University of California Will Stop Using SAT, ACT

[Anerdyblackguy]

This is actually a great move. The University of Chicago and Wake Forest got rid of their SAT and ACT requirements and their diversity improved (with the University of a Chicago seeing a 20 percent increase in first generation lower income minorities). Add in the fact these black students didn’t suffer academically (Rest in piss Anthony Scalia) this could be a welcome for black students.


Now both Universities are classified as wealthy universities (Endowments over 500 million) so that helps with academic help and financial outreach but the results are promising.


Source
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ta...or-act-admissions-requirement?template=ampart

 

[duckbutta]

Cac scores so low they were like "we got to throw this shyt out"

 

[Shogun]

It states in the article that the UC system is going to create it's own tests.

That they can charge kids to take...

 

[Starman]

Cac scores so low they were like "we got to throw this shyt out"

The battle against standardized tests has raged for years because minority students score, on average, lower than their white classmates. Advocates argue that the exams are an unfair admission barrier to those students because they often cannot pay for pricey test preparation.

 

[Ciggavelli]

Statistically, standardized tests are the best way to test everybody on the same criteria, and therefore, are seen as the most fair metric.

Also, SAT and ACT scores are highly correlated with IQ, and IQ is highly correlated with job performance.

I think they should just give everybody a culture neutral IQ test (they exist). If you score in the top 10% of applicants, you can get in.

Personally, if standardized tests get taken away, it's just going to weigh other things that are also biased. Plus, does "volunteering at a shelter every weekend for 2 years" equate to performing better at a job? I think that would be a hard claim to make, but that is what may happen if standardized tests are not used.

 

[Slim]

Just because everyone took the same test doesn't mean they're on equal footing.

You got these rich ass families paying for private SAT/ACT prep tutors.

 

[Robbie3000]

Statistically, standardized tests are the best way to test everybody on the same criteria, and therefore, are seen as the most fair metric.

Also, SAT and ACT scores are highly correlated with IQ, and IQ is highly correlated with job performance.

I think they should just give everybody a culture neutral IQ test (they exist). If you score in the top 10% of applicants, you can get in.

Personally, if standardized tests get taken away, it's just going to weigh other things that are also biased. Plus, does "volunteering at a shelter every weekend for 2 years" equate to performing better at a job? I think that would be a hard claim to make, but that is what may happen if standardized tests are not used.

There are so many factors that determine job performance besides I.Q.(whatever that is anyway) Hard work, tenacity, creativity, personality, etc. I work in I.T consulting and the people I have seen rise through the ranks are not necessarily the smartest. Actually the "smartest" guys end up getting stuck in narrow technical roles.

 

[Conan]

This is one I don't understand. So tests are an inadequate way of gauging someone's smarts?

 

[Yinny]

There are so many factors that determine job performance besides I.Q.(whatever that is anyway) Hard work, tenacity, creativity, personality, etc. I work in I.T consulting and the people I have seen rise through the ranks are not necessarily the smartest. Actually the "smartest" guys end up getting stuck in narrow technical roles.

This has to be condensed to a fair relatively objective metric to compare students. Many admissions depts offer interviews for “personality,” but then you’ll get people hollering about how some smart students are introverts and don’t do well at them, or lack resources to prep. I interview students for my alma mater and for them, it’s a (possible) bonus but not THE deciding factor, as many of these students I can tell off the bat are a no if the “personality” proxy via 30 mins to an hour plays a significant role. I’ve interviewed 50, and met less than five I thought would be a good fit. None of them were accepted, and maybe one was waitlisted.

The other traits ideally are communicated with the app essay questions and teacher/counselor recommendations.

 

[ogc163]

this is only bad for asians.

I expect them to be first in line with the lawsuits--this move hurts them the most--because without the exam it would be harder for Asians to get into the elite UC schools. But they likely won't win.

 

[Robbie3000]

This has to be condensed to a fair relatively objective metric to compare students. Many admissions depts offer interviews for “personality,” but then you’ll get people hollering about how some smart students are introverts and don’t do well at them, or lack resources to prep. I interview students for my alma mater and for them, it’s a (possible) bonus but not THE deciding factor, as many of these students I can tell off the bat are a no if the “personality” proxy via 30 mins to an hour plays a significant role. I’ve interviewed 50, and met less than five I thought would be a good fit. None of them were accepted, and maybe one was waitlisted.

The other traits ideally are communicated with the app essay questions and teacher/counselor recommendations.

These admission tests are biased toward those with resources to prepare their kids so it’s not an objective measure in the first place.

I’d be fine with a tough tests that test what you actually learned in High School rather than these “aptitude” tests. That’s how a lot of countries do it.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

Statistically, standardized tests are the best way to test everybody on the same criteria, and therefore, are seen as the most fair metric.

Also, SAT and ACT scores are highly correlated with IQ, and IQ is highly correlated with job performance.

I think they should just give everybody a culture neutral IQ test (they exist). If you score in the top 10% of applicants, you can get in.

Personally, if standardized tests get taken away, it's just going to weigh other things that are also biased. Plus, does "volunteering at a shelter every weekend for 2 years" equate to performing better at a job? I think that would be a hard claim to make, but that is what may happen if standardized tests are not used.

Not at all.

 

[hashmander]

https://www.thecoli.com/posts/37803689/

what you're quoting doesn't include asians as "minorities". their over representation (both berkeley and UCLA are majority asian while only make up 15% of the california population) at the expense of white students at the elite UC schools does probably have something to do with it.