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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm the person you quoted and I would agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The dumbing down is not as a result of fewer standardized tests. It's the demise of critical thinking by requiring all of these standardized tests in the first place.

I get the desire to have objective measures but the test is not the answer. I firmly believe critical thinking is the key and that is tested by essays, for the most part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except that each of those states has robust in-state offerings. And then there’s state crossover among the four states. If a student is deciding whether to apply to a few schools outside their home state, the question of whether or not they have to take a standardized test will become an issue.

Consider Virginia: lots of great in-state options. Lots of Virginians already apply only in-state. If you didn’t have to take standardized tests for any of the in-state schools, do you think the number of Virginians taking the SATs would go down? Now figure North Carolina, Maryland, and Pennsylvania eliminate the tests. What do you think would happen in this region to test-taking trends?

[Anonymous]

I think UC just has better data on kids then they did before. Who needs a Nielsen box for rating TV shows when you have Netflix monitoring every moment? SATs are Nielsen box. Naviance is Netflix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It has correlation to both even the uc system’s own study found that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Their own gpa calculation makes the whole situation worse — their weighted average only gives credit for a maximum of four year long advanced classes regardless of how many a student might take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think UC just has better data on kids then they did before. Who needs a Nielsen box for rating TV shows when you have Netflix monitoring every moment? SATs are Nielsen box. Naviance is Netflix.

Great analogy. I think you’re right.

[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.

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

Exactly correct. Also means that the 1500 is READY for college on day one. By arbitrarily deciding that objective measures should be tossed aside (even if you think there is a justification for doing so), you risk filling these institutions with students who are not prepared. Quite a disservice to those students and to the schools.

It also happens to be incredibly insulting to high achieving students in poor performing schools (where the SAT may be the ONLY thing to distinguish them). Did anyone in the UC system stop to think that the SAT may be the ONLY aspect of an application that the kid has to do for themselves. Sure, kids can be prepped, but the kid has to actually sit for the test. (If you want to help, maybe plow money into helping prep poor kids for the test.) But, by removing it, you have an entire application that is far more subject to influence, money, ambiguity, and shenanigans. Removing this will most certainly not be a panacea for all inequity. It will undoubtedly have the opposite impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think UC just has better data on kids then they did before. Who needs a Nielsen box for rating TV shows when you have Netflix monitoring every moment? SATs are Nielsen box. Naviance is Netflix.

Great analogy. I think you’re right.

Thanks kind DCUM poster! I think UC has the added ‘bonus’ of a PR win...when in reality they have more data then they know what to do with on these kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let's see: eliminate the SAT, eliminate AP classes, dismantle gifted programs. We're systematically eliminating any objective measurement of success. What are we so afraid of? Why can't we give all kids the opportunity to distinguish themselves. The fallacy that only high income kids do well on the SAT or in an AP class is just not accurate.

Without these measures, how is a college is supposed to determine who's ready for college?

The laughably obvious result will be that EVERY school will engage in rampant grade inflation. Even the schools that have held the line on honest grading will have no choice but to cave to a GPA-only environment. High-rigor schools have been honest in grading, in part, because the SAT is part of the picture. Without that guardrail, GPAs will become a joke across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let's see: eliminate the SAT, eliminate AP classes, dismantle gifted programs. We're systematically eliminating any objective measurement of success. What are we so afraid of? Why can't we give all kids the opportunity to distinguish themselves. The fallacy that only high income kids do well on the SAT or in an AP class is just not accurate.

Without these measures, how is a college is supposed to determine who's ready for college?

The laughably obvious result will be that EVERY school will engage in rampant grade inflation. Even the schools that have held the line on honest grading will have no choice but to cave to a GPA-only environment. High-rigor schools have been honest in grading, in part, because the SAT is part of the picture. Without that guardrail, GPAs will become a joke across the board.

What's laughable is your point. Colleges can tell who they want and if they decide they don't need a certain criteria they will stop using it. They know what they are doing, much, much better than you do, so do not worry and do not try and turn this into some kind of objectivist political nonsense fortunetelling that you have no evidence to support will occur.

[Anonymous]

The kids this will hurt are:

-The top achievers (especially the Asian, white top kids) at public schools that grade inflate everyone. One less data point to tell the difference between great kids and everyone else who was just inflated to an A. Huge problem in a place like DCPS where you get an A for signing in.
-Kids from unknown/small schools (private and to a lesser extent public) that have strict grading.
-Kid from schools that don't have advanced courses.

Who it will help:
-Kids from brand name privates that the colleges know and who don't grade inflate (Sidwell, etc).
-Minority kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The kids this will hurt are:

-The top achievers (especially the Asian, white top kids) at public schools that grade inflate everyone. One less data point to tell the difference between great kids and everyone else who was just inflated to an A. Huge problem in a place like DCPS where you get an A for signing in.
-Kids from unknown/small schools (private and to a lesser extent public) that have strict grading.
-Kid from schools that don't have advanced courses.

Who it will help:
-Kids from brand name privates that the colleges know and who don't grade inflate (Sidwell, etc).
-Minority kids

There are many public HS that do not “grade inflate” {sic}. Colleges know a great deal about each high school, and keep data regarding the performance of attendees from each HS.

Like many changes, it is “fair” to some and “less fair” to others, but that of course demands that the system was “unfair to some” prior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Test optional just means Asians and whites must submit. Blacks and crypto-Latins don’t.

I mean at this point I would rather just have transparent quotas. That system was less insulting.

This is offensive. Dd is Hispanic, and I want schools to require SAT/ACT scores. Dd is a high scorer. The "optional" testing negatively affects everyone who is a high scorer. Because now that schools have a pile of people who didn't submit scores, they have to accept some of them, and that takes spots away from all of the others who submitted high scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional just means Asians and whites must submit. Blacks and crypto-Latins don’t.

I mean at this point I would rather just have transparent quotas. That system was less insulting.

This is offensive. Dd is Hispanic, and I want schools to require SAT/ACT scores. Dd is a high scorer. The "optional" testing negatively affects everyone who is a high scorer. Because now that schools have a pile of people who didn't submit scores, they have to accept some of them, and that takes spots away from all of the others who submitted high scores.

100%