remedial students has As in calc). A 5 in the AP exam is meaningful, but AP scores for senior year don't come before results.

Sold someone has a 5 in calc but a low sat score, what should the UC do with that profile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

Nah not the poor but the under qualified

You don't have to pretend like you are being in anyway open to accepting poor people. We get it. You were pretty crystal clear that you are antagonizing poor people. Just saying "underqualified" doesn't mean much when I know you think the issue is the expansion of admissions towards lower performing high schools.

Great keep distracting the issue from the actual problem. Typical tactic

Tell me how the "actual problem" doesn't just coalesce to people from low income backgrounds. What profile do you mean then when you say "low performing?" I am just trying to keep us honest and real here.

The profile they're referring to is a student of any income group and any race that is unable to demonstrate mastery of basic middle and high school mathematics.

There are plenty of poor students who are high-performing, and they deserve to have the opportunity to shine without needing to be hyper-savvy to whatever the current EC metagame is.

Can you identify high income students that come from low performing schools? There are not that many magnet programs in california, leveling the playing field. The idea is to uniquely harm poor students who don't go to the few magnet schools around. Reminder that SF Has 1, yes ONE, magnet high school. This idea that there's a hotbed of opportunities for young, low income students who are high performing is mostly a myth.

This is exactly why test scores are so important - without them, poor high performing students are stuck in schools where even a 4.0 means little.

Looking at test scores will provide a tremendous opportunity to poor high performing students: increased chance of admission to one of the best universities in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make a post when the regents actually listen and Berkeley is test required. Berkeley undergrad has never really been Stanford…

Yet it was Stanford Professor, Jo Boaler, that set the state standards leading to the current math crisis in CA (and beyond). Where is the accountability? She falsified studies, scammed schools to hear about her flawed studies watering down math elementary and high school math standards (over the objection of parents and teachers), but remains a well-paid prof at Stanford?

Your issue is school administrators, not Boaler. What is with people here and letting admin get away with being terrible at their jobs but being hellbent on blaming teachers and academics?

Admin's job is to make the school look good, which means inflating grades to boost grad rates. You can't blame schools for behaving in their own self interest.

Admin are responsible for running the schools.

Yes, but rigorous grading is not an essential part of running a school, which is why admin aren't fired or promoted based on their school's grading rigor but instead metrics like grad rate that reward grade inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

Back when UCs used standardized tests they could verify that a smart student from a low performing high school had the preparation to be able to succeed at UC. Now there is no outside verification through a standardized test and rampant grade inflation.

What if someone has a bad SAT but does well in calculus?

An A in calc is meaningless - you would no that if you read the UCAS report (many of the remedial students has As in calc). A 5 in the AP exam is meaningful, but AP scores for senior year don't come before results.

Sold someone has a 5 in calc but a low sat score, what should the UC do with that profile?

Admit, but study the outcomes of these types of students as well as high SAT / low AP students.

But in general, both of these types of students should do much better than the current standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

Back when UCs used standardized tests they could verify that a smart student from a low performing high school had the preparation to be able to succeed at UC. Now there is no outside verification through a standardized test and rampant grade inflation.

What if someone has a bad SAT but does well in calculus?

An A in calc is meaningless - you would no that if you read the UCAS report (many of the remedial students has As in calc). A 5 in the AP exam is meaningful, but AP scores for senior year don't come before results.

Sold someone has a 5 in calc but a low sat score, what should the UC do with that profile?

Admit, but study the outcomes of these types of students as well as high SAT / low AP students.

But in general, both of these types of students should do much better than the current standard.

As pp posted, berkeley historically has taken from range 1250-1510. So just being above average is enough to get you through Berkeley. Should the SAT floor be a 1200-1300 score or where would you set it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

High performing students from low performing schools shouldn't be barred, and wouldn't be under a test-required environment.

Low performing students, be they from high or low performing schools, should be barred from top UCs where they will perform poorly and likely delay graduation and possibly drop out with five figures in debt, and instead be directed to Cal States where the standards aren't quite so demanding and the university environment is tailored to teaching the kids (rather than expecting the kids to more or less self-teach the material)

Where would you set the SAT bar?

For the most competitive STEM majors at the top UCs, 700-750 math. For non-STEM majors at ordinary UCs, 550-650 math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

Back when UCs used standardized tests they could verify that a smart student from a low performing high school had the preparation to be able to succeed at UC. Now there is no outside verification through a standardized test and rampant grade inflation.

What if someone has a bad SAT but does well in calculus?

An A in calc is meaningless - you would no that if you read the UCAS report (many of the remedial students has As in calc). A 5 in the AP exam is meaningful, but AP scores for senior year don't come before results.

Sold someone has a 5 in calc but a low sat score, what should the UC do with that profile?

Admit, but study the outcomes of these types of students as well as high SAT / low AP students.

But in general, both of these types of students should do much better than the current standard.

As pp posted, berkeley historically has taken from range 1250-1510. So just being above average is enough to get you through Berkeley. Should the SAT floor be a 1200-1300 score or where would you set it?

Depends on the major. Impacted STEM majors should have a math floor closer to the 700-750 range, while non-impacted humanities majors can have a lower SAT floor - maybe as low as 550 for FGLI students from poor schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

Back when UCs used standardized tests they could verify that a smart student from a low performing high school had the preparation to be able to succeed at UC. Now there is no outside verification through a standardized test and rampant grade inflation.

What if someone has a bad SAT but does well in calculus?

An A in calc is meaningless - you would no that if you read the UCAS report (many of the remedial students has As in calc). A 5 in the AP exam is meaningful, but AP scores for senior year don't come before results.

Sold someone has a 5 in calc but a low sat score, what should the UC do with that profile?

Admit, but study the outcomes of these types of students as well as high SAT / low AP students.

But in general, both of these types of students should do much better than the current standard.

As pp posted, berkeley historically has taken from range 1250-1510. So just being above average is enough to get you through Berkeley. Should the SAT floor be a 1200-1300 score or where would you set it?

Depends on the major. Impacted STEM majors should have a math floor closer to the 700-750 range, while non-impacted humanities majors can have a lower SAT floor - maybe as low as 550 for FGLI students from poor schools.

If the goal is to improve the schools, 700|700 minimum for all UC schools. Exceptions should be given to colleges within an individual UC that feel the SAT doesn’t represent their interests, but then their students have to forfeit transferring out of that major. No exceptions- not even for low performing schools.

We should be pushing those in low performing school districts to work harder, not kowtow to fatalistic thinking that they can’t perform. UC system should be for the best of the best around California. Cal states can teach the less qualified and CC trains those to go to whatever goals they have. Get rid of A-G requirements and institute minimum rigor course requirements WITH AP scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is such an overrated measure, as in, the expectation that every school have like a 1500+ average SAT. Here's some historical averages from 2012 of various schools:
Amherst College 1320-1530
California Institute of Technology 1460-1590
Columbia University, Columbia College 1400-1570
Dartmouth College 1350-1560
Georgetown University 1290-1490
Harvard University 1390-1590
Johns Hopkins University 1310-1510
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1410-1570
Stanford University 1360-1550
University of California, Berkeley 1250-1510
University of California, Los Angeles 1170-1430
Williams College. 1310-1530

The SAT was scored harder then. I’m not sure where your 1600 scale scores are from but it wasn’t a proportional concordance. A 2300 SAT then is a 1560 now , a 2160 was the start of 1500, and a 1980 was the start of a 1400. Most elite schools had test quartiles from 20XX-23XX, and medians of late 21XX to mid 22XX (corresponding to 1500-1530 today). So not much has changed.

The test was even harder before that when it used to be on the 1600 scale. A 1350 was competitive for every top school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is such an overrated measure, as in, the expectation that every school have like a 1500+ average SAT. Here's some historical averages from 2012 of various schools:
Amherst College 1320-1530
California Institute of Technology 1460-1590
Columbia University, Columbia College 1400-1570
Dartmouth College 1350-1560
Georgetown University 1290-1490
Harvard University 1390-1590
Johns Hopkins University 1310-1510
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1410-1570
Stanford University 1360-1550
University of California, Berkeley 1250-1510
University of California, Los Angeles 1170-1430
Williams College. 1310-1530

The SAT was scored harder then. I’m not sure where your 1600 scale scores are from but it wasn’t a proportional concordance. A 2300 SAT then is a 1560 now , a 2160 was the start of 1500, and a 1980 was the start of a 1400. Most elite schools had test quartiles from 20XX-23XX, and medians of late 21XX to mid 22XX (corresponding to 1500-1530 today). So not much has changed.

The test was even harder before that when it used to be on the 1600 scale. A 1350 was competitive for every top school.

2010 is not reasonably more difficult than now. This is getting ridiculous. Apparently back then, everything was the most difficult thing to have ever been done and every student was the most competent in the world. No! The standards were just lower and the competition wasn’t that bad. People were just then beginning to normally move across the country for school and financial aid had just started to really kick up in gear for more people to go to these elite schools.