The University of California’s faculty leaders have recommended retaining the controversial SAT and ACT as admissions requirements, despite concerns that the standardized tests are rigged against students of low income. Wealthy parents pay huge sums for tutoring their children. Standardized tests by their nature are rigged against disadvantaged students, which has encouraged more than 1,000 colleges and universities to drop them.
But paradoxically, UC leaders believe that these tests help disadvantaged students.
The new yearlong faculty review found that most UC admissions officers offset that bias by considering an applicant’s high school and neighborhood demographics in evaluating the standardized test scores. The review found that less-advantaged applicants were admitted at higher rates for any given test score, a finding that faculty review committee members said surprised them. That process results in increased admission of disadvantaged students, the review found.
The faculty review committee “did not find evidence that UC’s use of test scores played a major role in worsening the effects of disparities already present among applicants and did find evidence that UC’s admissions process helped to make up for the potential adverse effect of score differences between groups.”
This is good news for the SAT/ACT test prep industry, as well as the monolithic testing industry that benefits far more than students.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Bah…humbug…isn’t David Coleman profiting from this as he did with Common Core?
Well Coleman gets about $1 million a year running the College Board and molding the mind of America to his liking.
Molding Minds
Coleman is molding —
Like fruit and like bread
A fungus unfolding
In all he has led
Haha, SDP. Coleman and his fungified mind. 🙂
The problem is that he is molding the minds of millions of our children.
His own mind was molded/moldy from attendance at Oxford.
When I read the LA Times article linked to, I was glad to see that the faculty was not saying that standardized tests were all-important, but just used as just one among many factors. I thought their reasoning was interesting — that less advantaged applicants were admitted at higher rates for every test score and the test score is put in context with the background. A disadvantaged student who is at the top of his or her class in a public school is still going to admitted over an affluent student at a different public school with a similar GPA but better SAT scores. But perhaps a middle class public school with very strong test scores is admitted over an overprivileged student whose private school specializes in grade inflation but whose test scores aren’t as high.
“The review found that less-advantaged applicants were admitted at higher rates for any given test score….”
So, when dealing with a less-advantaged applicant, they just throw out the standardized test scores. Ergo, standardized tests help less-advantaged students….?
BTW, if this is the kind of “logic” that is taught at UC schools, I’ll be discouraging my kids from applying.
UC higher education used to be the envy of the nation.
Used — as in ” used” car — to be.
Grades definitely seem to be weighted much higher on the U. of California application than standardized test scores, which is a good thing.
There was nothing there about “throwing out” standardized test scores. Not sure where you got that.
The review made it clear that because admissions did not make standardized tests the main criteria, students with similar GPAs would not be disadvantaged if their standardized test scores were lower than a more affluent student with a similar GPA. That is very different than just looking at GPAs.
Maybe I’m more cynical than you are, but it is much easier for the a very rich family to find a private school that will make sure their children always have good GPAs than it is for them to find a tutor to get their lazy kid to do well on standardized tests. And while donating enough so that the private school wants to make sure your child’s grades stay decent is perfectly legal, paying a Harvard grad to take your kid’s SAT for them is not.
Disclaimer: I do not believe standardized tests like the SAT are the end all to be all. But I do believe that it would benefit the richest students and hurt middle class students in public schools if colleges just used GPAs.
paradoxicallystupidly, UC leaders believe that these tests help disadvantaged students.”Fixed.
Booooooooooooooooo!!!!!!
So dumb. So dumb. So dumb.
I think h.s. grades only would put enormous pressure for grade inflation on teachers, so for that reason I support the SAT. Also, students who are alienated by the rote learning demanded in high school can demonstrate mastery thru SAT even if they don’t get high grades due to boredom or resentment of common core curriculum.
In Florida DeSantis is replacing the Common Core with the B.E.S.T. standards. Students will be required to take the SAT for free in eleventh grade. The scores will not be used to determine who will graduate, but the scores will be used to “grade” schools. It remains to be seen what else the state will do with the scores and how the changes will unfold. https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/01/24/desantis-announces-new-florida-school-standards-without-common-core/
I can predict the outcome of school grades based on SAT scores. The highest scores will be white, affluent schools. The lowest scores will be the ones with the kids with high needs.
To me, the problem with having college admissions based only on GPAs is that I can also predict average high school GPAs and the high schools whose students have the highest average GPAs will be white, affluent schools — with private school students having even higher average GPAs than public school students — and the lowest average GPAs will be the public schools that have kids with high needs.
“The highest scores will be white, affluent schools.”
Maybe this is how UC faculty wants to screen its students.
shhh, it’s a secret
yes 😦
nycpsp, savvy admissions folks always made it their biz to know the relative merits of applicants’ hischs, so as to distinguish one sch’s GPA from another. Anecdotally, based on conversations w/ hisch teachers/ admins, I believe this is still so.
The faculty review committee “did not find evidence that UC’s use of test scores played a major role in worsening the effects of disparities already present among applicants”
Quite a glowing endorsement for continuing to use test scores.
Apparently, this endorsement is enough to keep ACT and SAT in business in CA. I wonder how many ACT and SAT lobbyists worked behind the scene. It’s hard for me to believe that the profs really voted for this.
That they did is quite a glowing endorsement for the awarding of tenure in the UC system
Don’t worry – they are furiously politicizing the university system. Any professor who wants a job at any U of C school must now pass a DEITY test (that’s diversity-equity-inclusion-to-you). This is for real, I’m not joking.
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/01/wokeademia.html
Oh good god, what a bunch of right-wing tripe. No one thinks people should be treated differently because of their gender, race, sexuality, etc. They should be treated the same. That’s the whole point. This diversity and inclusion program is demanding that professors and other academics get with the program and accept that people different from them have rights. If this is “politicizing”, it’s only an antidote to the structurally racist politicizing that’s been there all along.
dienne77,
Thank you for this excellent reply skewering the right wing propaganda posted here.
Yes to this thread.
No one thinks people should be treated differently because of their gender, race and sexuality? Are you kidding me? Then why the complaints about testing? Let’s let the scores fall where they may, by all means. Why are Asians marked down by highly selective colleges because of their “personalities?” Why the required workshops, outside experiences, etc that professors must show that they are doing to kowtow to what the commissariat demands? A math professor who is not interested in any politics outside of her field will be rejected on that basis? Soon U of C will be Darwinist dessert. Structurally racist?? This society bends over backwards to promote anyone with a hint of “diversity!” Only now they have to prove it.
“Why are Asians marked down by highly selective colleges because of their “personalities?”
So colleges can admit more very rich and privileged white students from the “dean’s list” and insist that they were “just as qualified” as all the other students’ admitted.
It is the exact same reason those highly selective colleges field teams in sailing and water polo and golf and lacrosse. It’s to admit the mostly rich white students who play those sports instead of other students.
Abby, please read the book WHITE FRAGILITY by Robin Diangelo. That’s what you are exhibiting. I find it fascinating when white, straight, able-bodied people – for whom the entire world is built to their convenience – get defensive when small, incremental measures are made to hear and respect the voices and experiences of people of color, people with disabilities, LGBT+ people, etc. Don’t worry, you’re still white. You’re still in power. You’re still safe.
What makes you think i’m white?
or straight or able-bodied?
Ha ha – only right on 1 out of 3
“Soon U of C will be Darwinist dessert. ”
Darwinist Dessert
Dessert of the Darwinist
“Fittest Cream Pie”
Awarded to winningest
Testers, oh my!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpoliakoff/2020/01/21/how-diversity-screening-at-the-university-of-california-could-degrade-faculty-quality/#50f8334c1598
Rather prosaic, but there it is.
Desert is a wasteland
Waterless and barren
Dessert effects the waistband
Everything you’re wearin
Abby, the real question is why rely on tests that don’t show ability or knowledge. In math, for example, all they show is how fast the test taker can whip out answers, without thinking. Is this a skill needed for more than a small percentage of jobs? Is this what a college prof wants from her students: whip out answers without thinking?
I think the reason universities should get rid of these tests is because they do not test college readiness. It’s an enormous waste of time and money to prepare for these tests every year. It’s ridiculous that public universities all over the country rely on the services of these two testing companies which have vested interest in keeping their irrelevant tests in business.
Since Diane removed my response to dienne 77, here is another link, perhaps not so “right wing” (truth is truth, not left or right). We’ll see if this is published:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/11/19/mathematician-comes-out-against-mandatory-diversity-statements-while-others-say-they
That article was more balanced, but the idea that diversity/inclusion statements are “McCarthyite” is still far from “truth”. The reality is that higher education is (finally!) becoming more diverse and faculty need to be able to deal with that. If a faculty member is unwilling to confront that fact, I don’t think they have any business working with students of color, LGBT+ students, students with disabilities, etc. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect professors to understand and explore how their behavior may help or hinder such students.
What a racist/sexist proposition! So if a math professor has students of a more “diverse” background, she is supposed to lower her expectations of them? Why? Because you assume they cannot achieve excellence? What a horrible thought.
“So if a math professor has students of a more “diverse” background, she is supposed to lower her expectations of them?”
Why lowering standards is the only conclusion possible? Another possibility is to offer extra help sessions, for example. At a large university, profs’ looking out for individual students is half the success. Kids get easily lost in the system, and may decide to give up. Help from profs often saves the day for them.
Actually Dienne’s comment wasn’t about lowering academic expectations, it was about becoming more aware of how your behavior [/ commentary] may be interpreted by your students– you know, “hostile environment” & all that. One might expect by now that profs would have a clue re: ethnic diversity, but poor, & LGBTQ, maybe not so much. [You’d be aghast at themisogyny that passed for regular-Joe conversation in ’70’s when women 1st showed up in previously all-male biz bastions.]
Sorry Mate,
At some point an institution must have gatekeepers (I know,I know);
students who can’t grasp the information simply cannot move on. You think the SAT or ACT don’t show ability in math? They are just the gatekeepers: you would not believe the number of students who come into the university system without the most basic understanding of simplistic mathematical models including percent, ratio, decimals, whole numbers, fractions and averages, not to mention algebra and euclidean geometry.
Abby,
I’ve been traveling and recovering from the flu. Your comment was in moderation while I was sleeping. To call it “censorship” is ugly.
Hope you’re feeling better, Diane!
Thanks, Christine. Better but struggling to keep up energy level and worrying only about laryngitis. So far, so good. The weather in Seattle is awful. Cold, drizzly. But looking forward to a great event tonight at Town Hall with Jesse Hagopian, one of the heroes of my book.
My nana’s favorite remedy for that was a tumbler of blackberry brandy. For a more sophisticated palate, perhaps a Calvados would do.
Jesse will energize you for sure!
My spouse recommends whiskey, honey, and lemon, but we don’t have the necessary ingredients.
No whiskey, lemon and honey in Seattle? What kind of place is that?! 🙂
A hotel near the waterfront. No grocery stores. High end restaurants.
No bar, no room service?
Surely they can be procured! Bet Jesse knows a place.
Sorry Diane, I am very glad that you did not censor me. Hope you are feeling better. Not meant to be “ugly.”
Apology accepted
Abby,
The problem is that anyone who begins by comparing having to demonstrate knowledge and experience regarding diversity issues with signing a pledge that they are not a member of the Communist Party in the 1950s is making a nonsensical comparison.
If you asked a white man in the 1950s whether they judged everyone on their abilities, they would say yes, Donald Trump was admitted to U. Penn on his abilities, George W. Bush got into Yale because he was the superior candidate, and the reason there are no women in management is because they picked the “best” candidate and the best candidate was a white man.
There is a “gold old boys club” even today that tells you that Brett Kavanaugh was such an outstanding Yale undergrad that he was admitted directly to Yale Law School on merit alone, superior to all rejected applicants. And Kavanaugh was admitted to Yale undergrad because he was absolutely superior to all the other candidates who were rejected. And Kavanaugh was made a Supreme Court Justice because he “earned it”. But Sonia Sotomayor did not. She got her jobs because of “affirmative action”. She got into Yale Law because of “affirmative action” and Brett Kavanaugh “earned” his place. Neil Gorsuch “earned” his place but Elizabeth Warren was given it because of “affirmative action”. Poppycock.
It is always assumed that white people in academia get their jobs on merit alone because they have the “best” credentials — the Yale degree! The “right” grad school. And anyone who doesn’t have those “earned” credentials — which just happens to include many people who aren’t white — were inferior because they don’t have those credentials. So why wouldn’t you make sure the Brett Kavanaughs and George W. Bushes and Jared Kushners get the jobs they are clearly “more qualified” to get?
When Title IX came out, forcing universities to put money into women’s sports as well as men’s, men were outraged. This shouldn’t be forced upon us because if there were enough outstanding women who deserved a team, they would have one. It turned out that forcing colleges to provide those opportunities meant an enormous increase in outstanding women athletes. Sure a Babe Didrikson could “do it on her own” and succeed but the fact that there are women who can still become outstanding athletes despite not having 1% of what men were given from age 5 did not mean that 99% of the male athletes were achieving not because they were outstanding like Babe Didrikson, but because they were given all the advantages now also given to female athletes at a young age.
There will always be a handful of people of all ethnic and racial backgrounds who can beat the odds. Most can’t. However, what happens is that many (not all) white men never have to beat the odds and they believe that because they started on third base, it’s because they hit a triple all by themselves because they are superior to everyone else. That is true in academia, too. And colleges working to do something about it is similar to colleges being forced to provide opportunities for women athletes. Those opportunities that Title IX provided are why there are so many outstanding women athletes in this country. And concern with diversity will do the same in academia.
But a better comparison would be to Title IX and not McCarthy era loyalty pledges.
As we enter a future in which higher cognitive demands in professions will be mandatory, many people in our society will suffer. This is one of the most profound problems of our postmodern times. How do we address this fact? Our country only has 30% of students graduating college. You are absolutely right that most people cannot beat the odds. So what do we do? As a country we have not even begun to discuss this problem. Andrew Yang only broached it – proposing a universal basic income.
This is a problem that disturbs me deeply and I am only beginning to research it. We all need to pay very close attention to it.
What we have to remember is that all humans beings deserve respect and dignity.
“As we enter a future in which higher cognitive demands in professions will be mandatory, ”
This is not clear at all, and this is behind all these demands for college readiness in schools, and college graduation rate demands by politicians.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/05/03/the-future-of-jobs-and-jobs-training/
This research by Pew is meaningless to me, Abby. Take for example
A diversifying education and credentialing ecosystem: Most of these experts expect the education marketplace – especially online learning platforms – to continue to change in an effort to accommodate the widespread needs. Some predict employers will step up their own efforts to train and retrain workers. Many foresee a significant number of self-teaching efforts by jobholders themselves as they take advantage of proliferating online opportunities.
These experts claim that the future of education is online. One of the issues we discuss on this blog that billionaires push for technology in education as the future. See for example, the so called personalized education.
Technology can and should replace extremely repetitive jobs. But the claim that most jobs will be technology driven, and people are needed only to supervise the machines is questionable.
I find this issue puzzling. One the one hand, if UC admissions automatically bumps up SAT/ACT scores for disadvantaged students – to counter the oft-shown truism that stdzd test scores track zip codes – what’s the point of taking the test? Sounds like they have decided to take on disadvantaged students, whatever their challenges [hopefully they have support system in place.] On the other, I lean toward nycpsp’s suggestion that w/o the test, there’s too much emphasis on GPA, which encourages gaming it [even further – if in fact high-$clout parents are already able to game it].
It all suggests that admissions is very slapdash, compared to the more fine-grained approach that seemed to prevail 50+ yrs ago when I was going throught it.
RE: GPA for example, attention was paid primarily to your grades in courses relevant to the field you wanted to pursue. Not that you get in w/D’s & F’s in unrelated courses, but B-/C+ suggests you can pass the core courses in other areas. If hisch cume is the only # looked at, everybody’s just got to be great at everything.
RE: SAT/ACT vs GPA, it was always understood that some were better on tests than others – or discrepancy there could indicate a smartie who doesn’t yet know how to study hard – so it was helpful to have both pieces… All of that may of course be moot since Coleman has re-written SAT [ACT next?] to align w/ Common Core, soo why take a test that’s just duplicating hisch stdzd CCSS/aligned exams…
Essay – Interview – Portfolio – any of that still carefully considered?
Ugh. All I can say is when, as usual, you can’t follow the test obsessers’ logic, follow the money.
The Atlantic has this article up on one of the other hurdles tha SAT and ACT pose to low income kids – reporting scores.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/a-simple-way-to-bring-down-college-application-costs/539289/
Some wealthy parents pay huge sums to help their kids on the SAT. And some pay to help them get better grades, too. Should we throw out grades as well? Poor kids are not being discriminated against in this regard, nor are they being excluded from college as a result. What’s wrong with rewarding kids based mostly on academic merit? It’s not as if poor kids would be excluded from going to college at all if they can’t get into UC. There is another 4-year system with lower academic requirements in CA, CSU…they don’t require the SAT. There’s also community college. And getting accepted from community college into CSU, or UC is considerably easier than straight out of high school. It would seem as if the students who are truly being discriminated against are the ones who through know fault of their own live in a non-poor area, study hard their entire lives, overachieve academically, and then are told by UC, sorry we chose a kid with a GPA 0.5 lower and 300 SAT points lower than you because we think they are poor, and we don’t think you are.
Do you even hear yourself? Do you see the contradictions in what you just wrote? Rich parents help their kids get higher scores. How can you then turn around and say that poor kids aren’t being discriminated against if colleges base admissions on test scores? And if test scores are a reflection of wealth, how can you then say they reflect merit? Are wealthy people inherently more meritorious?
What most parents don’t understand now is that their children aren’t receiving a true education while attending school. They are test prepped to pass the stupid test SAT/ACT/AP/PARCC/SBAC etc. Learning and learning to pass a test are 2 different things. Even HS GPA’s aren’t indicative to a true learning experience due to the Common Core curriculum (test prep) that is still deeply embedded in every public school. Competitive/helicopter/lawn mower parents just love test scores because it makes them feel superior and they will gladly pay extra for that right. These parents are really pretty stupid in that they have bought into the madness. Colleges are willing to exploit anyone willing to apply to their expensive schools.
I have always understood that one of the core orthodox beliefs on this blog is that teachers have little or no impact on standardized test scores. If that is true, rich parents are simply wasting their money buying the services of tutors. If fully trained teachers can not impact standardized test scores, surely tutors in the completely unregulated tutoring industry are even less effective in increasing scores.
TE, non-poor kids score higher than poor kids not because of super tutors. Hint: one of my smartest students had only a 2.5 GPA. She missed a month from my class since she had cancer but no insurance. During her years in college, she had to work two jobs, slept 4 hours a day, had no internet at home, and in fact spent a semester sleeping in a car.
When economists compile data on poverty, do they actually meet poor people, or that would affect their objectivity in evaluating the data?
Mate,
You may well believe that the money relatively wealthy parents pay to tutors has no impact on their children’s standardized test scores, but I do not think that is the orthodox opinion for this blog. I would certainly be interested to hear from others if they think that the majority of people here believe that private tutoring has little or no impact on standardized test scores and the wealthy are just wasting their money.
I noticed that in this discussion of standardized test scores you talked about your student’s grade point average, not her standardized test score. Could you report her SAT or ACT test score? I do understand that FERPA might prevent this. I must say that one of your smartest students having a gpa of 2.5 is not a strong argument for using gpa as the sole admission criteria to a university.
The average math SAT score is 531, the average math ACT score is 20.8. Do you have any math majors that have an SAT score below 531? ACT below 20.8?
TE, I think I have made it clear that quantitative assessment of students (especially on standardized tests) is not to my liking.
Actually, as a lower SES child, I found Oscar Wilde and Emily Bronte and that was it for me! Wealthy parents can prep all they want but if junior isn’t interested, there’s not much they can do. As Charles Murray’s latest book demonstrates, genes have a phenomenal advantage over nature.(please don’t say oh charles murray the racist!)The question is – what do what do about this?
“It would seem as if the students who are truly being discriminated against are the ones who through know fault of their own live in a non-poor area…”
Know fault Discrimination
You know it’s not their fault
They’re born with silver spoon
It’s something to exalt
And not to just impugn
Mean Old Man, your argument shows exactly why the traditional way of accepting kids to college is faulty. Ability (or “readiness”) is certainly not measured by ACT scores. Ensuring diversity in colleges is essential in a democracy: once a kid got a college diploma, chances are all her descendants will get one too.
If a “rich kid” works hard in preparing for the ACT, then scores, say, 34, and a “poor kid” scores only 30, but only the poor kid gets accepted to a university due to some diversity policy, the rich kid may feel, life is unfair. But the poor kid might have worked in evenings while the rich kid was studying for the ACT and the poor kid might have slept in a car at night while the rich kid slept in bedroom 7 of her house. In such a case, I doubt the ACT score difference can (and should) decide which child will be a better engineer after graduation from college.
Of course, diversity policies need to be extremely smart and careful. The very first discrimination of Jews happened in college admissions in Germany (and in some other countries as well, such as Hungary). Also, during communism, children of factory workers and farmers had to be accepted to universities and children of white collar parents could enter a university only if there were some leftover places.
I have always understood that TE is like a mosquito that buzzes around your head.
Annoying but otherwise utterly meaningless.
oops…CSU requires the SAT, just not the SAT w/essay…still.
Asian Americans oppose the essay section of the SAT.
There are very legitimate reasons for opposing the essay section.
Number 1 is that David Coleman is not qualified to oversee the judging of essays.
The fellow writes like he speaks: incoherently.
David Coleman is actually the poster boy for why selecting students based on test scores is such a bad idea.
The end result is nitwits who can’t speak, write or think.
Forgive my political incorrectness. I should not have used the word “nitwits”
The end result is Oxfordmorons who can’t speak, write or think.
Fixed.
“The Bell Curve Boys”
The Bell Curve Boys
Just love the tests
Like favorite toys
They tout their bests:
“A perfect score on SAT
Is what I got in school, you see
And how successful I’ve turned out
The test tells all, there’s little doubt”
Here’s FairTest’s initial response to the U.C. Faculty Task Force report — I still have not been able to read beyond the introductory 20-pages because of a barrage of media phone calls and emails
Yesterday’s report does did not rule out the ultimate adoption of an ACT/SAT optional policy at the University of California. In fact, under point 7) the Task Force states, “UC should conduct additional research on the impact of going ‘test optional’ before deciding whether and how to implement such a policy.” The Task Force’s concerns appears to be operational — how to make admissions decisions among huge numbers of applicants at large, selective institutions. In the coming years more data on that very topic should become available from the experiences of flagship public university campuses in Indiana, New Hampshire and the like that recently implemented test-optional policies.
We are concerned that some of the Task Force’s findings, on which their recommendations are based, conflict with those of other researchers such as Saul Geiser, who has long studied UC admissions policies at the UC Office of the President. Because of these discrepancies, we call upon the Task Force to make the data sets it analyzed available to independent analysts for further review.
Test-optional policies have been proven to work at more than 1,000 institutions both large and small across the U.S. If a highly selective, top-tier institutions such as the University of Chicago can implement a test-optional policy, so can U.C. campuses.
Finally, it is important to recognize that the Task Force report contains recommendations, not decisions. The power to set admissions testing policies continues to reside with the Faculty Senate and, ultimately, the Board of Regents.
Bob Schaeffer, interim Executive Director
FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing
contributor: The Scandal of Standardized Tests: Why We Need to Drop the SAT & ACT
(forthcoming, Teachers College Press, March 2020)
Thanks. I think one issue is that the UC system is much bigger than U of Chicago, and hence implementing changes in admissions is much more difficult in the whole system.
Personally, I think such big systems need to be broken up into smaller, more autonomous parts so that they can experiment with varying policies and educational methods better.
“half of Latinos were admitted compared to less than one-third of whites. The review found similar advantages for students who are low-income and the first in their families to attend college.”
It seems that UC faculty leaders have made their decision not to drop ACT and SAT using statistics: they used statistics to evaluate students’ backgrounds and they used statistics to remedy social differences. Besides this questionable use of statistics, I do not see if they at all looked at the relevance of ACT and SAT to what profs really want from students who enter college.
From the UC Academic Council task force’s report:
How well do UC’s current standardized testing practices assess entering high school students for UC readiness? How well do UC current standardized testing practices predict student success in the context of its comprehensive review process?
The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation. For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen).
Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA.
In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.
STTF has examined the effect of ACT scores on other scores. I thought the reason for dropping ACT is on a philosophical ground which cannot be measured quantitatively well.
It’s apparent that commentors here very little understanding of how UCs admit undergraduates. All UCs use the following criteria when evaluating applications, with the weights given to each factor depending upon the particular campus [e.g., Cal and UCLA give more weight to SAT/ACT scores and GPAs than Irvine and Riverside.] The actual weightings are kept secret and also vary a bit year to year. The criteria were adopted several years ago, in response to the rapid decline in numbers of underrepresented minority students in the higher tier schools (e.g., Cal had about 75 incoming African American freshmen 8-10 years ago…out of 8000+ total freshmen.)
Academic grade point average in all completed A-G courses, including additional points for completed UC-certified honors courses.
Scores on the following tests: ACT with Writing or the SAT with Essay.
Number of, content of and performance in academic courses beyond the minimum A-G requirements.
Number of and performance in UC-approved honors, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate Higher Level and transferable college courses.
Identification by UC as being ranked in the top 9 percent of your high school class at the end of your junior year (Eligible in the Local Context, or ELC).
Quality of your senior-year program as measured by the type and number of academic courses in progress or planned.
Quality of your academic performance relative to the educational opportunities available in your high school.
Outstanding performance in one or more specific subject areas.
Outstanding work in one or more special projects in any academic field of study.
Recent, marked improvement in academic performance as demonstrated by academic GPA and the quality of coursework completed or in progress.
Special talents, achievements and awards in a particular field, such as visual and performing arts, communication or athletic endeavors; special skills, such as demonstrated written and oral proficiency in other languages; special interests, such as intensive study and exploration of other cultures; experiences that demonstrate unusual promise for leadership, such as significant community service or significant participation in student government; or other significant experiences or achievements that demonstrate the student’s promise for contributing to the intellectual vitality of a campus.
Completion of special projects undertaken in the context of your high school curriculum or in conjunction with special school events, projects or programs.
Academic accomplishments in light of your life experiences and special circumstances, including but not limited to: disabilities, low family income, first generation to attend college, need to work, disadvantaged social or educational environment, difficult personal and family situations or circumstances, refugee status or veteran status.
Location of your secondary school and residence.
This more “holistic” method has proven to be successful at increasing the number of admitted underrepresented minority students to all of the UC campuses, but it is still true that the vast majority of said students fail to graduate. The UCs will not dispense with SAT/ACT scores anytime soon, as one poster above indicated, the scores are the best predictors of student success in college.
Sorry to say that, but it is the sad truth…
Crap. Item numbers and line spacings in my post seem to have been deleted upon posting. Perhaps a moderator can fix that…
“It’s apparent that commentors here very little understanding of how UCs admit undergraduates. All UCs use the following criteria when evaluating applications, with the weights given to each factor depending upon the particular campus [e.g., Cal and UCLA give more weight to SAT/ACT scores and GPAs than Irvine and Riverside.] The actual weightings are kept secret”
Funny claim, when we read the highlighted sentences.
In any case, the point is the fact that ACT and SAT get significant weights. In general, why insist on evaluating kids on speed tests, whether in high school, college, or at college admissions. In msath, we overwhelmingly prefer giving better grades to kids who can whip out answers than to thoughtful ones. IN a large calculus class we’ll never even notice a thoughtful student, since the only communication between them and the prof are the tests on which they get B’s and C’s.
“The UCs will not dispense with SAT/ACT scores anytime soon, as one poster above indicated, the scores are the best predictors of student success in college.”
The reason that prevents a poor kid scoring well on ACT may be the same as for getting lower grades in college. It’s not like the effects of poverty suddenly disappear upon entry to college. A student who has to work full time all through college will stay disadvantaged over the student who can devote all her time to her studies.
In my opinion, ACT/SAT have two problems that make them dispensable: they are speedtests (hence they are inappropriate for thoughtful students), and they require special preparation time poor kids may not have. I add that the fee for ACT is also an issue.
Máté
Funny claim indeed.
Ha ha ha
Whenever someone uses “weighting” and does not justify — or even tell you — the weights, you know they are up to no good.
They don’t want anyone to see them off in the corner mathturbating.
So much of what some people (especially economists) pass off as “mathematics” these days is just complete rubbish.
VAM is undoubtedly the poster boy for such mathturbation. It’s simply garbage dressed up in equations to lend it credibility.
In my opinion, everyone should be required to take a course in ” How to recognize mathturbation when you see it” before they can graduate from college. Of course, this would probably put most economists out of business.
“VAM”
A factory of fudge
With “measures” and with “weights”
Will act as “teacher judge”
For folks like Billy Gates
You must like desserts, SDP. I am not fond of fudge, but please don’t ruin ice cream for me with a poem about Bill & Betsy VAM ice cream. or similar.
Alternate title for the above “Chetty and the Fudge Factory”
With Billy Wonka as factory owner
Your wish is my command
Gatescream, DeVoscream. They all scream for VAMscream