Jump to content

Menu

University of California Will Stop Using SAT, ACT


Roadrunner
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/university-of-california-will-stop-using-sat-act-11590099469
 

No word on how this will affect homeschoolers who relied on “entry by examination.” Hoping their righteous fight against discrimination also includes discrimination of homeschool applicants. 🙄
 

It’s also going to be interesting to see what they will do with near identical transcripts of PS kids and high percentage of A’s in richer schools. Is this going to further drive AP craze or DE craze to boost GPAs? 
I think we started out thinking our kids would be entering UCs one day. I am not even sure I want to go near them now with so much experimentation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/university-of-california-will-stop-using-sat-act-11590099469
 

No word on how this will affect homeschoolers who relied on “entry by examination.” Hoping their righteous fight against discrimination also includes discrimination of homeschool applicants. 🙄
 

It’s also going to be interesting to see what they will do with near identical transcripts of PS kids and high percentage of A’s in richer schools. Is this going to further drive AP craze or DE craze to boost GPAs? 
I think we started out thinking our kids would be entering UCs one day. I am not even sure I want to go near them now with so much experimentation. 

 

I'm sure they have enough internal data about the relative strength/weaknesses of high schools across the country that they don't need ACT/SAT to determine the relative value of one school's A vs. another school's A (and the performance of admits from different high schools). I'm sure they will happily accept scores from students who want to differentiate themselves.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I'm sure they have enough internal data about the relative sttrength/weaknesses of high schools across the country that they don't need ACT/SAT to determine the relative value of one school's A vs. another school's A.

I don’t think determining the relative value of one school versus the other is the problem. I think the problem is those with relatively high value A’s are white and/or Asian schools and those that aren’t are usually ones with predominantly minority and disadvantaged population. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I don’t think determining the relative value of one school versus the other is the problem. I think the problem is those with relatively high value A’s are white and/or Asian schools and those that aren’t are usually ones with predominantly minority and disadvantaged population. 

 

I'm not so sure. There are a lot of straight A students graduating from schools in rural southern states with low (relatively speaking) test scores too. This will make them more competitive for top tiers schools and help the UC's improve diversity. They lack content and opportunity but not drive. The lack of test scores levels the playing field for them. 

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a person who got into a UC school back in the day on test scores, I find this change distressing.  Why are grades somehow the holy grail?    I think that if a university decides to make test scores optional that they should also make grades optional.  As in, you need to either submit grades or test scores, not both.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EKS said:

As a person who got into a UC school back in the day on test scores, I find this change distressing.  Why are grades somehow the holy grail?    I think that if a university decides to make test scores optional that they should also make grades optional.  As in, you need to either submit grades or test scores, not both.  

 


Grades are actually a better predictor Of college grades and completion than test scores. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-22/grades-vs-sat-scores-which-is-a-better-predictor-of-college-success%3f_amp=true

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grades are holy grail because the goal isn’t to get the most qualified kids (those tend to be Asian and upper class whites) but to get lower income (especially minorities) in. 
They stated that often those kids take a year to catch up, so maybe they will start having larger remedial courses. I don’t know. From ÇA it’s not surprising. 
 

The problem is the number of seats at those schools are very limited, so if grades are a good predictor (and they might be for all I care) there are a ton more qualified kids than seats. So how do you pick from all of those kids with perfect GPAs? I mean half of our local PS is a straight A student. 

Edited by Roadrunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If grades are a better predictor, AND THEY ARE, then those other students are NOT less qualified at all but the most qualified based on what was offered/available to them. If they go on to perform better at the university and provide increased geographic, ethnic and economic diversity then what’s the problem exactly? The university gets to bring a wealth of new perspectives to campus without sacrificing student achievement? Money won’t be able to buy access to better schools and supplementary activities and more enriched home lives/vocabularies? What this says to upper middle class kids is that being smart but underperforming in school won’t get you a seat.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

But a better predictor of what, exactly?

There is a huge difference between college grades between students majoring in the humanities and social sciences and students majoring in the natural sciences and engineering because, frankly, the natural sciences and engineering are far more difficult.  As a person with an undergraduate degree in biochemistry and master's degrees in education and the humanities, I've seen this firsthand.  

Here is an article that discusses this issue (among others), but unfortunately it is behind a paywall.  Here is a relevant quote:

"Longitudinal research demonstrates that standardized tests predict not just grades all the way through college but also the level of courses a student is likely to take. Our research shows that higher test scores are clearly related to choosing more difficult majors and to taking advanced coursework in all fields. At many schools, the same bachelor’s degree can be earned largely with introductory courses or with classes that approach the level of a master’s degree. Students with high test scores are more likely to take the challenging route through college."

Edited by EKS
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EKS said:

There is a huge difference between college grades between students majoring in the humanities and social sciences and students majoring in the natural sciences and engineering because, frankly, the natural sciences and engineering are far more difficult.  As a person with an undergraduate degree in biochemistry and master's degrees in education and the humanities, I've seen this firsthand.  

Here is an article that discusses this issue (among others), but unfortunately it is behind a paywall.  Here is a relevant quote:

"Longitudinal research demonstrates that standardized tests predict not just grades all the way through college but also the level of courses a student is likely to take. Our research shows that higher test scores are clearly related to choosing more difficult majors and to taking advanced coursework in all fields. At many schools, the same bachelor’s degree can be earned largely with introductory courses or with classes that approach the level of a master’s degree. Students with high test scores are more likely to take the challenging route through college."


They are a predictor, not the best predictor overall, of collegiate grades and persistence. The university doesn’t admit students directly into every major and the easy way to get around this is to do what many schools do and NOT admit students to a competitive major until after sophomore grades are in.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sneezyone said:


They are a predictor, not the best predictor overall. The university doesn’t admit students directly into every major and the easy way to get around this is to do what many schools do and NOT admit students to a competitive major until after sophomore grades are in.

The point is that when you eliminate SAT/ACT scores as a factor in admissions decisions, you are also eliminating students who need a bit more marination during the their teenage years before they succeed later on.  Other countries only look at test scores, which I think is also a mistake.  I'm simply suggesting that students be given a choice.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, EKS said:

The point is that when you eliminate SAT/ACT scores as a factor in admissions decisions, you are also eliminating students who need a bit more marination during the their teenage years before they succeed later on.  Other countries only look at test scores, which I think is also a mistake.  I'm simply suggesting that students be given a choice.

 

If they need a bit more marination then they should do it at the CC level just like low-income kids do. California has some of the most accessible CCs and has great transfer agreements in place too. The opportunity to go to top tier colleges should go to those who consistently worked hard. That doesn't mean late bloomers should be excluded but we don't need to grease the skids for them either. In the Navy there's a name for this..."sustained, superior performance" Everyone knows that's the standard. It'd be nice to see that make its way into college admissions.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

If they need a bit more marination then they should do it at the CC level just like low-income kids do. California has some of the most accessible and has great transfer agreements in place.

I don't mean that kind of marination.  I mean the kind where a 14 or 15yo makes some bad decisions but comes around by the end of high school and is more than ready for a four year college experience.

Why is it that a person with high grades and low test scores should be admitted to a four year school no questions asked, but a person with high test scores and less than stellar grades should be shunted off to the CC?  Why not tell the high grades/low scores person that they need to figure out how to take a test that--frankly--isn't that hard?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, EKS said:

I don't mean that kind of marination.  I mean the kind where a 14 or 15yo makes some bad decisions but comes around by the end of high school and is more than ready for a four year college experience.

Why is it that a person with high grades and low test scores should be admitted to a four year school no questions asked, but a person with high test scores and less than stellar grades should be shunted off to the CC?  Why not tell the high grades/low scores person that they need to figure out how to take a test that--frankly--isn't that hard?

 

I'm talking about exactly what you are. We ought to reward kids who managed the whole business without ANY academic lapses b/c there are a whole lot of underprivileged kids who have achieved amazing things despite bad things happening around them. Other students should be offered scholarships to attend their local CC and, in CA at least, have guaranteed transfer agreements with UCs. This isn't a 'no questions asked' admissions policy either and that's showing real bias. Each of these kids has to obtain heartfelt letters of support from teachers and other adults. Each has to demonstrate solid, sustained academic performance. No, I don't think it's right for kids who did not do those things and/or had access to better home situations, schools, and tutors to begin with to leapfrog kids with less. We will have to agree to disagree on that. In CA...CC is not a punishment. It's an alternate route to the same destination. And if students aren't admitted to competitive majors until Junior year, there's no harm involved to the students you describe. You're not gonna convince me that a student with a 4.0 from Jackson MS with a 1200 GPA is less worthy than a kid from OC with a 1400 and a 3.2. The data is clear that a student who demonstrates sustained, superior performance in high school will outperform a student with high test scores alone.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EKS said:

I don't mean that kind of marination.  I mean the kind where a 14 or 15yo makes some bad decisions but comes around by the end of high school and is more than ready for a four year college experience.

Why is it that a person with high grades and low test scores should be admitted to a four year school no questions asked, but a person with high test scores and less than stellar grades should be shunted off to the CC?  Why not tell the high grades/low scores person that they need to figure out how to take a test that--frankly--isn't that hard?


that’s right.

 

It also leaves the biggest question - what about homeschoolers? This is a homeschool board, so I would like to know what happens to those of us who planned to apply through examination route because we don’t have a through g coursework (homeschoolers generally can’t meet that requirement), and we have a lot of home brewed courses. Why isn’t my child able to demonstrate proficiency through testing? 

And another issue is A in a strong school isn’t an A in a weak school, so you are going to admit A students who are weaker than B students who might be much stronger. Eliminating standardized measures no longer allows you apples to apples comparison.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roadrunner said:


that’s right.

 

It also leaves the biggest question - what about homeschoolers? This is a homeschool board, so I would like to know what happens to those of us who planned to apply through examination route because we don’t have a through g coursework (homeschoolers generally can’t meet that requirement), and we have a lot of home brewed courses. Why isn’t my child able to demonstrate proficiency through testing? 

And another issue is A in a strong school isn’t an A in a weak school, so you are going to admit A students who are weaker than B students who might be much stronger. Eliminating standardized measures no longer allows you apples to apples comparison.

 

Homeschoolers often have different paths to admission that include required test scores. If you're curious...write them and ask. The answer to the bolded is in the existing data about the merits of test scores vs. grades as predictors. Slackers are slackers until they prove otherwise. Strivers are strivers until they prove otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Homeschoolers often have different paths to admission that include required test scores. If you're curious...write them and ask. The answer to the bolded is in the existing data about the merits of test scores vs. grades as predictors. Slackers are slackers until they prove otherwise. Strivers are strivers until they prove otherwise.


You can create data to support any hypothesis. As mentioned above, those “predictors” aren’t necessary saying what you suggest they are saying. I won’t repeat EKS post, but I will say that for a system that claims it wants equality, not having apples to apples comparison is the first sign of inequality. And no, GPAs (god forbid you take music because it lowers it! So you must be a slacker) grade inflation, unequal quality of class in structure and grades.... all of that screams discrimination. But again, UCs think they are progressive. Testing is out of fashion apparently because it doesn’t produce equal scores. 

Edited by Roadrunner
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

You're not gonna convince me that a student with a 4.0 from Jackson MS with a 1200 GPA is less worthy than a kid from OC with a 1400 and a 3.2. The data is clear that a student who demonstrates sustained, superior performance in high school will outperform a student with high test scores alone.

Outperform how?  Did those studies control for choice of major?  There is a huge difference between someone with a 4.0 who is majoring in social work and someone with a 4.0 who is majoring in engineering.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:


You can create data to support any hypothesis. As mentioned above, those “predictors” aren’t necessary saying what you suggest they are saying. I won’t repeat EKS post, but I will say that for a system that claims it wants equality, not having apples to apples comparison is the first sign of inequality. And no, GPAs (god forbid you take music because it lowers it! So you must be a slacker) grade inflation, unequal quality of class in structure and grades.... all of that screams discrimination. But again, UCs think they are progressive. Testing is out of fashion apparently because it doesn’t produce equal scores. 

 

CREATE DATA? For realz? This data has existed for over 20 years. I remember reading about this phenomenon when I was working for the Washington Student Aid Commission (formerly HECB) in the early 2000s Clearly, there's no common ground here. There are inconvenient facts and there is opinion. Prove yourself as a freshman/sophomore and then the world of  majors can be your oyster. College admissions should never hang on or be determined by a single test.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

CREATE DATA? For realz? This data has existed for over 20 years. I remember reading about this phenomenon when I was working for the Washington Student Aid Commission (formerly HECB) in the early 2000s Clearly, there's no common ground here. There are inconvenient facts and there is opinion.

Could you provide a reference?  I'd like to see if they controlled for major.

As for inconvenient facts and opinion, that runs both ways.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EKS said:

Could you provide a reference?  I'd like to see if they controlled for major.

As for inconvenient facts and opinion, that runs both ways.

 

Why does it matter whether they control for majors if you don't apply for a major until you have a collegiate track record. We're discussing the merits of elite college admissions for people who did not demonstrate sustained, superior performance in high school. I believe admission should be based on performance, not a single test's  (which we KNOW can be gamed) assessment of 'potential'.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

. Is this going to further drive AP craze or DE craze to boost GPAs? 
 

The UC Regents did not end AP. So ACT lose some business while CollegeBoard would probably just promote AP more. Canada and Europe use AP scores for college applications by US students who are not in an IB program. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top tier schools already have YEARS of data on their applicants, admits, and their performance at the universities. They don't NEED these tests anymore. They already know who has 'potential' based on their own data. How the testing companies respond is their own business. I was only using it to get DD qualified for Duke TIP's architecture programs but then I looked at their prices and realized I could do better closer to home. Georgetown and VA Tech are are both within a 3 hr drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Why does it matter whether they control for majors if you don't apply for a major until you have a collegiate track record. We're discussing the merits of elite college admissions for people who did not demonstrate sustained, superior performance in high school. I believe admission should be based on performance, not a single test's  (which we KNOW can be gamed) assessment of 'potential'.

It matters because if the conclusion is that the 4.0 high school GPA/1200 SAT people are "succeeding" by majoring in easy majors and getting 4.0s, and the 3.2 GPA/1500 SAT people are "not succeeding" because they are majoring in engineering and getting 3.0s it would show that the study wasn't capturing the full picture.

ETA: Simply "completing" college isn't an adequate marker of success.  Just like completing high school isn't.  You need to know how well the student did in what sort of coursework in order to get a reasonable picture.

Edited by EKS
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EKS said:

It matters because if the conclusion is that the 4.0 high school GPA/1200 SAT people are "succeeding" by majoring in easy majors and getting 4.0s, and the 3.2 GPA/1500 SAT people are "not succeeding" because they are majoring in engineering and getting 3.0s it would show that the study wasn't capturing the full picture.

 

'Easy' is ALWAYS relative. If a subject is your passion and something you've invested a lot of time/interest in it is more likely to be easy for you. There are a lot of engineering majors who would be abysmal English majors and vice versa. Are you seriously suggesting that they cannot find enough students with exceptional grades to fill their engineering slots by omitting SAT/ACT scores? Clearly, the UC Regents disagree. Maybe you should take a look at their underlying data/reports/meeting minutes (I'm sure they're publicly available) to see how they arrived at that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

The UC Regents did not end AP. So ACT lose some business while CollegeBoard would probably just promote AP more. Canada and Europe use AP scores for college applications by US students who are not in an IB program. 


 

 

13 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Why does it matter whether they control for majors if you don't apply for a major until you have a collegiate track record. We're discussing the merits of elite college admissions for people who did not demonstrate sustained, superior performance in high school. I believe admission should be based on performance, not a single test's  (which we KNOW can be gamed) assessment of 'potential'.


for UC’s you apply for major.
Test is a performance. Again, you have limited seats so if you are going to accept one kid and reject another, you need to compare them on an identical level. Grades aren’t comparable from one school to another. So create a new test if SAT isn’t good (which they claim they will, but I will believe that when I see it), or look at AP scores (another comparable measure that isn’t often looked at). I can’t tell you how many kids we know who got 2’s on AP math and science exams but had A’s in class. 

I don’t care how you decide who gets in as long as they are measure by some sort of standardized measure for the sake of fairness.

 

and data can be interpreted in many ways. Oh, they have done studies that kids who take algebra in middle school go on to college, so let’s shove everybody into early algebra. Well maybe kids who take algebra in middle school are already outstanding students academically and that’s why they go on to college. Similarly high grades in school predict success, but i would love to know how many kids with low SAT math scores rocked through Berkeley Engineering program. Devil is in details and those studies just simply don’t give you that. They serve a political purpose for sure to advance whatever agenda is in fashion now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roadrunner said:


 

 


for UC’s you apply for major.
Test is a performance. Again, you have limited seats so if you are going to accept one kid and reject another, you need to compare them on an identical level. Grades aren’t comparable from one school to another. So create a new test if SAT isn’t good (which they claim they will, but I will believe that when I see it), or look at AP scores (another comparable measure that isn’t often looked at). I can’t tell you how many kids we know who got 2’s on AP math and science exams but had A’s in class. 

I don’t care how you decide who gets in as long as they are measure by some sort of standardized measure for the sake of fairness.

 

and data can be interpreted in many ways. Oh, they have done studies that kids who take algebra in middle school go on to college, so let’s shove everybody into early algebra. Well maybe kids who take algebra in middle school are already outstanding students academically and that’s why they go on to college. Similarly high grades in school predict success, but i would love to know how many kids with low SAT math scores rocked through Berkeley Engineering program. Devil is in details and those studies just simply don’t give you that. They serve a political purpose for sure to advance whatever agenda is in fashion now.

 

Applying for a major may change. Getting into ARCH as a freshman is the case at VA Tech, currently, for a small number of students. Others are admitted as Juniors after taking the required pre-reqs. I do not know what changes may be planned to go along with this announcement. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Applying for a major may change. Getting into ARCH as a freshman is the case at VA Tech, currently, for a small number of students. Others are admitted as Juniors after taking the required pre-reqs. I do not know what changes may be planned to go along with this announcement. Do you?


none. The discussion was all about testing. They have never announced plans to reconsider anything else. They plan on now producing a new admissions test for UCs only, so kids will now have to deal with one more thing as if SATs, essays and all the other hoop jumping for all the other schools weren’t enough. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roadrunner said:


none. The discussion was all about testing. They have never announced plans to reconsider anything else. They plan on now producing a new admissions test for UCs only, so kids will now have to deal with one more thing as if SATs, essays and all the other hoop jumping for all the other schools weren’t enough. 
 

 

I will forever be skeptical of tests because the wealthy will game them. I would prefer they simply admit promising kids with awesome grades in a variety of disciplines and let them apply from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I will forever be skeptical of tests because the wealthy will game them. I would prefer they simply admit promising kids with awesome grades in a variety of disciplines and let them apply from there.


If you are going to have an open door for everybody with good grades, then you need to have enough spots for those kids, but UCs simply don’t have enough spots. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:


If you are going to have an open door for everybody with good grades, then you need to have enough spots for those kids, but UCs simply don’t have enough spots. 
 

No, you don’t need an open door. The pool of kids with awesome grades who want to attend college in LA or even CA is finite. Beyond that, these are LOTTERY schools. They receive way more requests for admission from qualified candidates than available slots. No one is guaranteed an admission.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

No, you don’t need an open door. The pool of kids with awesome grades who want to attend college in LA or even CA is finite. Beyond that, these are LOTTERY schools. They receive way more requests for admission from qualified candidates than available slots. No one is guaranteed an admission.

 

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

No, you don’t need an open door. The pool of kids with awesome grades who want to attend college in LA or even CA is finite. Beyond that, these are LOTTERY schools. They receive way more requests for admission from qualified candidates than available slots. No one is guaranteed an admission.

No all you need are inflated grades, or grades given by homeschool charters for laughable samples submitted to ESs. Oh god. That’s fairness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like wealthy kids don’t have inflated grades? Grade inflation, to the extent it exists, is everywhere but primarily concentrated in competitive, wealthy areas. Those are also the people with access to test prep and superior public schools. I’m not sure what you’re saying supports this argument that students with high test scores absent high grades deserve admission.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas has been using a similar system for a long time now. If you qualify as an automatic admit, you don't have to submit SAT or ACT scores to get into UT Austin or TAMU (or any other TX public university). The way the schools distinguish their top students is by using numerical grades to several decimal points. The top students generally have GPAs of 99.XXX. That takes a "sustained, superior performance" starting back in 6th grade. There is a set aside for 10% of the freshman slots for private school students, homeschoolers and non-automatic admits where test scores are key. Admission to competitive majors will also look at class rank and test scores. There's also a system that allows students to start at a UT other than Austin or Dallas and be guaranteed a transfer if they meet certain course requirements with at least a 3.2 GPA. If a student can't meet those requirements, they may be better off at UT Permian Basin or Sam Houston State.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EKS said:

But a better predictor of what, exactly?

There is a huge difference between college grades between students majoring in the humanities and social sciences and students majoring in the natural sciences and engineering because, frankly, the natural sciences and engineering are far more difficult.  As a person with an undergraduate degree in biochemistry and master's degrees in education and the humanities, I've seen this firsthand.  

Here is an article that discusses this issue (among others), but unfortunately it is behind a paywall.  Here is a relevant quote:

"Longitudinal research demonstrates that standardized tests predict not just grades all the way through college but also the level of courses a student is likely to take. Our research shows that higher test scores are clearly related to choosing more difficult majors and to taking advanced coursework in all fields. At many schools, the same bachelor’s degree can be earned largely with introductory courses or with classes that approach the level of a master’s degree. Students with high test scores are more likely to take the challenging route through college."

This is exactly why I think it can sometimes be a mistake for some students, especially those who have any interest in STEM, who do not have a rigorous college prep high school background to go to the highest ranked school they are admitted to, especially a larger university. In some cases, they are closing off certain majors and professions because they simply won’t have time to catch up, no matter how hard they work. While at a smaller and/or lower ranked school, there’s more possibility for them to have the time and assistance they need to leave all paths open. Especially if they are considering grad or professional school, there are so many non top tier schools out there that do an excellent job of preparing and placing students.

I highly doubt I would have ended up at an Ivy for grad school in stats had I started at a top school coming from the rural Midwest. Three out of my class of graduating class of sixty went on to top grad schools despite none of us even applying to let alone attending top ranked undergraduate schools. Although we all had the grades and test scores to justify applying. And that was just one test take with no prep, as testing more than once or prepping were unheard of in my small high school. And we were all first generation college students. 

One of my colleagues who now has a Master’s in Economics dropped out of engineering at UW because her small, rural high school had not prepared her to hit the ground running with the challenging freshman load of an engineering major. She returned to college many years later.

 

Edited by Frances
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

I have seen studies like this. I wonder why the faculty senate’s study found a different result for the UC System and that using test scores actually helps minorities in admissions? Since I can’t read behind the WSJ paywall, I’m adding The NY Times article where I read about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california-sat-act.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:


They are a predictor, not the best predictor overall, of collegiate grades and persistence. The university doesn’t admit students directly into every major and the easy way to get around this is to do what many schools do and NOT admit students to a competitive major until after sophomore grades are in.

But then you are potentially closing doors for some students because their high school education was not rigorous enough for them to excel in a demanding, STEM heavy freshman course load at the level needed to compete for limited major slots against those from rigorous high schools with a plethora of advanced classes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Frances said:

But then you are potentially closing doors for some students because their high school education was not rigorous enough for them to excel in a demanding, STEM heavy freshman course load at the level needed to compete for limited major slots against those from rigorous high schools with a plethora of advanced classes.


Possibly but I think that’s something for the student to sort out not the admissions committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Frances said:

I have seen studies like this. I wonder why the faculty senate’s study found a different result for the UC System and that using test scores actually helps minorities in admissions? Since I can’t read behind the WSJ paywall, I’m adding The NY Times article where I read about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california-sat-act.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage


Not sure. It could be that because of their inability, statutorily, to consider anything other than grades and test scores in admissions meant tests were the only way they could find a big enough pool of minority applicants.  After the UCs changed their admissions policies, a lot of minority groups stopped finding some of the schools appealing due to lack of critical mass.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, chiguirre said:

Texas has been using a similar system for a long time now. If you qualify as an automatic admit, you don't have to submit SAT or ACT scores to get into UT Austin or TAMU (or any other TX public university). The way the schools distinguish their top students is by using numerical grades to several decimal points. The top students generally have GPAs of 99.XXX. That takes a "sustained, superior performance" starting back in 6th grade. There is a set aside for 10% of the freshman slots for private school students, homeschoolers and non-automatic admits where test scores are key. Admission to competitive majors will also look at class rank and test scores. There's also a system that allows students to start at a UT other than Austin or Dallas and be guaranteed a transfer if they meet certain course requirements with at least a 3.2 GPA. If a student can't meet those requirements, they may be better off at UT Permian Basin or Sam Houston State.

One of the groups who may get sideswiped by an increased emphasis on GPA are students who move during high school. 

GPA policies are often determined by the local district rather than by a state policy. A student who transfer high schools may find that AP Human Geography is marked as just Geography at their new school, because the AP course isn't offered. Or they may have the AP course listing in the transcript, but receive no grade weighting because there isn't a corresponding course in the new district. 

Students who move often have to take a higher number of non-core courses in order to meet minor state requirements. For example a Government course taken in Hawaii might not meet the US and Virginia Government requirement when they move to Virginia. They may end up taking PE senior year because their Health & PE credit from the last school is deemed insufficient. 

These policies end up hurting GPA and suppressing class rank (a basis for automatic admission in some states).  Military connected students often run into these problems; but so do kids who move as a result of natural disasters like hurricanes or wildfires; kids who move when their family unit breaks up as a result of divorce, incarceration, or addiction; or kids whose families move seeking better work or lower cost of living. 

A student who moves during high school is often perceived as someone "taking" something away from kids who "belong" in that district. They often miss sports tryouts that happened in the spring.  School administrators may be reluctant to find ways to accept credits or advocate for the new outsider.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, the test optional, CTCL type LAC’s still wanted ACT/SAT from homeschoolers as of earlier this year, and some wanted extra tests on top. (And they were contacting DD based on ACT to start with). My guess is that for the UC system doing exams vs A-G will still be a path to demonstrate proficiency. 
 

And given the number of emails and letters DD has gotten talking about ACT/SAT not being required for admission this coming year which are coming from schools that were advertising to her due to ACT scores, I’m giving a side eye to the idea that the ACT is really optional as opposed to “well, we already know how you did in 9th/10th, so don’t panic about getting another test in before graduation” for those students they have already targeted, with the knowledge that they can fill their freshman class several times over. I simply don’t believe that schools that have always had a test score range in the top 5% will be accepting many students who wouldn’t still score in that range if they took a test in 12th grade. 

Edited by dmmetler
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I will forever be skeptical of tests because the wealthy will game them. I would prefer they simply admit promising kids with awesome grades in a variety of disciplines and let them apply from there.

You’re joking? The wealthy “game”* everything, but the kid straight off the boat with parents who speak no English and a tattered library copy of the SAT might get into a Stuyvesant or a UC. Look at the Stuyvesant admissions and  see if it’s the “wealthy” winning that game.

i wish schools would be honest and say this is not about fairness but about us being free to socially engineer via “wholesome” admissions. I’m practically communist so no one cares more than me about equality, but this ain’t it. 
* some say game, some say educate their kids k-12. If paying 60 grand a year for your GPA and school name isn’t the ultimate gaming... little old SAT isn’t your problem.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, madteaparty said:

You’re joking? The wealthy “game”* everything, but the kid straight off the boat with parents who speak no English and a tattered library copy of the SAT might get into a Stuyvesant or a UC. Look at the Stuyvesant admissions and  see if it’s the “wealthy” winning that game.

i wish schools would be honest and say this is not about fairness but about us being free to socially engineer via “wholesome” admissions. I’m practically communist so no one cares more than me about equality, but this ain’t it. 
* some say game, some say educate their kids k-12. If paying 60 grand a year for your GPA and school name isn’t the ultimate gaming... little old SAT isn’t your problem.

 


Those same kids would be there on the strength of their grades. Strivers are strivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

Look to the left, look to the right.  Only one of you will return next semester. 

We all know k12 grades aren't representative of academic ability - with a grading scheme that is majority participation and attendance, grades can't reflect ability.  The high schools know this, its ranking by demographic and that's it.  For academics, my high school actually goes thru and takes everyone who flunked but who scores above an 85 on the Regents Exam and moves them to the next class....these kids are never going to cooperate on useless artwork assigments. Social promotion is what its called, but its a reflection of the rigged game.  The miltary is very happy to have these kids...make fine helicopter pilots and linguists.

Look, strivers by definition are challenging themselves....but the college wants mastery of K12.  Far better to get the A in honors than the B in AP and continue leveling up without gaps.  Schools know that, and they have cancelled AP because they don't want to have that inconvenient 'achievement gap'. Many of them limit seats in honors to the favored demographic.  Half of them have no Physics. Many here don't offer Bio, or they restrict the seats so the capable of the 'wrong' demographic can't get in.  Its time to reinvent k14.


I have no idea what you’re saying here. The discussion was about competitive NYC high schools being populated by motivated first gen immigrants and their progeny. They not only follow rules and jump through hoops, they set the time to beat.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, chiguirre said:

Texas has been using a similar system for a long time now. If you qualify as an automatic admit, you don't have to submit SAT or ACT scores to get into UT Austin or TAMU (or any other TX public university). The way the schools distinguish their top students is by using numerical grades to several decimal points. The top students generally have GPAs of 99.XXX. That takes a "sustained, superior performance" starting back in 6th grade. There is a set aside for 10% of the freshman slots for private school students, homeschoolers and non-automatic admits where test scores are key. Admission to competitive majors will also look at class rank and test scores. There's also a system that allows students to start at a UT other than Austin or Dallas and be guaranteed a transfer if they meet certain course requirements with at least a 3.2 GPA. If a student can't meet those requirements, they may be better off at UT Permian Basin or Sam Houston State.


this is a terrible system that punishes kids for taking courses in music and arts just because they aren’t AP. And if this ranking is by school, it’s going to punish Asian kids who work so hard but are often geographically more segregated. And standards in schools are so different from better schools in Bay Area to migrant rural communities here where my friend is handing out A’s just to encourage kids to show up.  By the way only 3 outlet of 40 if her students have bothered to check in online. 

 

Edited by Roadrunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:


this is a terrible system that punishes kids for taking courses in music and arts just because they aren’t AP. And if this ranking is by school, it’s going to punish Asian kids who work so hard but are often geographically more segregated. And standards in schools are so different from better schools in Bay Area to migrant rural communities here where my friend is handing out A’s just to encourage kids to show up.  By the way only 3 outlet of 40 if her students have bothered to check in online. 

 

In Texas, high school students are required to take at least one year of arts to graduate. Almost every high achieving kid needs to use a class period for athletics or arts in order to have an attractive extracurricular profile for admission to private schools, honors programs or scholarships. The auto admits that I know have done band or choir or sports and still had enough weighting to get into UT Austin. 

The geographic distribution is the whole point of the TX system. Since TX schools can't consider demographic factors, it's the only way to get a somewhat balanced class. The goal is to make the UT Freshman class look as much like the TX high school graduating class as possible while selecting the most academically able students. Otherwise, all those kids from the Rio Grande Valley and West Texas would get hosed and the class would be full of suburban kids from the big cities. Since we all pay for UT Austin with our sales taxes, UT Austin needs to serve all Texans. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...