Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Standardized testing in the UC admissions process would have helped in my house!

1600 SAT score (single attempt) and 14 scores of 5 on AP exams (14/14) didnt enter the equation, so my UC kid was extremely lucky to get in with his 3.7 unweighted GPA.

Like California beaches at times, I see a red flag warning.

DP, but why is a 3.7 unweighted GPA a red flag? Perhaps his school grade deflates?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Standardized testing in the UC admissions process would have helped in my house!

1600 SAT score (single attempt) and 14 scores of 5 on AP exams (14/14) didnt enter the equation, so my UC kid was extremely lucky to get in with his 3.7 unweighted GPA.

Like California beaches at times, I see a red flag warning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of students getting extra time on the SAT are affluent and white. The number of students getting accommodations has skyrocketed. The College Board is NOT allowed to flag if you have extra time or not.

This is the reason why so many students at top schools get accommodations. Almost 40% of Stanford students are registered as having a disability.

12.5% of Stanford students have academic accommodations. The majority of accommodations are related to housing and/or religion. For example, my Stanford kid has severe food allergies so can’t be placed with an unknown roommate (not as relevant as an upperclassman with a draw group but extremely relevant as a freshman)—the university classifies this as a “disability.” She, like 87.5% of her fellow students, does not have any academic accommodations.

12.5% is still a lot.

Most kids are just gaming accommodations to get better housing.

Not really, considering that “in the US, roughly 15% of all public school students (about 7.5 million children ages 3–21) receive special education or related services. Nationwide, around 8% to 12% of all K-12 students have identified learning or attention issues that require formal accommodations under an IEP or 504 plan.” (National Center of Education Statistics)

But at Stanford?
IEP and 504 kids are disproportionately not doing as well as the rest of their peers.
You think there is really that level of disability at the far right hand side of the curve?

I’d expect more disabled kids at smarter schools. Autistic people can be incredibly bright. Many top students with ADHD too. This also sounds bad but academia gives you a ton of boost in admissions if you’re physically disabled but smart. Disabled doesn’t mean you’re intellectually behind.

These kids are not sheldon from big bang theory, they are more likely to have lower IQ and cognitive ability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Standardized testing in the UC admissions process would have helped in my house!

1600 SAT score (single attempt) and 14 scores of 5 on AP exams (14/14) didnt enter the equation, so my UC kid was extremely lucky to get in with his 3.7 unweighted GPA.

Like California beaches at times, I see a red flag warning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of students getting extra time on the SAT are affluent and white. The number of students getting accommodations has skyrocketed. The College Board is NOT allowed to flag if you have extra time or not.

This is the reason why so many students at top schools get accommodations. Almost 40% of Stanford students are registered as having a disability.

12.5% of Stanford students have academic accommodations. The majority of accommodations are related to housing and/or religion. For example, my Stanford kid has severe food allergies so can’t be placed with an unknown roommate (not as relevant as an upperclassman with a draw group but extremely relevant as a freshman)—the university classifies this as a “disability.” She, like 87.5% of her fellow students, does not have any academic accommodations.

12.5% is still a lot.

Most kids are just gaming accommodations to get better housing.

Not really, considering that “in the US, roughly 15% of all public school students (about 7.5 million children ages 3–21) receive special education or related services. Nationwide, around 8% to 12% of all K-12 students have identified learning or attention issues that require formal accommodations under an IEP or 504 plan.” (National Center of Education Statistics)

But at Stanford?
IEP and 504 kids are disproportionately not doing as well as the rest of their peers.
You think there is really that level of disability at the far right hand side of the curve?

Courtesy of ChatGPT: Yes, 12.5% of students receiving academic accommodations at Stanford is quite plausible, and it doesn't necessarily conflict with the observation that students with IEPs and 504 plans, on average, perform less well academically than their peers.

A few reasons:

1. "Students with accommodations" is not the same as "students with severe academic impairment"

The K–12 accommodation population is very heterogeneous.

An IEP can cover:

* Dyslexia
* ADHD
* Autism
* Hearing or visual impairments
* Chronic health conditions
* Mobility impairments
* Speech/language disorders
* Emotional disabilities

Many of these conditions have little to no impact on intellectual ability. Some are actually overrepresented among very high-IQ individuals.

For example, there is substantial overlap between:

* ADHD and high intelligence
* Autism spectrum conditions and exceptional quantitative ability
* Dyslexia and high verbal reasoning or creativity

A student can be in the top 1% academically while still qualifying for accommodations.

2. Selection effects are enormous at Stanford

Suppose 10% of the general population has a condition that qualifies for accommodations.

The relevant question isn't:

> What fraction of accommodated students go to Stanford?

It's:

> Among exceptionally talented students, what fraction happen to have disabilities?

Many disabilities are largely independent of intelligence.

For example:

* ADHD prevalence is roughly similar across the IQ distribution.
* Dyslexia occurs across the IQ distribution.
* Physical disabilities occur across the IQ distribution.

If a condition is independent of cognitive ability, you'd expect roughly similar rates among highly selective university populations.

3. Accommodations may increase, rather than decrease, access to elite schools

A student with untreated ADHD might underperform.

A student with diagnosed ADHD who receives:

* extra time,
* medication,
* executive-function support,

may perform much closer to their underlying ability.

In other words, accommodations can reduce the academic penalty associated with the disability.

4. Stanford's accommodation population is probably not the same mix as K–12's

This is important.

In K–12, special education includes many students with:

* intellectual disability,
* severe developmental disabilities,
* substantial learning impairments.

Those students are rarely represented at Stanford.

The Stanford accommodation population is likely concentrated in conditions such as:

* ADHD
* Dyslexia
* Autism without intellectual impairment
* Chronic medical conditions
* Mental health conditions
* Sensory or physical disabilities

Those groups have much higher probabilities of reaching elite academic levels.

5. There is evidence that disability rates can actually be high at elite universities

Elite colleges often report accommodation rates around 10–20%, much higher than people intuitively expect.

Several factors contribute:

* Better access to diagnosis among affluent students.
* Greater willingness to seek accommodations.
* Increased recognition of ADHD and learning disabilities.
* Students who were previously undiagnosed obtaining documentation in college.
* Mental-health-related accommodations.

They are the ones that made the reference to IEP and 504 to make the case that 12.5% isn't high for academic accommodations. \

12.5% is 1 in 8. That is exceedingly high

Not following you. Who is “they”, and how is 12.5% receiving academic accommodations at Stanford “exceedingly high” when ~15% of K-12 students in the U.S. receive them?

Contrary to everything you are saying, the IEP and 504 kids have trouble graduating never mind going to Stanford.

Anonymous wrote:Back to the SAT. The materials to prep for the test are online and free. The expensive prep courses are no better than the free material. The UC recruiters on low performing campuses can run after school programs rather than just checking a box that yes so and so is the targeted demographic.

For equity, UC should not allow super-scoring and no more than two attempts. It’s really common among Asian Americans in our area to take it as many times as it takes to hit the highest score combination. Our public school only offered it once a year. Kids are flying around the state, staying in hotels and spending $$$ to get the highest superscore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of students getting extra time on the SAT are affluent and white. The number of students getting accommodations has skyrocketed. The College Board is NOT allowed to flag if you have extra time or not.

This is the reason why so many students at top schools get accommodations. Almost 40% of Stanford students are registered as having a disability.

12.5% of Stanford students have academic accommodations. The majority of accommodations are related to housing and/or religion. For example, my Stanford kid has severe food allergies so can’t be placed with an unknown roommate (not as relevant as an upperclassman with a draw group but extremely relevant as a freshman)—the university classifies this as a “disability.” She, like 87.5% of her fellow students, does not have any academic accommodations.

12.5% is still a lot.

Most kids are just gaming accommodations to get better housing.

Not really, considering that “in the US, roughly 15% of all public school students (about 7.5 million children ages 3–21) receive special education or related services. Nationwide, around 8% to 12% of all K-12 students have identified learning or attention issues that require formal accommodations under an IEP or 504 plan.” (National Center of Education Statistics)

But at Stanford?
IEP and 504 kids are disproportionately not doing as well as the rest of their peers.
You think there is really that level of disability at the far right hand side of the curve?

I’d expect more disabled kids at smarter schools. Autistic people can be incredibly bright. Many top students with ADHD too. This also sounds bad but academia gives you a ton of boost in admissions if you’re physically disabled but smart. Disabled doesn’t mean you’re intellectually behind.

Anonymous wrote:Standardized testing in the UC admissions process would have helped in my house!

1600 SAT score (single attempt) and 14 scores of 5 on AP exams (14/14) didnt enter the equation, so my UC kid was extremely lucky to get in with his 3.7 unweighted GPA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say standardized tests are racist or unfair: think about the message this sends to students who spend years studying, improving their reading and math skills, and putting real effort into learning. When you tell them their success is only because they are privileged or wealthy, what does that do psychologically? It tells them their hard work does not truly matter or deserve recognition. How is that fair to students who genuinely worked to improve themselves?

On the other hand, for those who avoid effort and hide behind excuses or distractions in the name of whatever BS reasons to avoid studying, think about what is lost over time. You lose valuable years that could have been spent learning skills, building discipline, and becoming independent. Instead, you risk becoming someone who constantly depends on others for help, support, or remediation.

Is this what we really want our society to turn into?

I got a great score on the sat and worked damned hard, but this is mostly bs. You aren’t sending much of a message at all. No- your 1550 SAT doesn’t mean much. You live in a globalized society, and, to be frank, your intelligence is probably dogshit compared to peers in Europe and Asia. If the pinnacle of your hard work is an sat score, you’re not very smart.

Intelligence in your example is overrated. I was from Japan. People are worked to death. Eventually young people withdrawal from that stupid rat race. You are thinking too much about intelligence. Intelligence is only valuable if it contributes to the society in a positive way.

Then why do we keep on getting our best graduate students from other countries? Americas science contribution is only so strong because we essentially import people into Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford, MIT, and Princeton for graduate school.

Our institutions have more money for research than other countries. Unfortunately, Trump's policies have weakened our institutions, and we will feel that for years to come. Other countries have been courting the best and brightest away from the US.

We shouldn't be taking in international students in the first place. Make American institutions American.

There's not enough homegrown talents. Your policy would be a pathway to making american research shitty. We have ALWAYS relied on brain drain

We should fix this? I don’t know. This isn’t a GOOD thing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of students getting extra time on the SAT are affluent and white. The number of students getting accommodations has skyrocketed. The College Board is NOT allowed to flag if you have extra time or not.

This is the reason why so many students at top schools get accommodations. Almost 40% of Stanford students are registered as having a disability.

12.5% of Stanford students have academic accommodations. The majority of accommodations are related to housing and/or religion. For example, my Stanford kid has severe food allergies so can’t be placed with an unknown roommate (not as relevant as an upperclassman with a draw group but extremely relevant as a freshman)—the university classifies this as a “disability.” She, like 87.5% of her fellow students, does not have any academic accommodations.

12.5% is still a lot.

Most kids are just gaming accommodations to get better housing.

Not really, considering that “in the US, roughly 15% of all public school students (about 7.5 million children ages 3–21) receive special education or related services. Nationwide, around 8% to 12% of all K-12 students have identified learning or attention issues that require formal accommodations under an IEP or 504 plan.” (National Center of Education Statistics)

But at Stanford?
IEP and 504 kids are disproportionately not doing as well as the rest of their peers.
You think there is really that level of disability at the far right hand side of the curve?

Courtesy of ChatGPT: Yes, 12.5% of students receiving academic accommodations at Stanford is quite plausible, and it doesn't necessarily conflict with the observation that students with IEPs and 504 plans, on average, perform less well academically than their peers.

A few reasons:

1. "Students with accommodations" is not the same as "students with severe academic impairment"

The K–12 accommodation population is very heterogeneous.

An IEP can cover:

* Dyslexia
* ADHD
* Autism
* Hearing or visual impairments
* Chronic health conditions
* Mobility impairments
* Speech/language disorders
* Emotional disabilities

Many of these conditions have little to no impact on intellectual ability. Some are actually overrepresented among very high-IQ individuals.

For example, there is substantial overlap between:

* ADHD and high intelligence
* Autism spectrum conditions and exceptional quantitative ability
* Dyslexia and high verbal reasoning or creativity

A student can be in the top 1% academically while still qualifying for accommodations.

2. Selection effects are enormous at Stanford

Suppose 10% of the general population has a condition that qualifies for accommodations.

The relevant question isn't:

> What fraction of accommodated students go to Stanford?

It's:

> Among exceptionally talented students, what fraction happen to have disabilities?

Many disabilities are largely independent of intelligence.

For example:

* ADHD prevalence is roughly similar across the IQ distribution.
* Dyslexia occurs across the IQ distribution.
* Physical disabilities occur across the IQ distribution.

If a condition is independent of cognitive ability, you'd expect roughly similar rates among highly selective university populations.

3. Accommodations may increase, rather than decrease, access to elite schools

A student with untreated ADHD might underperform.

A student with diagnosed ADHD who receives:

* extra time,
* medication,
* executive-function support,

may perform much closer to their underlying ability.

In other words, accommodations can reduce the academic penalty associated with the disability.

4. Stanford's accommodation population is probably not the same mix as K–12's

This is important.

In K–12, special education includes many students with:

* intellectual disability,
* severe developmental disabilities,
* substantial learning impairments.

Those students are rarely represented at Stanford.

The Stanford accommodation population is likely concentrated in conditions such as:

* ADHD
* Dyslexia
* Autism without intellectual impairment
* Chronic medical conditions
* Mental health conditions
* Sensory or physical disabilities

Those groups have much higher probabilities of reaching elite academic levels.

5. There is evidence that disability rates can actually be high at elite universities

Elite colleges often report accommodation rates around 10–20%, much higher than people intuitively expect.

Several factors contribute:

* Better access to diagnosis among affluent students.
* Greater willingness to seek accommodations.
* Increased recognition of ADHD and learning disabilities.
* Students who were previously undiagnosed obtaining documentation in college.
* Mental-health-related accommodations.

They are the ones that made the reference to IEP and 504 to make the case that 12.5% isn't high for academic accommodations. \

12.5% is 1 in 8. That is exceedingly high

Not following you. Who is “they”, and how is 12.5% receiving academic accommodations at Stanford “exceedingly high” when ~15% of K-12 students in the U.S. receive them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of students getting extra time on the SAT are affluent and white. The number of students getting accommodations has skyrocketed. The College Board is NOT allowed to flag if you have extra time or not.

This is the reason why so many students at top schools get accommodations. Almost 40% of Stanford students are registered as having a disability.

12.5% of Stanford students have academic accommodations. The majority of accommodations are related to housing and/or religion. For example, my Stanford kid has severe food allergies so can’t be placed with an unknown roommate (not as relevant as an upperclassman with a draw group but extremely relevant as a freshman)—the university classifies this as a “disability.” She, like 87.5% of her fellow students, does not have any academic accommodations.

12.5% is still a lot.

Most kids are just gaming accommodations to get better housing.

Not really, considering that “in the US, roughly 15% of all public school students (about 7.5 million children ages 3–21) receive special education or related services. Nationwide, around 8% to 12% of all K-12 students have identified learning or attention issues that require formal accommodations under an IEP or 504 plan.” (National Center of Education Statistics)

But at Stanford?
IEP and 504 kids are disproportionately not doing as well as the rest of their peers.
You think there is really that level of disability at the far right hand side of the curve?

Courtesy of ChatGPT: Yes, 12.5% of students receiving academic accommodations at Stanford is quite plausible, and it doesn't necessarily conflict with the observation that students with IEPs and 504 plans, on average, perform less well academically than their peers.

A few reasons:

1. "Students with accommodations" is not the same as "students with severe academic impairment"

The K–12 accommodation population is very heterogeneous.

An IEP can cover:

* Dyslexia
* ADHD
* Autism
* Hearing or visual impairments
* Chronic health conditions
* Mobility impairments
* Speech/language disorders
* Emotional disabilities

Many of these conditions have little to no impact on intellectual ability. Some are actually overrepresented among very high-IQ individuals.

For example, there is substantial overlap between:

* ADHD and high intelligence
* Autism spectrum conditions and exceptional quantitative ability
* Dyslexia and high verbal reasoning or creativity

A student can be in the top 1% academically while still qualifying for accommodations.

2. Selection effects are enormous at Stanford

Suppose 10% of the general population has a condition that qualifies for accommodations.

The relevant question isn't:

> What fraction of accommodated students go to Stanford?

It's:

> Among exceptionally talented students, what fraction happen to have disabilities?

Many disabilities are largely independent of intelligence.

For example:

* ADHD prevalence is roughly similar across the IQ distribution.
* Dyslexia occurs across the IQ distribution.
* Physical disabilities occur across the IQ distribution.

If a condition is independent of cognitive ability, you'd expect roughly similar rates among highly selective university populations.

3. Accommodations may increase, rather than decrease, access to elite schools

A student with untreated ADHD might underperform.

A student with diagnosed ADHD who receives:

* extra time,
* medication,
* executive-function support,

may perform much closer to their underlying ability.

In other words, accommodations can reduce the academic penalty associated with the disability.

4. Stanford's accommodation population is probably not the same mix as K–12's

This is important.

In K–12, special education includes many students with:

* intellectual disability,
* severe developmental disabilities,
* substantial learning impairments.

Those students are rarely represented at Stanford.

The Stanford accommodation population is likely concentrated in conditions such as:

* ADHD
* Dyslexia
* Autism without intellectual impairment
* Chronic medical conditions
* Mental health conditions
* Sensory or physical disabilities

Those groups have much higher probabilities of reaching elite academic levels.

5. There is evidence that disability rates can actually be high at elite universities

Elite colleges often report accommodation rates around 10–20%, much higher than people intuitively expect.

Several factors contribute:

* Better access to diagnosis among affluent students.
* Greater willingness to seek accommodations.
* Increased recognition of ADHD and learning disabilities.
* Students who were previously undiagnosed obtaining documentation in college.
* Mental-health-related accommodations.

Anonymous wrote:Back to the SAT. The materials to prep for the test are online and free. The expensive prep courses are no better than the free material. The UC recruiters on low performing campuses can run after school programs rather than just checking a box that yes so and so is the targeted demographic.

For equity, UC should not allow super-scoring and no more than two attempts. It’s really common among Asian Americans in our area to take it as many times as it takes to hit the highest score combination. Our public school only offered it once a year. Kids are flying around the state, staying in hotels and spending $$$ to get the highest superscore.

Anonymous wrote:Back to the SAT. The materials to prep for the test are online and free. The expensive prep courses are no better than the free material. The UC recruiters on low performing campuses can run after school programs rather than just checking a box that yes so and so is the targeted demographic.

For equity, UC should not allow super-scoring and no more than two attempts. It’s really common among Asian Americans in our area to take it as many times as it takes to hit the highest score combination. Our public school only offered it once a year. Kids are flying around the state, staying in hotels and spending $$$ to get the highest superscore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say standardized tests are racist or unfair: think about the message this sends to students who spend years studying, improving their reading and math skills, and putting real effort into learning. When you tell them their success is only because they are privileged or wealthy, what does that do psychologically? It tells them their hard work does not truly matter or deserve recognition. How is that fair to students who genuinely worked to improve themselves?

On the other hand, for those who avoid effort and hide behind excuses or distractions in the name of whatever BS reasons to avoid studying, think about what is lost over time. You lose valuable years that could have been spent learning skills, building discipline, and becoming independent. Instead, you risk becoming someone who constantly depends on others for help, support, or remediation.

Is this what we really want our society to turn into?

I got a great score on the sat and worked damned hard, but this is mostly bs. You aren’t sending much of a message at all. No- your 1550 SAT doesn’t mean much. You live in a globalized society, and, to be frank, your intelligence is probably dogshit compared to peers in Europe and Asia. If the pinnacle of your hard work is an sat score, you’re not very smart.

Intelligence in your example is overrated. I was from Japan. People are worked to death. Eventually young people withdrawal from that stupid rat race. You are thinking too much about intelligence. Intelligence is only valuable if it contributes to the society in a positive way.

Then why do we keep on getting our best graduate students from other countries? Americas science contribution is only so strong because we essentially import people into Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford, MIT, and Princeton for graduate school.

Our institutions have more money for research than other countries. Unfortunately, Trump's policies have weakened our institutions, and we will feel that for years to come. Other countries have been courting the best and brightest away from the US.

We shouldn't be taking in international students in the first place. Make American institutions American.

There's not enough homegrown talents. Your policy would be a pathway to making american research shitty. We have ALWAYS relied on brain drain

We should fix this? I don’t know. This isn’t a GOOD thing