Over 280 University of California STEM faculty members have signed an open letter calling on the UC Board of Regents to
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You needn’t defend your DC’s 3.7 (albeit I did, haha). That comment was simply rude. |
Anonymous
Regardless, it was a rude comment. I really don’t understand why people feel the need to bash others. I think your DC sounds great! |
Anonymous
Thank you for the kind words. I didn’t interpret the red flag comment as a rude reply because, honestly, I always worried that the disconnect between his standardized test results and GPA would be viewed as a red flag by some admissions committees. I’m sure it was. He was very fortunate to land where he did, and he thankfully had a few other options, but it was a bit of a bloodbath, too. He aimed high, so the rejection letters / portal announcements were inevitable. But it seems to have worked out in the end. So I’m ultimately thankful for that. |
Anonymous
|
This is one area where I like how the UK system compares to the US. They evaluate you primarily on how you performed in subjects/tests based on your intended major. For STEM students, it makes absolute sense that there is a base level of proficiency in math skills. My DD (humanities major) had a large discrepancy in verbal and math portion (780 verbal, 690 math). She only took it once and did not want to prep more to increase her math score and we didn't really push it.
She went test optional to her competitive ED choice and was admitted but I seriously doubt that this will affect her performance in college bc she does not plan to take and is not required to take advanced math for her major. |
Anonymous
|
6/2 05:30 update: over 1,250 have signed, including
7 of the 9 Chairs of UC Mathematics Departments Plus an additional 45 STEM department chairs |
Anonymous
|
I doubt the Regents will go for it. Too many schools that are not test blind are test optional. With test optional and super score/ multiple sittings at the upper end of students it’s too easy to score in the 1500s. This inflates other schools perceived caliber of students. The students with low scores just apply test optional. There truly is no point to being test optional beyond trying to falsely market the strength of your students,
1. AOs aren’t passing over kids with 5s on multiple of the harder APs or honors DE because they couldn’t see their SAT scores! They aren’t thinking that the kid with the lower GPA and less competitive ECs and trauma story PIQ is academically more capable than the previous student just because they didn’t see SAT scores. AOs will at best treat it as a floor and set the floor as low as they can go, so they can pick who they want regardless of academic capability and skill. 2. If they require it, there will be screams from the public high schools. It’s expensive and a PITA for the schools to hold the tests. If it’s in schools, the school has to pay for proctors. Cheating on the SAT is a nightmare and rampant still. Schools do not want to deal with this multiple times a year. Our school didn’t even offer the PSAT for 10 th graders and no other school within an hour drive allowed outside students to attend their location. There were no private test sites offering the PSAT and we weren’t flying out of state for it, so kids only took it once junior year. 3. The faculty demand for SATs is most likely an attempt to gather more data to push back on the bigger issue of maintaining the UC research mission. You shouldn’t be going to a UC to become an accountant, marketing professional , teacher, nurse, business admin, dental hygienist, work in hospitality, run a small business, or do applied STEM. This is Cal states mission not UC. If you want to become a research scientist, go to medical, law or graduate school etc then UC is the right place. The AOs are admitting far too many kids who have zero interest in what the UCs offer and no ability to navigate it. |