Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is interesting. UCs are getting sued for using SATs in admission. What is the alternative? GPA is teacher/school dependent so not a reliable measure on its own. Is this an anti-merit group?
But this is interesting. I can't imagine what the basis would be to sue about using SAT scores in admissions, since that's been standard and accepted practice almost since SAT's were invented. Could you give us a brief summary, OP?
This is interesting. UCs are getting sued for using SATs in admission. What is the alternative? GPA is teacher/school dependent so not a reliable measure on its own. Is this an anti-merit group?
But this is interesting. I can't imagine what the basis would be to sue about using SAT scores in admissions, since that's been standard and accepted practice almost since SAT's were invented. Could you give us a brief summary, OP?
“A coalition of students, advocacy groups and a largely black and Hispanic California school district filed suit against the University of California system on Tuesday to stop it from using standardized test scores in its admissions. The plaintiffs say the college entrance tests, the SAT and ACT, are biased against poor and mainly black and Hispanic students. The plaintiffs are seeking to go beyond test-optional policies and to bar students from submitting test scores even if they want to.”
As none of the suing groups care to provide any solutions and alternatives, it seems they prefer admissions to be school GPA/letter of recommendation dependent. Here is an example of where it can lead to.
“T.M. Landry, a school in small-town Louisiana, has garnered national attention for vaulting its underprivileged black students to elite colleges. But the school cut corners and doctored college applications”
No one can contest their point about students from affluent and educated families having an unfair advantage in test prep but better solution would be free test prep service for all to make it fair, instead of taking away non school dependent measures and and lowering educational standards, which is not good for any race or income group.
My first impression as a UC alumnus that took the SAT/ACT and struggled with those college entrance exams, is that completely eliminating them will "dumb down" the entire public University of California System. However, something needs to be done for those promising students with qualifying very high gpa's (but slightly lower test scores still at least in an acceptable range) of lower economic status in a system favoring the wealthy (much more so at the privates). Holistic Admissions are used now in UC's which are still primarily merit based, but do take economic status and other variables into account to try to create educational parity...other alternatives need to be explored as there is no "perfect solution". Much more here...
Well, as much as I slam the College Board as the evil empire and all the emphasis on standardized test scores, as well as the costs associated with taking those tests, there is going to be a lot of unanswered questions about how to evaluate students if they did that. There has been talk within the University for some time about deemphasizing that or dropping it, but the devil is really in the details. The impact would be bigger than the trend of individual schools going test optional due to the size and scale of the UC system.
In the absence of SATs or ACTs, does that mean the unis will use APs or Subject Tests for evaluation? Those are still costly standardized tests, and the well-off students who can afford to take them are still going to be advantaged. For the UCs, when do you phase the change in? It would be better to do this gradually, otherwise there will be a class who has to be the guinea pig without advance notice.
It's also not going to necessarily make the schools less selective in admissions. NYU has a flexible test policy - you can take the SAT, ACT, or submit three Subject Tests, 3 AP tests, or 3 IB test scores - but it's become more selective over time. UChicago also has a test optional policy and it's super selective (dropping below 10%).
Well, as much as I slam the College Board as the evil empire and all the emphasis on standardized test scores, as well as the costs associated with taking those tests, there is going to be a lot of unanswered questions about how to evaluate students if they did that. There has been talk within the University for some time about deemphasizing that or dropping it, but the devil is really in the details. The impact would be bigger than the trend of individual schools going test optional due to the size and scale of the UC system.
In the absence of SATs or ACTs, does that mean the unis will use APs or Subject Tests for evaluation? Those are still costly standardized tests, and the well-off students who can afford to take them are still going to be advantaged. For the UCs, when do you phase the change in? It would be better to do this gradually, otherwise there will be a class who has to be the guinea pig without advance notice.
It's also not going to necessarily make the schools less selective in admissions. NYU has a flexible test policy - you can take the SAT, ACT, or submit three Subject Tests, 3 AP tests, or 3 IB test scores - but it's become more selective over time. UChicago also has a test optional policy and it's super selective (dropping below 10%).
Not to mention how to evaluate schools! Prospective students and employers judge schools by the student body's test scores in part just as schools judge students. Going SAT optional is just as much a way for a school to game their own numbers by letting/encouraging the non-merit admits they want to let in not submit SATs, thereby juking their own stats. If you get a resume from a school halfway across the country you haven't heard of today you can google the SATs and know whether or not it is selective and if so to what degree. If we reach the point where that doesn't work anymore ... employers get a deluge of entry level applicants, asking them to do 15 minutes of research to figure out the quality of a school they haven't heard of before will just result in the resume getting trashed.
This applies even to the UCs! Everyone knows Berkeley and UCLA are great but this data is what lets people not familiar with California evaluate the others. In the UC system even the second tier schools have many smart students. A quick google at, say, the SAT scores at Davis can show a hiring manager that. That's not true in a lot of states. So maybe that resume from the Davis grad applying to a company in New York gets binned when it would get a phone interview today.
Not to mention how to evaluate schools! Prospective students and employers judge schools by the student body's test scores in part just as schools judge students. Going SAT optional is just as much a way for a school to game their own numbers by letting/encouraging the non-merit admits they want to let in not submit SATs, thereby juking their own stats. If you get a resume from a school halfway across the country you haven't heard of today you can google the SATs and know whether or not it is selective and if so to what degree. If we reach the point where that doesn't work anymore ... employers get a deluge of entry level applicants, asking them to do 15 minutes of research to figure out the quality of a school they haven't heard of before will just result in the resume getting trashed.
This applies even to the UCs! Everyone knows Berkeley and UCLA are great but this data is what lets people not familiar with California evaluate the others. In the UC system even the second tier schools have many smart students. A quick google at, say, the SAT scores at Davis can show a hiring manager that. That's not true in a lot of states. So maybe that resume from the Davis grad applying to a company in New York gets binned when it would get a phone interview today.
Of course, Berkeley/UCLA the toughest flagships...ALL the other UC schools have many smart students and it keeps getting tougher each year...Some UC Stats Here...Maybe someone can put most current SAT ranges on too?
The University of Texas - Austin, by state law, caps non-Texas residents at 10% of the student population. Presumably international students would be included in the out of state residents.
I am Asian American and live in CA. I recognize that there is an academic achievement gap between Latino/Black and Asian/White and it benefit the state economically if we can narrow the achievement gap and raise the education attainment for Latino/Black population. However, I am very concerned and sad that my children will be held to a much higher standard on college admission. My cousins who took many AP classes with SAT scores of 1500 were rejected by UC schools while their Latino classmates who didn't take any AP course were accepted with SAT scores at 1300. If you look at UC data, Latino/Black students are gaining admission at a much higher percentage compared to the past with SAT scores on average 200 to 300 points lower than Asian American students. UCLA used to have 40% Asian American and now it is down to 32%. UCI had 45% Asian American at one point and now it is about 10% lower. With Latino gaining political power in the state and in charge of UC schools I fear that we are going toward a college system based on fixed racial quotas. I am all for spending more at schools in poor neighborhoods and free Preschool for poor children to close the academic achievement gap but I think college admission should be mostly merit based.
That just seems racist. ^ First of all, you do not know every black or Latino's achievements or what they are capable of achieving. You're talking about universities--not high school or junior high school. Perhaps those blacks and Latinos had to do something above and beyond to achieve a "1300" than the asian students who received a "1500." Maybe they have a talent like Michael Jackson or Michael Jordan or Picasso or Jim Thorpe--in addition to their academic achievement. Maybe they were not given equivalent teachers/schools/books as the asians and whites? Maybe they did not have the money to pay tutors to help them game the SAT? Universities (look up that word, like the UCs, should not ignore the totality of individual accomplishment. I would go a step further and say that Latinos and blacks should be admitted at higher rates due to the discrimination they've faced. What are asians like 15% of California's population? Yet they're 42% of Berkeley's student population (overrepresentation)? Now that is discrimination since CA's population is around 50% Latino compared to 8% of Berkeley's Latino student population. Lucky students are not employees, otherwise, the UCs would be guilty of disparate discrimination and subject to lawsuits.
That just seems racist. ^ First of all, you do not know every black or Latino's achievements or what they are capable of achieving. You're talking about universities--not high school or junior high school. Perhaps those blacks and Latinos had to do something above and beyond to achieve a "1300" than the asian students who received a "1500." Maybe they have a talent like Michael Jackson or Michael Jordan or Picasso or Jim Thorpe--in addition to their academic achievement. Maybe they were not given equivalent teachers/schools/books as the asians and whites? Maybe they did not have the money to pay tutors to help them game the SAT? Universities (look up that word, like the UCs, should not ignore the totality of individual accomplishment. I would go a step further and say that Latinos and blacks should be admitted at higher rates due to the discrimination they've faced. What are asians like 15% of California's population? Yet they're 42% of Berkeley's student population (overrepresentation)? Now that is discrimination since CA's population is around 50% Latino compared to 8% of Berkeley's Latino student population. Lucky students are not employees, otherwise, the UCs would be guilty of disparate discrimination and subject to lawsuits.
Actually, UC already evaluates applicants on a holistic basis. They'll take into account an applicants' family background, income level, living circumstances, and achievements in that context, as well as the raw test scores and grades.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
