UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative

I found what is funny &#x2F; pathetic about this is that there are tons of psychology &#x2F; education &#x2F; especially educational measurement top experts in the UC system, and they know how wrong it is, while they just keep mouth shut.<p>The whole anti-standard-testing movement is pushed by ideology leftists and corrupted bureaucrats, but the supposed experts just quietly watch the world burn. Lol.<p>Update: I found experts in the UCLA were tasked to make the suggestion. They suggested a new admission assessment. So the bureaucrats just totally disregarded their recommendation . See <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;50.cresst.org&#x2F;2020&#x2F;05&#x2F;20&#x2F;cresst-recommendation-for-new-assessment-system-for-uc-admissions&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;50.cresst.org&#x2F;2020&#x2F;05&#x2F;20&#x2F;cresst-recommendation-for-n...</a><p>Also quote: The Task Force in its review found—to some surprise—that tests such as the SAT provide a useful tool to support admissions leading to a more diverse pool of admitted students than UC otherwise would have had. The Task Force found that approximately 25% of low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented minor students earned their guaranteed admission into UC because of test scores. The Task Force’s report showed that test scores are better predictors of success for underrepresented minority students, first-generation students, and those whose families are low- income. Using recent UC-specific data, the Task Force found that test scores remain predictive of success even after student demographics are taken into account. That is especially true when compared to high school grades, whose predictive power has gone down due, in part, to grade inflation. These findings tell us that there is value in the evidence that educational assessments provide, but they can be improved—and so can the UC admissions process as a result. In a vote of confidence in its veracity, the Task Force report was unanimously endorsed by faculty members of the UC’s Academic Senate, 51–0.

In China there is 1 exam, the Gaokao. This exam in no small part decides your future. In the past, you had one attempt, and if you failed, tough luck. Now they let kids retake it a couple times.<p>One exam. One billion people. One standardized metric to determine who goes where.<p>There are flaws to this of course. The rich, with better access to tutoring and such, naturally have an advantage over the poor. But herein lies the benefit of such a system -- it is an explicit advantage. Everybody knows it. Everybody can see it. The path to obtain it is as clear as day -- &quot;simply&quot; have enough money. Similarly, the path to obtain success is clear -- succeed on the Gaokao (besides cheating, which is a whole other thing, and corruption, which is yet another thing).<p>People naturally stratify themselves in competition. When you eliminate standardized metrics to distinguish people, they will find other ways. Your friend has an internship opening that your kid can fill. Your boss lets your kid work under him. You know people who can help your kid get ahead. Meanwhile, the underprivileged are still pushed down, but in a much more subtle way. It is not scores that divides them and the privileged. It is connections -- and when you are a kid, these connections come from your family. And if you are poor, you do not have these connections. And unlike the singular exam, the path to obtaining these connections is not so clear.<p>Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students. It hurts them, but because it is a subtle hurt that ties to their family&#x27;s place in society instead of a loud hurt like the cost of tutoring, people pretend it is somehow better. It is not. It is worse.

&gt;a student’s high school grade-point average, the rigor of courses taken, special talents, essays and extracurricular activities.<p>All of these metrics seem MUCH more gameable than the SAT. Sure, buying an SAT practice test book might bump your score up by 20 points. But if you look at the rigor of courses available, that is going to vary DRASTICALLY from school to school. At least when I was in high school, poorer schools had a lot less to offer in terms of AP classes, and wealthy people have obvious advantages when it comes to extracurricular activities and some &quot;special talents&quot;

Wonderfully empowering for the admissions administrators! Schools will be needing to keep on a lot of low-level staff:<p><pre><code> &gt;record-breaking number of freshman applications for fall 2021 — more than 200,000 &gt;evaluate the flood of applications without test scores, using 13 other factors </code></pre> And will be able to produce whatever demographics are demanded by the politics of the moment:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;admission.universityofcalifornia.edu&#x2F;counselors&#x2F;freshman&#x2F;comprehensive-review&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;admission.universityofcalifornia.edu&#x2F;counselors&#x2F;fres...</a><p><pre><code> &gt;Factors we consider </code></pre> ...<p><pre><code> &gt;Identification by UC as being ranked in the top 9 percent of their high school class (&quot;eligible in the local context,&quot; or ELC). </code></pre> ...<p><pre><code> &gt;Academic accomplishments in light of a student&#x27;s life experiences and special circumstances. &gt;Location of a student&#x27;s secondary school and residence. </code></pre> Cupertino tiger mothers, note well.

From their criteria page:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;admission.universityofcalifornia.edu&#x2F;counselors&#x2F;freshman&#x2F;comprehensive-review&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;admission.universityofcalifornia.edu&#x2F;counselors&#x2F;fres...</a><p>&quot;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&#x27;s promise for contributing to the intellectual vitality of a campus.&quot;<p>Notably absent is achievement in any STEM field.

I for one welcome the UC systems choice to erode the signaling value of their degree. Hopefully more universities adopt this approach. Employers may in turn value said degrees less and eventually maybe we can burn down all of higher ed.

Because of unstable home issues, I was unable to do well in high school classes because I couldn&#x27;t spend time outside of school studying and doing homework assignments.<p>But I did extremely well on the SAT, and PSAT, which got me several scholarships and college admission.<p>Without the SAT to accurately gauge my potential, I wouldn&#x27;t have succeeded.<p>This is a disgusting new policy, and will harm people.

&quot;faculty could find no alternative exam that would avoid the biased results&quot;<p>They are too weak to say &quot;SAT hasn&#x27;t produced the results we wanted, so we&#x27;re going to...&quot;<p>&quot;seek more equitable ways to assess a student&quot;<p>They&#x27;re again, too weak to say &quot;from now on, admissions will be based on color&quot;.<p>&quot;the state exam ... would disproportionately favor Asian Americans&quot;<p>Oh, the horror, tests show that Asians are smart. Can&#x27;t let that happen.<p>If a square peg doesn&#x27;t fit a round hole, we just need to use a bigger hammer.

Another way to look at this is, like so many things, a conflict of visions.<p>Vision one is that college is an elite institution meant to bring together smart, rich, and connected people in a learning and growth environment. This is sort of a perti-dish of success. In this vision, standardized tests bring in the smart people to compliment the rich and connected.<p>Vision two is that college is an institution for everyone to have a chance to get ahead. It&#x27;s a natural extension of high school as we move into a period where we depend on knowledge workers. In this vision, standardized tests exclude people from opportunities.<p>Clearly the UC is adopting vision two. Whether the tests are racist or not is a distraction.<p>The problem with vision one is basic fairness, especially when public money is involved.<p>The problem with vision two is that, if we want real success, we do need elite institutions to concentrate a mix of people likely to produce amazing things. And also, I predict that the noble shine of college as a gateway to opportunity will wear off pretty quickly once they cease being elite institutions, and succumb to bureaucratic stupidity and financial recklessness.

As a Cal grad this is an easy reason to point to the next time I reject an alumni donation call.<p>If the goal is to accept more students on merit, this is a big failure in my opinion: rich kids can just game the “holistic” admissions with opportunities not available to middle&#x2F;lower class students (“volunteer” trips, extracurriculars, etc.).

UC schools have already become dubious - the entitlement of grads, the actual LACK of skills, not remotely &quot;hungry&quot; enough to have any grit or motivation, etc.<p>My father (an engineering manager) always said: &quot;If you want GOOD employees, you never want to hire from UCB, Stanford, Cal Tech, etc. The best engineers in California come from Cal Poly SLO and Cal Poly Pomona. They are actually trained as engineers&quot;.<p>This is only proving that a college degree is not enough to qualify most graduates for any job. Better to hire from 2nd tier schools instead and even to consider HS grads on some cases. If they are more trainable than your typical entitled university degree holder, they are a better ROI, hands-down.

As Nasim Taleb said: The Most Intolerant Wins. UC has a long slope to slide - down to the tipping point. As long as UC is not burnt right now, these expert wouldn&#x27;t stand up and open their mouth, till there is no need to stand up anymore. The solution, well, as Taleb said: we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. Stand up and fight right now.

The comments on these articles seem to generally come out in favor of standardized testing (specifically the SAT). I find that interesting because college admissions seemingly generalizes to candidate evaluation. And if you were to suggest a standard leetcode test for software engineering job candidates? Man, this place would go up in flames.

&quot;UC admissions officers have said they were able to thoroughly evaluate the flood of applications without test scores&quot;<p>Of course, there&#x27;s no way to determine if they were thorough or not.

Too much effort on racial equality in the admissions process, too little on ensuring success in college, graduation and beyond. My top 10 college was hyper focused on diversity admissions, but the graduation rate of the under represented population was under 50%. Students shifted down due one tier due have a much higher rate of success than students shifted up one tier.<p>If we want to be serious about equity and equal opportunity, we should focus on eliminating legacy.

Sounds like a UC degree is getting less and less valuable from a signaling perspective. They ignored the research results of their own team and professors which conclusively showed standardized testing was the highest signal for academic success across all races. Talk about political bureaucracy

I feel like a good middle ground would be to use the SAT or alternative as a threshold for consideration, but not for ranking. I could believe that there could be a good evidence based cut off (perhaps with other quantitative measures) to answer &quot;does this student meet the basic requirements&quot; much more so then &quot;will a student who scored 50 points higher do well after 4 years of study&quot;

I feel like with a 5-4 Supreme Court (6-3 if Breyer doesn’t retire) the explicit rationale of race percentages sets this up for a Supreme Court defeat.

Doesn&#x27;t this make the admissions process less fair, more arbitrary, and more susceptible to biases?

There are a lot of problems with this approach and a regression in methodology. There are inherent problems with a standardized test and any form of exam. Yet they are the best we have so far.<p>Ideally, I think everyone should be allowed into the university.<p>I have several friends who did poorly in high school. Back then they wanted to have fun, party, and were not interested in academic achievement.<p>Once they got older, they decided to go back to school. They had to study hard and retake a lot of high school exams to get to the university.<p>One woman is a somewhat famous and well respected lawyer. One is an electrical engineer with a great job. One architect, and the last one a psychologist.<p>They all had the &quot;intelligence&quot; &#x2F; endurance to do well academically they just did not follow the same schedules.<p>People who did not do so well in high school but have passing grades can really perk up at the university.<p>Of course, if you lot everyone in, most will fail. The distribution of who fails and who does not might surprise people.<p>However, we do not have limitless resources to allow everyone who wants to a shot in whatever field they feel like. There is not enough physical space, there are not enough professors and teachers, nor labs etc<p>Basing entry on standardized merit is in my opinion, the best we have so far.<p>I wonder if a future were Batchlor degrees are possible to take online if the system could scale to allow everyone a shot.

Totally unrelated: Diversity statements required for one-fifth of academic jobs: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;freebeacon.com&#x2F;campus&#x2F;study-diversity-statements-required-for-one-fifth-of-academic-jobs&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;freebeacon.com&#x2F;campus&#x2F;study-diversity-statements-req...</a>

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;FBvmb" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;FBvmb</a>

Are there any reasons why a private or public university wouldn’t want to maximize the number of tuition paying students?<p>I’m just wondering because why not just admit as many people as you could for various price tiers of: in-person, hybrid, and online education. So in that sense, as long as money wants to come in, why reject anyone other than to fake exclusivity?

I&#x27;d like to see the SAT scores of the people deciding these things. Something tells me they aren&#x27;t that great at it and wants it gone, especially the math part.

Historically the SAT was designed as an anti-Semitic discrimination measure; the racist belief that underlay it was that Jewish people were doing well on college admission criteria because they worked too hard, so designing a test that it was impossible to study for --- a test that measured academic aptitude rather than achievement --- would restore the racist world order in which non-Jewish white people constituted virtually the entire student body. Much to the racists&#x27; surprise, Jewish people continued to excel on the SAT, and it turned out to be easy to study for.<p>Today, alongside Jewish people, US universities want to discriminate against Asian-Americans, who have the same high test scores, high academic achievements including grades, and stereotypes of working too hard; often they carry out this discrimination by requiring higher test scores from Asian-Americans than from white people <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.insidehighered.com&#x2F;admissions&#x2F;article&#x2F;2017&#x2F;08&#x2F;07&#x2F;look-data-and-arguments-about-asian-americans-and-admissions-elite" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.insidehighered.com&#x2F;admissions&#x2F;article&#x2F;2017&#x2F;08&#x2F;07...</a>, but this practice is illegal in California and under attack elsewhere. Consequently Asian-Americans constituted 40% of in-state UC freshmen in 02019, double their share of the population <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.latimes.com&#x2F;california&#x2F;story&#x2F;2020-11-01&#x2F;affirmative-action-divides-asian-americans-ucs-largest-overrepresented-student-group" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.latimes.com&#x2F;california&#x2F;story&#x2F;2020-11-01&#x2F;affirmat...</a> and this explains why UC wants to drop objective admission requirements like SAT scores in order to admit a more balanced (read &quot;white&quot;) student body, provoking strong opposition from Asian-American groups: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;asianamericanforeducation.org&#x2F;en&#x2F;pr_20200519&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;asianamericanforeducation.org&#x2F;en&#x2F;pr_20200519&#x2F;</a><p>Unsurprisingly standardized testing increases representation of low-income students <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;50.cresst.org&#x2F;2020&#x2F;05&#x2F;20&#x2F;cresst-recommendation-for-new-assessment-system-for-uc-admissions&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;50.cresst.org&#x2F;2020&#x2F;05&#x2F;20&#x2F;cresst-recommendation-for-n...</a> because, within a context of inequality, the only alternative to meritocracy is inherited privilege.<p>This is closely related to why US tech companies, who hire you based on whether you can program in an interview, are dramatically more diverse than, for example, US tech journalism companies, who apparently hire you based on whether you&#x27;re white: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=29277661" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=29277661</a>

Fascinating. I hope they are running a controlled study where at least some non trivial, say 10%, of the kids are randomly selected on the basis of just applying. That you can track the outcomes and see if your selection criteria is better than random.<p>We know you can take &quot;underachieving&quot; students and put them in high achieving programs (such as law school) and that the students will rise to the occasion and do well.

I say no grades, no tests, no degrees, free schooling, and government subsidizes the first month of every new hires salary and the first month of every layoff.<p>Who cares what happens before you hire someone. The only thing that matters is the results and that you can quickly fire and replace someone that doesn&#x27;t fit without you or them suffering.<p>Motivated people will rise to their abilities either way.

This will take care of those pesky yardsticks that provide evidence of admissions scandals. They can justify admitting anyone.

Does this mean we are past peak-leetcode too?

Wonder what&#x27;s going to happen when they realize this just defers testing to exams in courses.

Aren’t standardized tests a poor indicator of thinking and capability? Don’t they favor those who can memorize over abstract thinking?

These false flag diversity initiatives are there to entrench the privileged white elite who are threatened by the children of often 1st generation immigrants.<p>From the article:<p>UC admissions officers have said they were able to thoroughly evaluate the flood of applications without test scores, using 13 other factors in the system’s review process, such as a student’s high school grade-point average, the rigor of courses taken, special talents, essays and extracurricular activities.<p>-<p>Special talents and extracurricular activities are great filters for the privileged. Nothing like the academic promise of fencing and rowing. The Winkelvoss twins from Greenwich Connecticut attended Harvard through the white elite loophole of rowing.<p>-<p>This is why there is an allergy to making it based on class and being poor. I doubt any poor blacks or Hispanics will benefit from this.<p>-<p>Interesting book on this matter:<p>Reflections Of An Affirmative Action Baby Paperback – August 24, 1992<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Reflections-Affirmative-Action-Stephen-Carter&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0465068693" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Reflections-Affirmative-Action-Stephe...</a>

I was on the UC Berkeley campus on Tuesday. So many more black and latino students than when I was on campus. It was nice.<p>I had many black friends in high school and none when I went to Berkeley in 2005-2010. I can say the SAT, ACT, etc. are biased against anyone who doesn&#x27;t have the money to get the prep for them.