UCs forbidden to use SAT and ACT in admissions by court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This judge sits at the lowest level of California courts. He is just one of the more than 1,500 judges. And he gets to decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of applicants? I am sure some kid with high SAT and low GPAs will appeal this stupid decision.

"The superior courts are the lowest level of state courts in California holding general jurisdiction on civil and criminal matters. Above them are the six California courts of appeal, each with appellate jurisdiction over the superior courts within their districts, and the Supreme Court of California. As of 2007, the superior courts of California consisted of over 1,500 judges"

that's why there are multiple levels of appellate courts to review trial court decisions

[Anonymous]

Where is College Board? Has CB not sought to intervene? Or submitted an amicus curiae brief, something, anything? Waiting for the plaintiffs' lawyers to file in another jurisdiction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:50% of American high schoolers have straight As.

DCPS is only giving As and Bs this year. They dropped Cs and below from the grading scale entirely.

This is going to make very student even.

Yep. Clown show. Every other parent with lazy idiot kids brags what a genius their kid is without even trying. No Karen, your kid is in fact a lazy idiot addicted to video games with fake As and Bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50% of American high schoolers ha r straight As.

DCPS is only giving As and Bs this year. They dropped Cs and below from the grading scale entirely.

This is going to make very student even.

This will cause more colleges to require remedial classes to help students who got an "A" in English in HS but clearly can only write at a 5th grade level. Acceptances will become almost like a lottery, and admitting those students who cannot hack it in higher level institutions will hurt everyone.. These students should be going to community colleges for remedial classes, then transferring to 4 yr universities. By no means do I think that we should not help these kids, but pushing them into situations in which they are not prepared for is doing everyone a disservice.

They should replace the SATs with something else, like maybe a test like cogat or something.

If only admissions officers had a way to know who the good students are without needing a test score... something like knowledge of the schools and the trustworthiness of the guidance recommendations, plus their instincts, which would come with the many years of organizational and personal experience that clearly none of them have...

...oh well, I guess they are now doomed to admit entire classes of unworthy idiots while the truly worthy are denied!

/endsarcasm

You clearly don't know anything about schools in CA to make this statement.

Yes, they know which are "high achieving" schools. And they are mostly white/Asian.

" trustworthiness of the guidance recommendations" - as if guidance recommendations don't have bias.

"instincts" - as if that person who is reviewing the applications don't have any bias

Yes, if they do away with any type of measurable test scores, then what you will see is either more unqualified students attending or less URM being admitted. Look at what happened after Prop 209.

I guess screw the kids who don’t go to “high achieving” schools that have lots of Ap classes, math clubs, debate, naviance (some school districts don’t have naviance or anything similar). Eff the poors!

Again, you are describing a problem that doesn't exist now even though what you typed is true today. Adcoms know that difference schools offer different things. They work very hard to ensure they get the kids and the class they want. They are not going to let this stop that.

Many admissions officers HATE the standardized tests. For example:

My final year in admissions, the way we treated an applicant broke my heart. I interviewed her in my office and was struck by her depth, self-effacing humor, drive, maturity, and critical thinking. She had two working-class parents without advanced degrees and grew up in an economically depressed region of western Massachusetts. She had the grades and the extracurricular activities, but her scores were 70 points below our median.

During our committee session, I gave an impassioned speech on her behalf, which might account for the four votes I got in her favor. I’d never advocated so desperately and enthusiastically for a student. She was precisely the sort of person who would reach our campus, take full advantage of the resources she’d been lacking throughout her life, and contribute both socially and academically. Unfortunately, five colleagues still voted against her. Her case helped see me out the door.

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/1/18311548/college-admissions-secrets-myths

also

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-the-sat-wont-tell-you-2014-05-02?mod=article_inline

https://www.nacacnet.org/knowledge-center/standardized-testing/nacac-report-on-standardized-testing/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/01/27/more-colleges-go-to-test-optional-admissions-and-it-didnt-take-a-lawsuit-for-them-to-do-it/

I could go on and on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank the heavens my kids are already in college.

Thank the heavens my kid goes to a STEM magnet HS in DMV and has among the highest GPA (w and un) in school. Rising junior but has only taken 4 APs thus far. She will take SAT in September because August got cancelled. She may be bumped off again because so many seniors have not taken it yet. What will happen with PSAT? No idea,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This ruling seemed narrowly focused on the College Board’s inability to offer accommodations for testing this year

Curious why they can't offer accommodations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are tens of thousands of high school seniors that spent perhaps years studying and taking get classes to do well on the act and sat's. This really changes college admissions for middle class Californians who can't afford private college (donut hole families). I now live in CA and have an 8th grader. I can't afford private college so UC's are his only option. There is a specialized high school program in our city that is competitive and no guarantee of A's or our local high school that isn't as rigorous but I am told easier to get A's since most of the top students go to the specialized high school. Not sure what we will decide.

How many “middle class” Californians were affording the $40k/yr UCs? The middle class kids go to CSUs. I think you mean UMC.

First, UCs are FREE for families under a certain income threshold. So plenty of MC/lower income students are going free of charge.
Second, affluent/UMC Californians don’t often go to UC’s. They go out of state.

UC is a great university system that has already made massive policy changes to increase its number of students of color. This ruling was really unnecessary and I think infringes on UC’s ability to govern its own admissions.

[Anonymous]

just a preliminary injunction. No way this will stand. This year's admissions decisions have been made, so there's time before next year's class is selected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ruling seemed narrowly focused on the College Board’s inability to offer accommodations for testing this year

Curious why they can't offer accommodations.

Just a guess, but probably fall registration was a mess. The problem with College Board's system is that the high schools hosting are essentially third parties and many of them cancelled because they couldn't (or more likely, couldn't be bothered to) figure out how to host the test under current social distance rules. In California specifically, most schools are not open. Where there's a will, there's a way, but apparently there isn't a will.... Naturally, there were accommodations testers among the many who couldn't register for a test this fall.

If the plaintiffs really wanted accommodations, they should have brought their action against the College Board. Their failure to name College Board as a party speaks volumes about their true intention (get rid of standardized testing). The disability/accommodations angle was merely convenient; without it, the ruling likely wouldn't have happened.

[Anonymous]

not clear from the link whether this was based on State law. Cant be federal law or the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:not clear from the link whether this was based on State law. Cant be federal law or the Constitution.

Here's a copy of the ruling: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/UCalifSAT-ACT-piRULING.pdf
Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Person's Act (DPA). (I have not looked at this at all, but from context it sounds like the DPA is California's adoption of the ADA.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:not clear from the link whether this was based on State law. Cant be federal law or the Constitution.

Here's a copy of the ruling: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/UCalifSAT-ACT-piRULING.pdf
Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Person's Act (DPA). (I have not looked at this at all, but from context it sounds like the DPA is California's adoption of the ADA.)

Thank you for taking the time to find and post that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:just a preliminary injunction. No way this will stand. This year's admissions decisions have been made, so there's time before next year's class is selected.

How much time is really left? ED apps due in November-- two months away.

[Anonymous]

The way I read the decision is that it is just a slam on the hypocrisy of "Test optional." Basically, there's no such thing if some are allowed to submit their tests. The colleges that use this subterfuge should be enjoined. It's just dishonesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ruling seemed narrowly focused on the College Board’s inability to offer accommodations for testing this year

Curious why they can't offer accommodations.

Just a guess, but probably fall registration was a mess. The problem with College Board's system is that the high schools hosting are essentially third parties and many of them cancelled because they couldn't (or more likely, couldn't be bothered to) figure out how to host the test under current social distance rules. In California specifically, most schools are not open. Where there's a will, there's a way, but apparently there isn't a will.... Naturally, there were accommodations testers among the many who couldn't register for a test this fall.

If the plaintiffs really wanted accommodations, they should have brought their action against the College Board. Their failure to name College Board as a party speaks volumes about their true intention (get rid of standardized testing). The disability/accommodations angle was merely convenient; without it, the ruling likely wouldn't have happened.

Maybe they went after UC because it is a public institution and therefore has a higher threshold to meet the law than a private institution-- COllege Board is a private institution, not public, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.