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

[Anonymous]

If we fail to acknowledge what the SAT measures, we give rise to the claims that it measures privilege or test-taking ability or preparation, instead of the important, complex thinking required to do well in college. If we are willing to accept that the SAT measures intelligence relatively well, and that intelligence is useful in college, then we are able to continue to use the assessment as part of an admissions process that identifies individuals who have a good chance of college success, even if they come from underperforming high schools with comparatively weak curricula. As an added benefit, we may begin to rein in the claims of test preparation companies who have made considerable profits from the widely held but erroneous belief that large increases in scores are likely with costly instruction. Finally, when we understand that the SAT is a reasonable measure of intelligence, we can use SAT scores as a proxy measure for time-consuming and sometimes unavailable traditional intelligence assessments, as dozens of researchers have been doing since 2004.

(from the study linked above)

[Anonymous]

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.

Are you sure about that? This study confirms that IQ is directly correlated with SAT score.

“ If we fail to acknowledge what the SAT measures, we give rise to the claims that it measures privilege or test-taking ability or preparation, instead of the important, complex thinking required to do well in college. If we are willing to accept that the SAT measures intelligence relatively well, and that intelligence is useful in college, then we are able to continue to use the assessment as part of an admissions process that identifies individuals who have a good chance of college success, even if they come from underperforming high schools with comparatively weak curricula. As an added benefit, we may begin to rein in the claims of test preparation companies who have made considerable profits from the widely held but erroneous belief that large increases in scores are likely with costly instruction. Finally, when we understand that the SAT is a reasonable measure of intelligence, we can use SAT scores as a proxy measure for time-consuming and sometimes unavailable traditional intelligence assessments, as dozens of researchers have been doing since 2004.”

Link to study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/

[Anonymous]

I’m skeptical that SAT is a proxy for intelligence since it is preppable. Allegedly, IQ test are not (but I personally believe. iQ tests measure exposure to to a great extent, not inherent intelligence).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Come on, people with 1500+ scores are objectively smarter than people with 1100.

I disagree. Half of the SAT is math. I’m a successful middle aged professional and haven’t used math formally in 25 years. Intelligence is not math.

DP. Completely agree. I imagine many people who don't do well on the SAT/ACT due to the math section could write circles around those who do. Frankly, I wish a timed writing sample was part of admissions, like the SAT/ACT writing section which has been discontinued.

Except there are plenty of people who ace math and English portions of SAT/ACT

like it or not, standardized tests are to some extent intelligence measures. getting rid of them means excluding some very smart kids for whom HS did not totally click.

Or just not choosing them. Do you have public school kids? I do and grades are almost meaningless these days due to marked inflation. Kids from mediocre to exemplary get straight As in many schools.

[Anonymous]

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.

Are you sure about that? This study confirms that IQ is directly correlated with SAT score.

“ If we fail to acknowledge what the SAT measures, we give rise to the claims that it measures privilege or test-taking ability or preparation, instead of the important, complex thinking required to do well in college. If we are willing to accept that the SAT measures intelligence relatively well, and that intelligence is useful in college, then we are able to continue to use the assessment as part of an admissions process that identifies individuals who have a good chance of college success, even if they come from underperforming high schools with comparatively weak curricula. As an added benefit, we may begin to rein in the claims of test preparation companies who have made considerable profits from the widely held but erroneous belief that large increases in scores are likely with costly instruction. Finally, when we understand that the SAT is a reasonable measure of intelligence, we can use SAT scores as a proxy measure for time-consuming and sometimes unavailable traditional intelligence assessments, as dozens of researchers have been doing since 2004.”

Link to study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/

NP. There are no such studies on the current test. The purposes of Coleman's 2016 Redesign included, among other things, being made explicitly more preppable via Khan Academy. The current test is supposed to measure academic skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Come on, people with 1500+ scores are objectively smarter than people with 1100.

I disagree. Half of the SAT is math. I’m a successful middle aged professional and haven’t used math formally in 25 years. Intelligence is not math.

DP. Completely agree. I imagine many people who don't do well on the SAT/ACT due to the math section could write circles around those who do. Frankly, I wish a timed writing sample was part of admissions, like the SAT/ACT writing section which has been discontinued.

Except there are plenty of people who ace math and English portions of SAT/ACT

like it or not, standardized tests are to some extent intelligence measures. getting rid of them means excluding some very smart kids for whom HS did not totally click.

Or just not choosing them. Do you have public school kids? I do and grades are almost meaningless these days due to marked inflation. Kids from mediocre to exemplary get straight As in many schools.

With high rigor, mediocre kids aren’t getting straight As. Average Joe isn’t getting straight As in multi variable or BC calculus and AP bio and AP lit. But it would be tougher to distinguish one self in places not offering higher level courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that no one else has yet to follow the Uc’s temporary move to not consider tests at all, seems doubtful that making it permanent changes anything.

Washington state, Arizona, and Oregon have also all eliminated standardized tests in public university admissions.

This is the future, if for no other reason than students in these four states will have less and less reason to take standardized tests, which means if other schools want to attract students from those states, they’ll have to to at least test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that no one else has yet to follow the Uc’s temporary move to not consider tests at all, seems doubtful that making it permanent changes anything.

Washington state, Arizona, and Oregon have also all eliminated standardized tests in public university admissions.

This is the future, if for no other reason than students in these four states will have less and less reason to take standardized tests, which means if other schools want to attract students from those states, they’ll have to to at least test optional.

Huh, kids will keep taking the tests unless they only want to apply to those schools. There aren’t many kids who apply to only one or two schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m skeptical that SAT is a proxy for intelligence since it is preppable. Allegedly, IQ test are not (but I personally believe. iQ tests measure exposure to to a great extent, not inherent intelligence).

I think the real problem here is that a lot of low income kids have been cheated out of a decent high school education

[Anonymous]

The idea that SAT measures nothing related to intelligence is weird to me. I went to a very good public HS where 95% of the kids enrolled in 4-year colleges. All the kids homogeneous in terms of race and income, mostly. The very smart kids aced the SAT because they were very smart, and went to Stanford, Cal, and MIT. The smart kids did less well on the SAT and went to other UCs. The average kids did averagely and went to Cal States. I’m not sure how much GPAs differed.

How would a school like MIT or Cal Tech identify the kids with the aptitude to succeed there without some way to measure the specific kind of intelligence needed?

[Anonymous]

The only way this won't screw the kids in low-income schools who are first gen and POC would be if you barred schools from automatically increasing the GPA based on AP classes that the kids in poor schools don't have the ability to take, which isn't going to happen. Right now, when you spot a POC or first gen kid with a high GPA who is scoring above 1100, you know they're worth a second look because it's damn hard to score at or above that range if you grew up in a family where your parents didn't finish high school. That kid almost always has an innate ability to perform well in college.

With grade inflation added on top of the AP bumps to GPA, there's way too much chaos in the system for GPA alone to work. The level of knowledge Admissions Committees would need to acquire on the tens of thousands of high schools across the country in order to only use GPA is beyond insane. Sure, they'll be know that a B+ at Sidwell is not the same as a B+ at DeMatha since those two schools send lots of applicants. But they won't know about all the rural schools in places like Texas or Georgia and whether a kid from there "only" has a 4.0 because they had no opportunity to earn a GPA above that through APs.

[Anonymous]

All you people worried about grade inflation and GPA equivalence - do you realize that the UC system has a very well defined approach on grades? Your home school GPA is irrelevant - they re-calculate your GPA based on their own criteria.

And all the whining about how this disadvantages poor kids and POC is such nonsense. Test prep has made a mockery of any kind of level playing field around standardized tests. Yes, the random first-gen genius might get a bump from a fantastic SAT score, but for the most part, standardized tests work to the benefit of UMC kids who are prepped from birth and whose parents will cling to every last bit of privilege they can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we fail to acknowledge what the SAT measures, we give rise to the claims that it measures privilege or test-taking ability or preparation, instead of the important, complex thinking required to do well in college. If we are willing to accept that the SAT measures intelligence relatively well, and that intelligence is useful in college, then we are able to continue to use the assessment as part of an admissions process that identifies individuals who have a good chance of college success, even if they come from underperforming high schools with comparatively weak curricula. As an added benefit, we may begin to rein in the claims of test preparation companies who have made considerable profits from the widely held but erroneous belief that large increases in scores are likely with costly instruction. Finally, when we understand that the SAT is a reasonable measure of intelligence, we can use SAT scores as a proxy measure for time-consuming and sometimes unavailable traditional intelligence assessments, as dozens of researchers have been doing since 2004.

(from the study linked above)

Except it is not an intelligence test and has no correlation to intelligence or doing well in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Come on, people with 1500+ scores are objectively smarter than people with 1100.

I disagree. Half of the SAT is math. I’m a successful middle aged professional and haven’t used math formally in 25 years. Intelligence is not math.

DP. Completely agree. I imagine many people who don't do well on the SAT/ACT due to the math section could write circles around those who do. Frankly, I wish a timed writing sample was part of admissions, like the SAT/ACT writing section which has been discontinued.

Except there are plenty of people who ace math and English portions of SAT/ACT

like it or not, standardized tests are to some extent intelligence measures. getting rid of them means excluding some very smart kids for whom HS did not totally click.

Or just not choosing them. Do you have public school kids? I do and grades are almost meaningless these days due to marked inflation. Kids from mediocre to exemplary get straight As in many schools.

But aren’t they mediocre in the Gen Ed classes and extraordinary in the AP classes? That’s where the difference is seen — the weighted GPA and the coursework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fewer objective measurements, the more opaque cherry-picking they can do.

And in the near future, you'll wonder why they have way fewer Asian students graduates...

Yep this. Solves all the equity stuff that is the focus these days.

PP you replied to. As an Asian family, I strongly object to all these dumbing-down measures. Not when the US has just been downgraded to the second richest country in the world, and China has surpassed us. Immigrants haven't made this country great, generations upon generations of them, just to see it go down the toilet because snowflakes can't handle excellence.

If other systems follow suit, it will be a destructive long-term path for our country. The USA produces the most patents and does the most cutting-edge research of any country, which in turn produces a stream of inventions that can be used for defense, health, etc. Surely people see that diluting academic strength is not in the interest of the nation?