Harvard is not alone. UC students Without 8th Grade Math Skills Skyrockets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am California native and I support the UC's approach. Citizen/taxpayers of CA pay for the UCs and its mission is to educate the best and brightest Californians. They use "local context" to identify the top 9% from every Ca high school, including private schools, and guarantee admission to all of them, though don't guarantee which campus (Merced is the auto admit default). Yes that means that the top 9% from under resourced public schools too, so some of those kids have learning gaps and the UC's have support to help them.
Testing would not change this as they would still admit the top 9% by school including from those high schools that most on this board don't care about . . . .

Unfortunately, the best and the brightest can not be assumed to be evenly distributed throughout the state. It makes sense that kids in affluent and well educated communities end up better prepared by the end of K-12. Due to some
combination of heritable characteristics from educated/affluent parents (IQ is approx 50% heritable) and greater access over many years to better resources to develop that academic potential. Trying to make up for it at the college level is too late. This remediation work needs to be carried out starting from early elementary. At a certain age, the students’ absolute preparation level is more important than one’s undeveloped “potential” from a college success/job readiness standpoint.

Graduating in the top 9 percent of an awful, crime-ridden public school gets you serious grit and character points. And in life, grit and character matters a lot. I think California has it right. Sure, some of these kids from low performing schools with all the problems never got a chance to take Multivariable Calculus. But they would be absolute academic rock stars if only they grew up in a different neighborhood with better options. I think the UCs are fulfilling their mission just fine taking the best students from all the public schools, even the bad ones.

It's so far from not taking MV Calc.... it's not knowing fractions, even though you got straight A's in classes called Algebra 2 and Pre-Calc. Without the SAT, admissions is flying blind figuring out which kids are qualified because GPA's are meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am California native and I support the UC's approach. Citizen/taxpayers of CA pay for the UCs and its mission is to educate the best and brightest Californians. They use "local context" to identify the top 9% from every Ca high school, including private schools, and guarantee admission to all of them, though don't guarantee which campus (Merced is the auto admit default). Yes that means that the top 9% from under resourced public schools too, so some of those kids have learning gaps and the UC's have support to help them.
Testing would not change this as they would still admit the top 9% by school including from those high schools that most on this board don't care about . . . .

Unfortunately, the best and the brightest can not be assumed to be evenly distributed throughout the state. It makes sense that kids in affluent and well educated communities end up better prepared by the end of K-12. Due to some
combination of heritable characteristics from educated/affluent parents (IQ is approx 50% heritable) and greater access over many years to better resources to develop that academic potential. Trying to make up for it at the college level is too late. This remediation work needs to be carried out starting from early elementary. At a certain age, the students’ absolute preparation level is more important than one’s undeveloped “potential” from a college success/job readiness standpoint.

Graduating in the top 9 percent of an awful, crime-ridden public school gets you serious grit and character points. And in life, grit and character matters a lot. I think California has it right. Sure, some of these kids from low performing schools with all the problems never got a chance to take Multivariable Calculus. But they would be absolute academic rock stars if only they grew up in a different neighborhood with better options. I think the UCs are fulfilling their mission just fine taking the best students from all the public schools, even the bad ones.

You’re making an argument about the wrong issue. This is
about not taking multivariable calc in HS. This is about students admitted to UC who can’t do basic high school or even middle school
math. Grit is great for succeeding at everyday jobs. And yes, it’s true most people don’t need to use Calculus in their everyday jobs. But the mission of UC is research, and is the basis for their renown. Which you can not do on a meaningful level in quantitative fields without a strong foundation in math. CSU and CC is the place for helping less prepared students with grit train for real
world jobs and make up for a lack of preparation at the high school level. That is their mission, and one that they do well. One can argue getting a practical degree in accounting or nursing at a calstate is going to do way more for social mobility than admitting underprepared students to a UC who aspire but can’t complete more theoretical STEM majors, and then end ip failing out or
switching majors to soft subjects like sociology or ethnic studies that leave them with few useful skills in the job market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am California native and I support the UC's approach. Citizen/taxpayers of CA pay for the UCs and its mission is to educate the best and brightest Californians. They use "local context" to identify the top 9% from every Ca high school, including private schools, and guarantee admission to all of them, though don't guarantee which campus (Merced is the auto admit default). Yes that means that the top 9% from under resourced public schools too, so some of those kids have learning gaps and the UC's have support to help them.
Testing would not change this as they would still admit the top 9% by school including from those high schools that most on this board don't care about . . . .

Unfortunately, the best and the brightest can not be assumed to be evenly distributed throughout the state. It makes sense that kids in affluent and well educated communities end up better prepared by the end of K-12. Due to some
combination of heritable characteristics from educated/affluent parents (IQ is approx 50% heritable) and greater access over many years to better resources to develop that academic potential. Trying to make up for it at the college level is too late. This remediation work needs to be carried out starting from early elementary. At a certain age, the students’ absolute preparation level is more important than one’s undeveloped “potential” from a college success/job readiness standpoint.

Graduating in the top 9 percent of an awful, crime-ridden public school gets you serious grit and character points. And in life, grit and character matters a lot. I think California has it right. Sure, some of these kids from low performing schools with all the problems never got a chance to take Multivariable Calculus. But they would be absolute academic rock stars if only they grew up in a different neighborhood with better options. I think the UCs are fulfilling their mission just fine taking the best students from all the public schools, even the bad ones.

You’re making an argument about the wrong issue. This is
about not taking multivariable calc in HS. This is about students admitted to UC who can’t do basic high school or even middle school
math. Grit is great for succeeding at everyday jobs. And yes, it’s true most people don’t need to use Calculus in their everyday jobs. But the mission of UC is research, and is the basis for their renown. Which you can not do on a meaningful level in quantitative fields without a strong foundation in math. CSU and CC is the place for helping less prepared students with grit train for real
world jobs and make up for a lack of preparation at the high school level. That is their mission, and one that they do well. One can argue getting a practical degree in accounting or nursing at a calstate is going to do way more for social mobility than admitting underprepared students to a UC who aspire but can’t complete more theoretical STEM majors, and then end ip failing out or
switching majors to soft subjects like sociology or ethnic studies that leave them with few useful skills in the job market.

+1000

Would add, another great option is going to CC for a 1 year or 2, proving yourself with grade grades, and then transferring to a 4-year university.

I think it's a good use of resources to have professors at a university with a single-digit acceptance rate teaching middle school math.

[Anonymous]

^I DON'T think

[Anonymous]

ironically, the students who major in sociology, ethnic studies and other soft subjects end up being the ones working in education administration and setting admissions policy, where they proceed to favor other students like them in the admissions process. part of the problem is that administrators and not actual faculty have taken control of the admissions process and student evaluation methods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am California native and I support the UC's approach. Citizen/taxpayers of CA pay for the UCs and its mission is to educate the best and brightest Californians. They use "local context" to identify the top 9% from every Ca high school, including private schools, and guarantee admission to all of them, though don't guarantee which campus (Merced is the auto admit default). Yes that means that the top 9% from under resourced public schools too, so some of those kids have learning gaps and the UC's have support to help them.
Testing would not change this as they would still admit the top 9% by school including from those high schools that most on this board don't care about . . . .

Unfortunately, the best and the brightest can not be assumed to be evenly distributed throughout the state. It makes sense that kids in affluent and well educated communities end up better prepared by the end of K-12. Due to some
combination of heritable characteristics from educated/affluent parents (IQ is approx 50% heritable) and greater access over many years to better resources to develop that academic potential. Trying to make up for it at the college level is too late. This remediation work needs to be carried out starting from early elementary. At a certain age, the students’ absolute preparation level is more important than one’s undeveloped “potential” from a college success/job readiness standpoint.

Graduating in the top 9 percent of an awful, crime-ridden public school gets you serious grit and character points. And in life, grit and character matters a lot. I think California has it right. Sure, some of these kids from low performing schools with all the problems never got a chance to take Multivariable Calculus. But they would be absolute academic rock stars if only they grew up in a different neighborhood with better options. I think the UCs are fulfilling their mission just fine taking the best students from all the public schools, even the bad ones.

You’re making an argument about the wrong issue. This is
about not taking multivariable calc in HS. This is about students admitted to UC who can’t do basic high school or even middle school
math. Grit is great for succeeding at everyday jobs. And yes, it’s true most people don’t need to use Calculus in their everyday jobs. But the mission of UC is research, and is the basis for their renown. Which you can not do on a meaningful level in quantitative fields without a strong foundation in math. CSU and CC is the place for helping less prepared students with grit train for real
world jobs and make up for a lack of preparation at the high school level. That is their mission, and one that they do well. One can argue getting a practical degree in accounting or nursing at a calstate is going to do way more for social mobility than admitting underprepared students to a UC who aspire but can’t complete more theoretical STEM majors, and then end ip failing out or
switching majors to soft subjects like sociology or ethnic studies that leave them with few useful skills in the job market.

I agree with this actually. To be honest though being at the top 9% of an easy school in CA in a low performing area does not in anyway mean you are prepared or more qualified. We all want to imagine the diamond in the rough kid who fought his or way through bullets in east LA or struggled to do homework by candle light living with their migrant worker family in the fields. This is not the case for the majority of unprepared kids getting into UC based on socioeconomic and racial demographics of their school. A sizable number are just normal kids who would do pretty well in a Cal state but get chewed up instead by UC so each UC can say they now have 30% Latino kids or 40% low income kids etc.

Many Cal state schools are under enrolled while UC schools turn away perfect stat schools from one zip code and admit woefully unprepared and incapable students from another zip code.

A better way would be to create special programs for URMs that achieve high GPAs in a Cal state to have a transfer path to UC. This exists for community college but not cal state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am California native and I support the UC's approach. Citizen/taxpayers of CA pay for the UCs and its mission is to educate the best and brightest Californians. They use "local context" to identify the top 9% from every Ca high school, including private schools, and guarantee admission to all of them, though don't guarantee which campus (Merced is the auto admit default). Yes that means that the top 9% from under resourced public schools too, so some of those kids have learning gaps and the UC's have support to help them.
Testing would not change this as they would still admit the top 9% by school including from those high schools that most on this board don't care about . . . .

Unfortunately, the best and the brightest can not be assumed to be evenly distributed throughout the state. It makes sense that kids in affluent and well educated communities end up better prepared by the end of K-12. Due to some
combination of heritable characteristics from educated/affluent parents (IQ is approx 50% heritable) and greater access over many years to better resources to develop that academic potential. Trying to make up for it at the college level is too late. This remediation work needs to be carried out starting from early elementary. At a certain age, the students’ absolute preparation level is more important than one’s undeveloped “potential” from a college success/job readiness standpoint.

Graduating in the top 9 percent of an awful, crime-ridden public school gets you serious grit and character points. And in life, grit and character matters a lot. I think California has it right. Sure, some of these kids from low performing schools with all the problems never got a chance to take Multivariable Calculus. But they would be absolute academic rock stars if only they grew up in a different neighborhood with better options. I think the UCs are fulfilling their mission just fine taking the best students from all the public schools, even the bad ones.

You’re making an argument about the wrong issue. This is
about not taking multivariable calc in HS. This is about students admitted to UC who can’t do basic high school or even middle school
math. Grit is great for succeeding at everyday jobs. And yes, it’s true most people don’t need to use Calculus in their everyday jobs. But the mission of UC is research, and is the basis for their renown. Which you can not do on a meaningful level in quantitative fields without a strong foundation in math. CSU and CC is the place for helping less prepared students with grit train for real
world jobs and make up for a lack of preparation at the high school level. That is their mission, and one that they do well. One can argue getting a practical degree in accounting or nursing at a calstate is going to do way more for social mobility than admitting underprepared students to a UC who aspire but can’t complete more theoretical STEM majors, and then end ip failing out or
switching majors to soft subjects like sociology or ethnic studies that leave them with few useful skills in the job market.

+1000

Would add, another great option is going to CC for a 1 year or 2, proving yourself with grade grades, and then transferring to a 4-year university.

I think it's a good use of resources to have professors at a university with a single-digit acceptance rate teaching middle school math.

And California does have a great program to encourage transfers from the CC's to the UC's. However, there is far less financial aid for community college students. Most have to work and go to to school for the chance of actually getting a 4 year degree is lower on this path than it is for those admitted directly to the UC's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am California native and I support the UC's approach. Citizen/taxpayers of CA pay for the UCs and its mission is to educate the best and brightest Californians. They use "local context" to identify the top 9% from every Ca high school, including private schools, and guarantee admission to all of them, though don't guarantee which campus (Merced is the auto admit default). Yes that means that the top 9% from under resourced public schools too, so some of those kids have learning gaps and the UC's have support to help them.
Testing would not change this as they would still admit the top 9% by school including from those high schools that most on this board don't care about . . . .

Unfortunately, the best and the brightest can not be assumed to be evenly distributed throughout the state. It makes sense that kids in affluent and well educated communities end up better prepared by the end of K-12. Due to some
combination of heritable characteristics from educated/affluent parents (IQ is approx 50% heritable) and greater access over many years to better resources to develop that academic potential. Trying to make up for it at the college level is too late. This remediation work needs to be carried out starting from early elementary. At a certain age, the students’ absolute preparation level is more important than one’s undeveloped “potential” from a college success/job readiness standpoint.

Graduating in the top 9 percent of an awful, crime-ridden public school gets you serious grit and character points. And in life, grit and character matters a lot. I think California has it right. Sure, some of these kids from low performing schools with all the problems never got a chance to take Multivariable Calculus. But they would be absolute academic rock stars if only they grew up in a different neighborhood with better options. I think the UCs are fulfilling their mission just fine taking the best students from all the public schools, even the bad ones.

Honestly, you sound like a person who is so privileged that you have no idea what you are talking about. Grit and character? Sure. People who live in serious danger and traumatic situations develop grit and character, but those aren't always in positive ways. Many learn awful coping mechanisms, terrible perspectives on life, etc., because they did what they had to.

[Anonymous]

Equity brings mediocrity at best.

[Anonymous]

Banning the SAT in light of the overwhelming evidence of its validity...who's the science denier now, eh Mr. UCSD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am California native and I support the UC's approach. Citizen/taxpayers of CA pay for the UCs and its mission is to educate the best and brightest Californians. They use "local context" to identify the top 9% from every Ca high school, including private schools, and guarantee admission to all of them, though don't guarantee which campus (Merced is the auto admit default). Yes that means that the top 9% from under resourced public schools too, so some of those kids have learning gaps and the UC's have support to help them.
Testing would not change this as they would still admit the top 9% by school including from those high schools that most on this board don't care about . . . .

Unfortunately, the best and the brightest can not be assumed to be evenly distributed throughout the state. It makes sense that kids in affluent and well educated communities end up better prepared by the end of K-12. Due to some
combination of heritable characteristics from educated/affluent parents (IQ is approx 50% heritable) and greater access over many years to better resources to develop that academic potential. Trying to make up for it at the college level is too late. This remediation work needs to be carried out starting from early elementary. At a certain age, the students’ absolute preparation level is more important than one’s undeveloped “potential” from a college success/job readiness standpoint.

Graduating in the top 9 percent of an awful, crime-ridden public school gets you serious grit and character points. And in life, grit and character matters a lot. I think California has it right. Sure, some of these kids from low performing schools with all the problems never got a chance to take Multivariable Calculus. But they would be absolute academic rock stars if only they grew up in a different neighborhood with better options. I think the UCs are fulfilling their mission just fine taking the best students from all the public schools, even the bad ones.

Honestly, you sound like a person who is so privileged that you have no idea what you are talking about. Grit and character? Sure. People who live in serious danger and traumatic situations develop grit and character, but those aren't always in positive ways. Many learn awful coping mechanisms, terrible perspectives on life, etc., because they did what they had to.

And it's often really hard to change those ways once you get into college.

[Anonymous]

Haven't read the entire thread -- is there info on how many of these students actually graduate from college?

[Anonymous]

Standardized testing in some aspects is undoubtedly unfair; however, in my opinion it's a more objective method for assessing a student's capabilities than any other measure. Bringing them back for UC admissions would certainly help avoid issues like this.

[Anonymous]

Kids are not retaining things. I teach 7th grade math and have kids who struggle with concepts taught in previous years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.newsweek.com/students-ucsd-without-8th-grade-math-skills-skyrockets-11030373

18% UC students placed below Algebra 1.

Among the students not meeting middle school math levels:
42% had taken precalculus or calculus. And 25% of these students had a math GPA of 4.0 in high school.


Takeaway is that you can't trust high school GPA.
4.0 in Calculus can't pass Algebra. Something is going on.

Absolutely shocked about this; I thought for sure removing standardized testing requirements would vastly improve the quality of students.