However it has been my experience that whenever an explicit test or hierarchy is removed another shadow one builds up that is more subjective, more biased, and more subject to abuse.
Sure the SAT/ACT does favor students whose parents had enough money to afford private tutors, but it also meant that if I didn't have a private tutor if I could get a perfect score my chances increase. Now it changes to the whims of the interviewer, the committee that ranks my "holistic" experience, etc.
The SAT/ACT are the worst form of college admission criteria very much in the same way that democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others. A lot of people criticize them, but those critics haven't come up with anything better.
SAT and ACT has been around for so long, I think college admissions can account for deviations to a certain extent.
I’m not sure I feel like giving the benefit of the doubt here. I think folks are acting in good faith, no doubt. But they have decided that everyone who doesn’t talk, think, and act like them is a danger to society. Where those people are white, they can be condemned as “deplorables.” Where those same views are shared by minorities (Asian Americans with respect to views on family and marriage, and meritocracy, black people with respect to views on religion, etc.) they just select figureheads that happen to agree with them and then have those people claim to speak for everyone non-white.
It took me ~1.5 years to prepare for these tests (English was the hardest; math, physics, bio and chemistry are fairly easy because I finished high school there and the curriculum there is much tougher than the ones in the states), but in the end it's 100% worth it because without the scholarships, I'd never have been able to study in the US and be able to support my family (siblings and widowed mom) back home. If the admission committee decides solely based on holistic view like volunteering and other extracurricular activities, how could I compete with other well-off kids in the US for admission?
The question is not, is the SAT bad, it is, what about the new system will be better and fairer.
The other factor - this is likely a way to reduce asian american attendance at the top UC schools. The Harvard case really revealed how legacy admits etc came in with MUCH lower scores. Same thing with the scandal around sports admits, a way to get in with MUCH lower SAT scores. I'm not against either, but getting away from SAT will help hide this fact (ie, big donor gets kid in even if they are 200 points lower than average).
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the Times article about this yesterday. I also applied to college last year, so I have a pretty recent knowledge of the process.
I spent a grand total of $28 and managed to get a 99th percentile score on the SAT. To claim it’s impossible to score high on that test without money is absolutely false. There are many free or low-cost resources out there, including Collegeboard sponsored Khan Academy prep (free for everyone). All it really requires is time and discipline (as do other things in life). Sure, it’s not perfect, but GPA and extracurriculars can vary vastly across schools, and the SAT provides a pretty good indicator of one’s academic ability in comparison to others.
The supreme irony in my case is that I go to a school in Texas for completely free thanks to merit scholarships funded in part by Texas taxpayers, while the schools in my state (California) are charging $30k per year despite being funded by my parents’ taxes. Basically, going out of state was more affordable in my situation.
I'd rather take my chances on an unfair system with open rules than on an unfair system with opaque rules.
Edit: spelling
I think this is a perfect summary. No system is perfect but at least the flaws are consistent and well-known, not subject to the whims of a particular group on a particular day.
Not really, most evidence points to private tutors as we know them having a very small impact on test scores. On a large study low-income students controlled I recall something like +30 points and something like a non-statistically-significant difference for high income students. The income difference was still its usual +100 points.
The thing you and pretty much everyone else conflates with private tutors as Americans conceive them is cram schools, which are a different beast entirely. If you just punch private tutoring into Google Scholar you'll see they're really talking about cram schools whenever a large effect is observed.
Should the University of California system reward parents who coerce their kids into a childhood-robbing experience they will pay dearly for later?
Who's going to investigate, "Do kids who endured cram school emerge healthy?"
Does that sound like a good policy, cram school?
We don't want our regular education system to resemble a cram school. We regularly rally against teaching to the test. We can't have it both ways. Cramming is not valuable, it simply isn't, it is only valuable in a very narrowly delusional, zero sum worldview but it's not a policy.
This is not to say I would agree with the fact that the SATs/ACTs are good. To be fair as far as exams go these exams have a lot of loop holes. I have seen people who can't speak proper English get perfect scores on these exams by memorizing hard words. The mathematics section is a bit of a standing joke in many Asian countries. It is almost impossible for a high school student to get less than the full score in many countries as it would not be possible to pass other national/international boards.
In all honesty, rather than scrap ACT/SAT, one probably should review these exams. It is possible for one to design an exam such that private tuition doesn't give too much of an advantage.
That wasn't a thing when I was applying in 2005, is it recent? I just applied directly to the colleges I wanted, filled out the forms myself with some help from my parents.
* College applicants have, by and large, no real-world experience that demonstrates their competency. There are obviously exceptions, but this remains true of the vast majority. Most job applicants have at least some experience, so it's easier to weed out the fruit loops by taking a look at their resumes. There's a lot more high-quality objective information by which one could compare job applicants than college applicants.
* Job applications typically narrow the pool to a few candidates to be seriously evaluated. College bureaucrats have thousands. It's more realistic for a potential employer to perform more "holistic" evaluations then for a college to do so simply because of problems of scale. The interviews used to fill most of this role, but bureacrats have gradually shouldered that role: my parents had interviews of two hours for most of their colleges, which seemed to be common for that day. I had interviews of forty-five minutes when they went well, and this was true for my peers as well. Now I guess some administrator sits in a dark room and by the light of a single candle looks up your extracurriculars to determine your zodiac sign and thus your fitness for the school, or whatever garbage they came up with.
Where do you usually see the subjective, interview-style evaluations break down in favor of whiteboarding? Big FAANGs that have a scale that makes that sort of individual evaluation difficult and may necessitate whiteboarding. Universities hit this same problem, only with the added concern that there's even less consistent basic competency: about one third [0] of students require remedial courses and therefore probably ought not to have been admitted to college. So there has to be at least some metric by which they can consistently compare.
On the other hand, I applied to a bunch of "elite" schools that all had black-box "holistic admissions" processes. What frustrated me wasn't that "Oh no, now I can't game the system; drat!" Rather, I didn't know what to emphasize for best effect because they didn't make what they valued clear. I had enough stuff about which I could write that I could pick and choose, and I wasn't sure which I ought to pick. This made things like ordering my resume and writing my essays more difficult. You know who probably could have told me what to write about and how to order my resume, though? A fancy, expensive college consultant. Making the process more opaque only helps those who literally pay people to sit around and figure out how to game the system.
[0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5184995_Shape_Up_or...
I don't think anyone does that; “objective” and “holistic” are on orthogonal axes. The opposite of “holistic” is “narrow” and of “objective” is “subjective”.
You can have narrow or holistic subjective criteria, and narrow or holistic objective criteria.
> Sure the SAT/ACT does favor students whose parents had enough money to afford private tutors,
Well it favors students for whom the cost (both financial and opportunity) of taking it multiple times isn't an issue, even if tutoring isn't a factor.
So the conclusion is that there's probably a cultural bias going on for kids who are underprivileged that goes away once they enter the workforce if given the opportunities.
Many people seem to take as given that college admissions should be about "objectively" choosing the most deserving students academically and/or extracurricularly. That is not a complete picture.
At the top schools, there's a big focus on constructing an incoming class with students that are likely to succeed both in college and post-college, such that the class is likely to include future stars in law, medicine, business, academia, etc., likely to be able to contribute money or prestige to the institution in 20 years -- these correlate with high school academic performance, for sure, but they also correlate with who your parents are, what types of activities you choose to engage in, your internal initiative and knowledge of yourself, etc.
Of course, there's no way to know all this in advance, so admissions officers use a very noisy process to try to guess. That the SAT is game-able with money makes it a less useful indicator, because it starts to correlate with wealth rather than academic ability. Wealth already has plenty of proxies that are visible in the application file, so having another indicator of it is not super helpful.
> it also meant that if I didn't have a private tutor if I could get a perfect score my chances increase
Sure, if admissions officers ignore everything else they know about you -- which they don't!
The intentional net effect being something like a pool of unpredictable ever-changing criteria that pokes at person from all sides to see whether or not they're a polished turd.
I think if it worked it would introduce a lot of chaos, but it would also be (hopefully) extremely difficult to game.
I think it's naive to assume that this is an accident.
This is _exactly_ the reason to make admissions more subjective: to give a small group of people carte blanche to pick and choose candidates based on race, origin, etc.
This way the annoying statistics about affirmative action that look plainly racist just... disappear.
Sure and if you never played basketball ball but hit a 3 pointer on your first try 100 times in a row you could play for the golden state warriors.
I was the first in my school to go to a top 10 college in over 20 years, so they made a pretty big deal out of it. I was also one of two people in the entire university from that particular state during my freshman year with the other student having gone to the top private high school in that state (~30k/yr for tuition).
In other words, hard work and performance on the ACT was a huge contribution to being accepted to the schools I did, although I do contribute athletics as an equal contribution since it gave me the benefit of early admission. Then again, if the SAT was a requirement, I probably wouldn't have been accepted because I didn't do nearly as well on that one.
Personally, I think it should be a combination of academic performance and other more "holistic" measures. The particular university I went to really emphasized being a well-rounded person and are known for rejecting students with perfect ACT/SAT scores because their application didn't reflect any particular drive, motivation, passion, whatever.
Just because you can test well and got good grades does not necessarily mean that you'll thrive in such a competitive environment and make the contributions that the school loves to flaunt. They also want to maintain their graduation rate and don't want people that dropout or transfer from getting overwhelmed (or being entitled because that attitude got stomped out quick). Despite being someone that has always thrived in such a high pressure environments, I admit that things got overwhelming for me pretty often and affected my mental health to a great degree. The stress and imposter syndrome took a major toll on my mental health, academics, and athletics. It got so bad for some that they didn't even survive (suicide).
I didn't do nearly as well in university as I had hoped in any facet, but I don't regret it because it made me stronger and ready for the world. I'm happy with the success I've found after years of working hard even after graduating. However, I do often wonder if I would have been more successful at a school that was less high stakes.
----
For those potentially applying to college and as cliche of advice as it is, I advise really emphasizing personal hardship and how you've overcome it in your application essays. Basically, demonstrate that you recognize your weaknesses and overcome them and also demonstrate that you don't turn away from obstacles.
Give the admission board the perception that you are constantly progressing, not going backwards or maintaining your current progress, and that nothing is going to stop you from doing so. Excellent academic performance is often good supporting evidence of that, but good grades and test scores by itself doesn't necessarily prove that determination. You should provide as much evidence of that as you can, whether it's extracurriculars, succeeding despite social and economic disadvantages, major life events, natural disasters, etc.
Generally speaking, students at top universities are intelligent and hard-working. Their talent is not normally distributed, and this is increasingly the case as admissions becomes hyper-competitive. Not to mention, students self-select into courses to which they are most suited and likely to perform well.
If all students in a particular class master the subject matter, why should some students be forced to receive failing grades?
Should the purpose of higher education be to rank students on increasingly marginal criteria or to...educate?
Why are we lumping minorities into one group when we know that many minority groups score better than average on standardized tests than the general population. Asian Americans, Nigerian Americans, Jewish people, etc all do very well.
In a world where the wealthy have ever more advantages in college admissions, standardized tests serve to level the playing field. I grew up in a very wealthy town and many kids I knew whose parents spent large sums on SAT tutors never improved their scores because they didn't have the intellectual horsepower.
Just because college administrators and others feel uncomfortable that certain groups continue to do better than others on the SAT is a horrible reason to get rid of the test.
wish I could upvote this more than once. Rigorous testing and merit based examinations have a reputation for being elitist but they're the exact opposite.
There's some benefit for people coming from higher social classes, but the difference in intellect is much smaller than the difference in networking, cultural attitudes or any other vague criterion that tests are replaced with.
At any country you look that has truly high mobility in education and has managed to produce a broad, national high quality system there's almost a Leninist attitude towards discipline and putting people through examinations. It's much harder for social privilege to be sustained in these institutions than in some kind of essay writing competition. It's also I think the reason for the pretty strong diversity of the military.
Also good to know that, in California, whites are a racial minority.
I can't wait to see how California designs new tests against racial bias. Will there be different tests for different races? And, their alternative is simply failing to develop a test, after which the methodology will presumably be to have humans make subjective determinations about other humans.
In that case, regardless of race, they would look at your parents' income, or the kind of school you went to and the district it was in.
Where more of the abuse is is in parents getting disability diagnoses to get extra time on the test. This same technique can be used to game grades though too.
This is completely mistaken.
Just taking a couple sample exams will net you almost 100 points as you don't waste time figuring out how to take the test.
Simple prep will net you 200+ points right off the top.
For example, generating a correct answer is almost always way slower on these kinds of tests than quickly removing wrong answers. Knowing where you are on the statistical curve and knowing how the test is catered toward tripping your precise cohort up is extremely important when you have a binary choice remaining.
And that's before you start doing actual systemic improvements like memorizing a couple thousand vocabulary words or drilling basic arithmetic so you don't make simple, stupid mistakes.
You don't go in cold for the SAT. They give you enough free practice resources that anyone serious about taking the test should get those 100 points. Maybe to a practice test every weekend for a month leading up to the test. It's the tutoring where you have to invest a lot more time and money for more marginal gains.
1. 50 points per section (M/V) just for being familiar with the test is common for folks in the middle range of scores — say 400-600 per section. The improvements are less at the extremes.
2. Very basic test taking strategies are worth another 20-30 per section for pretty much everyone.
3. Actually study/review of targeted vocab and math will typically yield another 20-100+.
4. I don’t have as much data on this, but I personally think practicing sitting down on a Saturday morning and taking a high stakes test for x-hours in a sterile environment also increases the score 10 points or so. It reduces anxiety at a minimum.
I’ve seen scores go from 10xx-14xx with a 200+ point improvement in both skills over the course is about two months.
Generally tests are structured so that if you know the material, you'll have plenty of time to spare. But if you don't know the material, it's unlikely you'll figure it out even if you're given twice as much time on the exam. It's not like they'll spend that extra hour teaching themselves the trigonometry they neglected to learn in the weeks/months before the exam.
I don't have a learning disability, but I'm a pretty slow reader. I cheated on a section of the SAT by finishing another section with lighter reading and going back to the unfinished one.
If there was a checklist that you'd go down to help the University system implode "remove testing for academic aptitude" is probably right before "all objective measures of performance are banned". At that point who the hell can justify paying $150k+ for a "degree"?
Edit: pasting this from my below comment.
I think people are misinterpreting my comment as suggesting elite parents would've been against this - far from it. They absolutely wanted this because now it's easier to hide middling academic aptitude from admissions boards at elite schools.
To be clear: Removing this test helps elite parents, and hurts those who can't afford spending money on "summer experiences" abroad or poverty tourism or whatever.
It turns out, they called all their members "president" so they could all declare they were a "president of X" on their resume and could talk about leadership. Creative way to game the system for $0.
It is far easier to influence extracurriculars and grades with money.
I went to an expensive private school. Nobody there (nor their parents) would have opposed eliminating the SAT and replacing it with essays and activities.
To be clear: Removing this test helps elite parents, and hurts those who can't afford spending money on "summer experiences" abroad or poverty tourism or whatever.
From the article it seems like the UC are going to develop their own test, that will further divide those with resources that can study and prep for multiple tests and those that cannot.
The issues with the diversity in the UC system are rooted in a much deeper level of inequality in society that probably cannot be fixed with these band aids.
Are you sure? Because I think the "elites" or very wealthy will be perfectly fine with removing objectivity. In fact, it helps them.
This hurts working class and poor applicants who don't fit the, shall we say, "background" that admissions offices of elite universities are looking for in 2020.
As time goes on I have less and less respect for credentials from elite institutions because of this.
>This hurts working class and poor applicants who don't fit the, shall we say, "background" that admissions offices of elite universities are looking for in 2020.
Exactly this.
The test was a way out, especially for gifted kids from poor backgrounds.
Speaking as a graduate of the UC system, I doubt "elites" are clamoring to get their kids into it.
I graduated third from the bottom of my class from High School and had enormous difficulties with a school system that was adversarial to me throughout my childhood.
In my public elementary school my principal deceived state officials to try to put me into special ed. She was admonished after it was revealed she hid my Iowa standardized test scores from state officials.
In my public high school, my teachers and administrators were given my elementary school file and treated me similarly. I was forbidden from taking AP classes or even taking the exams with self study. After I graduated, my high school refused to release a copy of my file to me, saying they had destroyed it mere weeks after I received my diploma.
Standardized tests were the one opportunity I had to demonstrate I didn't fit my grade point average or what I'm sure would have been derogatory information provided by my public school to any university I applied to.
I think a student talking about that during the application process would actually be considered for admission.
Especially if I did not have a standardized test score, a public school file documenting it, or anything to back up that claim other than recollections of my own and my father's.
Seriously, considering stopping donations this year - I'm a UC alumnus and this makes me sad.
When I entered university, the head of admissions had been forced to accept the job. He didn't want to be head of admissions (for physics, our subject).
He used the opportunity to do an experiment. Normally you need advanced Maths with a decent grade to get onto a physics degree. He abandoned that and admitted about 20 people without that. He also admitted people with lower grades than usual. Hs basically made offers to everyone who applied. So our first year class was almost twice the size it was meant to be.
He was my personal tutor and asked me to help host admissions lunches for prospective students, so the subject of admissions came up.
He laughed and said he admitted everyone because as far as he was concerned, if you were too dB to pass first year you'd be kicked out then and if not you deserved to be in second year whether you're grades at 18 were good or not.
Of the 20 people without maths, at least 15 failed or transfered to other subjects in year 1. But a few graduated.
So he gave them a chance and they took it.
I know the logistics make it impossible. But I actually think letting everyone who applies in and letting the end of term/semester/year exams decide who stays is much fairer than single tests or one off interviews of lists of (parentally supported) extra circular projects. Imagine if MIT or Harvard said "Everyone is welcome but only 10% of people pass the first year".
There is this famous thing professors say to engineering students in the first lecture:
"Everyone please look to your right and to your left. [Statistically speaking] only one of you will be able to graduate in the end."
This is why engineering schools are so tough. I heard from some american universities that the master programs are (if you have gotten over the hurdle to get in) rather "easy" and that they want people to have good grades (because it would look bad if top university students have really bad grades I guess?). Whereas in Germany you have to survive. And especially the good university make it as hard as they can to get the cream of the crop.
(Part of this is related to the change from Diploma to Bachelor/Master because for the Diploma people did not have to care about grades and Universities made exams so hard that people would barely pass them: "4 gewinnt").
In the US, however, I think attrition is a metric that contributes to University rankings. So if you accept people into a course you want people to graduate. In such a scheme, the attrition rates are high.
I went to a public state school and they straight up bell curved the grades for most classes at the TA level so that a certain number of kids were always going to get a D/F both of which are not passing grades and thus requiring the student to either retake it or switch majors.
It was pretty brutal but also highly effective at getting me to really study the material to stay above the curve and pass.
I believe this is what they do in France. This was explained to me years ago, so i may have this totally wrong, but in France, if you get a baccalaureate at school, you have the right to attend your local university. There is no admissions process. As a result, there are far too many students. So, the universities make the first-year exams as tough as they need to, and kick out anyone who doesn't pass. Effectively, they use those exams to do admissions, just a bit late.
France also has some strange elite universities, the grandes écoles. They have selective admission. To get into those, you first do khâgne [1], a couple of years of preparatory study, followed by an entrance exam. If you squint, you could see this as letting everyone have a go at the first two years, and then only letting a few progress. To be honest, thinking about the French education system makes my head hurt.
Similar but perhaps more straightforward are the UK foundation years [2], for example, Durham's [3]:
> Foundation Programme courses are fully integrated elements of Durham University degree programmes. Students who successfully reach the progression standard by the end of the foundation year automatically gain entry to year one of their registered programme without further action or application.
The difference being that foundation years are optional - in your example, the people with advanced maths would not have needed the foundation year, but those without would have. Accordingly, they are still quite rare, because in the UK, people pick their A-levels with a view to what subject they want to study at university, and we hate social mobility.
And, of course, in the world of MOOCs and online universities, coming real soon now, it will be easy to admit millions of students to the first year of a course, as long as all the teaching in that year is highly scalable - broadcast lectures, not interactive classes; multiple-choice exams which can be marked by machine; lab work done in VR?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh%C3%A2gne
At least with SAT poor students still had a chance if they did well on the test.
My HS's GPA wasn't out of 4, for example. Also if you ended up in Mr. Boris's class instead of Mrs. Solomon, you basically automatically lost a whole letter grade.
The amount of resources they had that I didn't have at my good, public high school was astounding. It was really 'stand out from the crowd' kind of resources that are probably going to become even more important with the removal of SAT/ACT.
Where I went to uni we simply have two different buckets which the schools can change around a bit, but still keeping both. For for my program 66% of students were selected by grade and 34% based on a national test with normalized scoring.
Extra curricular activities or whatever isn't really a thing ever, because it can't be measured. Well, until you are padding your resume for that first job.
If it's the test fee, just allow a retake for free like a gas station smog check offer.
Or, a college can bucket grades and test scores separately and just take whichever is higher.
And yet... I wonder if we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Standardized tests _seem_ like they could be such a such a powerful force for fairness & efficiency. I wonder that there isn't a way to improve the test - especially since, at this rate, the SAT could be obsolete in a decade or two.
Prep helps, but prep has a limit. A Golf tutor, high tier equipment, admission to private school with a large golf team, etc. are more easily bought.
Honest question: what is it about the standardization that fundamentally makes standardized tests easier to prepare for vs. non-standardized tests? It's not like either sort of test re-uses questions year-to-year, or that non-standardized tests have mystery subject matter.
The standardization is that everyone gets the same questions, or a mix from the same pool of questions. That aspect doesn't seem to make preparation any easier or harder, unless you're talking about the standardization making elaborate cheating schemes scale better, but that's not generally considered prep.
An example of how merit based systems also favor the rich is the UN internship system. You are an unpaid intern in Genova, one of the most expensive cities in the world. If you pass, you have an easy path through the UN but only the rich can afford that.
I think the real issue is money is useful beyond buying hedonism and comfort.
If the new UCSAT displaces the SAT, UC gets to add an extra $100m to profits and $XXX million in 'expenses' to get lost in the UC System. And they get more control over the selection process.
Currently, the UC’s provide a lot of weight to holistic applications. These often favor privileged kids, as they have access to far more opportunities than others. For some, the SAT provided a sort of leveling field in that regard.
Still, it wasn’t perfect, but I fail to see how what they come up with will fix the issue.
Of interest is that all of this is taking place in a state that has banned affirmative action.
I think these "holistic" admissions do the opposite. They allow a small group of college administrators to pick which "backgrounds" they want to make up the freshman class each year.
They then accept a certain number for every lower achieving school, due to the 10% requirement (is it still 10% these days?). People then game the system, with the wealthy, moving to a poorly performing school, and the child will be ranked very high in their school, so it is easy to get into the highest rated UCs.
I will also disagree that the SAT is a leveling field. The reason is that in the high achieving schools, the child is sent to private tutors and classes every single year of their lives starting in elementary school. The parents will spend $1k+/month on activities as well as academic classes. That type of knowledge seriously adds up.
For the disadvantaged, they _could_ but the steps are a lot steeper, and most don't make those steps.
This sentiment is littered throughout the comments here. Do we want colleges to admit the brightest, most academically ready 18 year olds? Or to simply admit equal percentages matching race and income levels?
You even seem to admit the student would be better off with those extra classes.
>That type of knowledge seriously adds up.
Personally I'd have no problem with someone smarter than me getting into a college over me... It's not as if you can pay a tutor and then go to bed while they do the work for you, you still have to put in time...
Previously, the price of bribery was unknown. The economics of such a trade, illegal as it was, were murky. With the unmasking of the scheme, including possible angles, and now a known bargaining price point, the whole admissions process has become much clearer.
Covid19, throws a wrench into everything, including college admissions. But these other mechanisms of entry are still in place.
I suspect that the admissions departments are about to get a lot larger. Especially with the ability to use Zoom for everything now.
High school and college are so different, I've often wondered if transfering wouldn't be the best for most people. Then you can prove that you can succeed in college by going to college and learning what that means. I meet so many people that went straight from their high school to a competitive undergraduate institution and then came out the other end of it feeling like they never knew why they did what they did. In fact, many make it all the way through their PhD, only to think afterwards whether it was what they really wanted. They never worked at normal jobs or really left the citadel. 18 is so young to commit to all of this. I think the transfer route allows for more reflection and a far more realistic "model" for institutions to base projections of later success in a BA or BS program on.
Going to a community college and being in class with people who are middle aged and seeking new directions, refugees, people who made mistakes, and other young people who knew they wanted to do something but not what yet, was an invaluable part of my life and formed my understanding of what it means to seek out education. It is an insight many of my colleagues lack.
Though it doesn't really seem to be the point of the debate on exams, what really could stand to be improved is the extent to which undergraduates have the best long term life outcomes based on their educational experience and how the admissions process functions relative to this question.
Also, the various people arrested in the college payment schemes were rich, but still were not able to get their kids into the colleges based on their scores.
Basically, the colleges are doing this so they have more leeway to select the students they want without having to answer tough questions about bias and discrimination.
I think I would have followed that recommendation.
This had a really bad outcome the last time the UC system tried to do this 20 years ago: https://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/02/21_sat.html
In response to the UC's criticism the College Board added an essay to the SAT. The thinking was this would expose the softer, more human side that standardized tests missed.
What happened?
It significantly increased the cost of the test (gotta pay someone to grade it) and made it even harder for poor kids to go to rich schools because they couldn't afford the more expensive test.
Not to mention the subjectivity of grading an essay.
Standardized testing is like that Winston Churchill quote on democracy being "the absolute worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" -- what system does the UC have that's more fair?
The NYT piece said they're planning on developing their own test -- so now prospective students have to take two tests if they plan on applying to schools outside the UC system?
The practical effect of this is Asian Americans will have to work 2x as hard as other groups to get into good schools, as was revealed by the Harvard case https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme....
i.e. Congrats, you got accepted. Your GPA ranked in the top $X percentile of our admitted class and your engagement in robotics was astonishing.
or
You were not admitted because while your GPA was excellent, we did not see sufficient community engagement in your extracuriculars.
Maybe a college tells me that a particular type of extra-curricular wasn’t valued as highly as I thought it was and I elect to pursue something different in undergrad (I wouldn’t recommend this but to each their own). The feedback would also provide relevant data points to future applicants if chosen to be shared.
There are plenty of examples of students who are accepted/rejected to schools which you wouldn’t expect.
> ...dealing a significant blow to the multibillion-dollar college admission testing industry.
Louisiana made everyone take the ACT and... more people went to college, especially the high achieving low income and/or minority students!
I loathe to be so cynical but 'roughly objective' measures are usually better than none.
This is the express purpose of this change.
In this Trumpian era we like to talk about the 'integrity of institutions' and yet so many are boldly willing to do away with the results of baseline objectivity when it doesn't suit their agenda.
Because of course, the 'agenda' is what matters, not Truth or Objectivity.
Hmmm ... I wonder if we could have a place, where like ... 'free thinkers' could be free to talk about ideas and be objective without worrisome authoritarians creeping in. Maybe we could protect such people with things like 'tenure' so that they would be free to not have to follow some specific ideal ...
Now that would be interesting!
I understand that there needs to be some standardized way to objectively score students, because allocating college seats to students seems to be an induced scarcity problem.
However, as someone who scored highly and is currently studying computer science at UC Berkeley, I ultimately feel like my time was wasted because the tests have almost no relation to any of my studies in class.
I know that in the absence of SAT and ACT, universities will need to come up with a different system, that has an equal chance of being gamed. Perfect is the enemy of good, and in this case, I would rather we strive toward standardized systems that actually relate to the content of high school. So many times while studying for the test I thought how much of a waste of time it is, and that I would rather be doing something else like programming.
Thank goodness that nowadays all I have to worry about is actual computer science. I got past the time-wasting hump and I never have to look back again. That is, unless I face the GRE...
The SAT is basically a somewhat disguised IQ test and I'm quite confident that intelligence was related to the studies in your classes.
My problem though is that I do not think educational reform is my passion. My passion aims at progressing in my chosen major, and I desperately wanted to show to colleges this passion, but my test score was the Great Filter that decided whether or not the other aspects to myself mattered, such as personality, side projects, or personal achievements. I did well in high school, so it's not that I dislike the system because I didn't perform well. I dislike the system because there is such a great disconnect between what is relevant to the college experience and what college admissions is based off.
In general, high SAT/ACT scores correlates with well-achieving college students, but I'm sure most begrudgingly pushed themselves to get over the IQ test hump.
I have thought about this issue a lot. The incongruence between college admissions and student achievement really compels me to strive for a better system so that future generations will not have to waste time like I did. However, I suspect that all the great people who could work on a better system do not stick around.
> Fewer than a third of college degree recipients are “proficient” in everyday literacy, U.S. study finds, and rate is falling.
Do you think its gotten worse or better, 15 years on?
Back in 2017 I wrote about how Cal State replaced no-credit classes with credit bearing ones, and then nixed the requirements for placement exams and remedial classes: https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/higher-education-erodes-a7c...
> At Cal State, about 40% of freshmen each year are considered not ready for college-level work and required to take remedial classes that do not count toward their degrees.
> The hope is that these efforts will also help students obtain their degrees sooner — one of the public university system’s priorities. Cal State has committed to doubling its four-year graduation rate, from 19% to 40%, by 2025.
'Test prep' is also less about what you learn, and more about the finesse or 'form' required to take the test. Much the same as a power lifter lifts greater weight due to ther superior form, those whove attended test prep complete the SAT and ACT with a higher score because of superior test taking 'form.'
The claim that rich white people are leveraging their wealth to buy a secret "one weird trick" that instantly boosts their scores is simply false.
I am happy to provide citations if you're interested.
For me, the SATs/SAT IIs didn't test what was a meaningful way to assess my strengths in the first place: analytic reasoning & creativity. That only partially came across in my extra ciriculars since primary education is largely memorization without understanding.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201903...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/04/new-papers-fi...
FAFSA which isn’t even meant to be a filter is a barrier to entry for students without resources who understand the process and can guide them through it.
I don't see how you can eliminate having some sort of admissions test. It's too easy to fake most of the other criteria they want to use for admissions.
Maybe there's another solution besides blatant racism.
For most people outside of the US system, who want to go to US universities, it is an extra (and expensive) hassle when you've already taken internationally accredited qualifications like the A-Levels or the IB. I'd much rather trust something that has assessed you over a couple of years over something that just asses how well you can cram for something.
Also, if all colleges are created equally, endowed similarly, we may not need a test and follow the K12 model of going to your local college because it is as good as any other college. It is about time we solve education along with healthcare and create equity in the system.
However, the reason it'll be back in some form later is because you need quantitative measures to help sort the stack of applications otherwise the overhead becomes too much to deal with.
As a required field on the common app, this could help in making admissions decisions. There are so many reasons using standardized tests for admissions isn't fair across the board, but perhaps understanding how much prep went into the test would provide useful data for admissions offices, and also at the macroacademic (lol) layer.
Some people are just bad test takers. What good does it make to penalize them for studying and trying to do the best they can do? Someone with a learning difference would be at a disadvantage.
Also, why wouldn’t I just lie?
And yeah, you could certainly lie, but I feel that's true for a lot of fields on college apps? Perhaps it could be reasonable to have your school validate or sponsor the answer?
It's well researched that private tutoring (among many other socio-economic factors) gives you a huge advantage on these tests. Having one of these bodies come out and say by how much could be a wake up call, and maybe spur more decisions like this one in the original post. Totally agree with your points, but also think tutoring != independent studying, the latter of which could not effectively be reported.
I think US college exam systems are horribly flawed.
For one, why are they run by a private non-profit rather than the government?
They're also clearly not difficult enough, when at elite universities it's more a qualification than a determinant. In other nations, they're hard enough that the bell curve doesn't clip at the end.
The tests should be free, or at least free for, say, 2 tests per year per student. They should be harder. And they shouldn't be held in the hands of a third party.
A lot of people will take that test for sure. And if it turns out to be a good indicator, other states would probably accept the scores too.
Then California makes it free for CA residents and makes test prep part of the HS curriculum and you're on your way to solving a few systemic problems at once!
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/08/12/califor...
Canada has far fewer wealthy people, far less extreme poverty, far fewer private schools and essentially no private universities.
Even the relative quality of universities is flatter. The top schools are pretty good, the mid-tier schools not hugely different. Whereas Harvard can offer something considerably more substantial than most state schools, on average. (It always depends on many factors, especially the student)
Very different landscape as well.
You mean those tests are privately done? It's not some standard high school end test administered by the state like the baccalaureate exam?
Sheesh.
Is there any objective evidence that SAT favors wealthy people. I mean, I am sure it does to some extent. But how much? Even if there is a bias towards richer kids, the disparity could be due to other reasons as well - better schooling, better parenting, better social network etc. How are these other reasons eliminated?
the left is absolutely brain dead, the road to hell is paved with their "good" intentions.
> The unanimous 23-to-0 vote ratified a proposal put forward last month by UC President Janet Napolitano to phase out the exams over the next five years until the sprawling UC system can develop its own test.
> Ms. Napolitano’s proposal allows four years for the UC system to develop a new exam. If it fails to create or adopt one, then it likely would cease to use any exam, said Robert Schaeffer, public education director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, known as FairTest, which has fought against standardized testing for 30 years. Mr. Schaeffer said he doesn’t believe a new exam will be implemented.
“It appears very unlikely that they will be able to design an instrument that is more accurate and fairer than relying on applicants’ high school records,” Mr. Schaeffer said. “And, if a new test somehow meets those goals promoters would face massive adoption barriers, including persuading UC and the rest of the admissions world that a third test is truly needed or useful.”
And the new test will somehow be fairer because students with wealthy parents won't be able to get private tutors?
One guy who went to Princeton used a flagship story of “building a forest”. The school was redoing its grounds and hired a bunch of homeless people to do it as they worked for cheap cash. They let him “oversee” it as a social initiative.
Another kid got into Columbia by creating a “nationwide startup innovation movement.” His parents paid the school to book all these convention centres and they flew him out to chill at these fictional events. They claimed all the funds from the events went to startups. They claimed to find over 50 startups and sent each a small check for $30. They sent random startups $30 and used it as a claim to funding innovation.
With grades, they had an internal grade to allow for actually rigorous education, but then they would multiply the grade by 1.2 to get your “public school grade.” That’s the grade reported to universities.
Oh and the teacher left the room for AP tests and we were taught how to efficiently “come to group conclusions.”
The only thing that kept them from doing that kind of stuff for everyone was the SAT as plenty of AP National Scholars couldn’t crack 1800 on the damn thing.
We won over a million dollars in our 60 person class in scholarship money off these absurdities as most of them don’t ask about the SAT.
Now more than ever, college signals nothing other than the ability to follow rules and jump through hoops. Such a tragedy.
You think that's bad? I know some kids at a public school in a rich neighborhood that had almost fifty valedictorians.
If not for the evident sincerity of their academic advocates I'd suspect that these policies were carefully crafted by enemies of higher education.
History is a circle.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-proble...