I wrote in January that the University of California system was going to abandon the SAT and theACTs in favor of other tests for high school applicants. The committee that studied the problem recommended that the standardized tests be retained because they were better predictors of college performance than grade-point averages. The University ignored its own advice. As I wrote then.
The University of California decided to make SATs optional for in-state applicants for the next two years. Students will not be allowed to submit their scores in the year 2023. The Chancellor of the University system and a panel convened by the University system both recommended that SAT-like tests be retained as mandatory for applicants. The only reason that the University could have to ignore the recommendation of its own panel is that test scores highlight racial disparity and could make it more difficult to get into the U of C.
>
The University of California recommended that the system create its own standardized test, but they decided they couldn't do it.
Half of all colleges and universities don't require test scores for admissions, as the number of colleges that don't has risen to 1,815.
The Los Angeles Times reported that another committee was convened to study what alternative tests might work. Click on the result to read, or make a judicious inquiry if you are not paid.
At the Board of regents meeting, the UC Provost declared that the end of testing for admissions decisions was a done deal, putting an end to more than three years of research and debate.
>
Brown told the regents that the university would continue to practice test-free admissions in the future.
>
Testing supporters argue that standardized assessments give a uniform measure to predict the college performance of students from different schools. UC embraced opposing arguments that high school grades are a better tool than tests because of their biases.
I don't know what they mean by "biases based on race, income, and parent education levels". Scores are partly there to try to determine which factors affect performance. SAT scores can be used to identify minority students whose grades are not great but who perform well on the test. The SAT has questions for racial bias, and any that could be construed as reflecting on racial culture has been eliminated.
Everyone knows that the tests were nixed because minorities scored worse than whites or Asians. Hispanics and blacks have lower chances of getting in if you use the SAT as a criteria. Asians are the highest, followed by whites, mixed-race students, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics, and then blacks, who are tied with Native Americans.
A recent referendum in California failed to overturn a state law that says race cannot be considered in college admissions.
If you use SATs as a major criterion, you wouldn't even come close to "equity" in the class, which is what ethnic groups occur in the population. The school won't admit all this, but it's a wink-wink nod-nod action. They make noises about the use of SATs leading to a "test-prep industry" which could "further exacerbate social inequalities among low-income students unable to pay for such training."
Since the standardized tests are considered biased, they propose to step up other ways to achieve equity in admissions. The scope for subjectivity is greater in some areas.
The most diverse class ever was admitted by UC without testing requirements, as more than 200,000 freshman applications were received for fall 2021. 13 other factors, including a student's high school grade-point average, the rigor of courses taken, special talents, essays and extracurricular activities, were used by the admissions officers to thoroughly evaluate the flood of applications without test scores.
>
The committee said UC should do more to advance equity in admissions. Recommendations included a closer partnership between UC and the K-12 system with greater access to college-preparatory courses required for admission; more state funding for academic preparation programs, and enhanced monitoring to make sure UC is reaching underserved high schools.
>
The report called for more funding to help UC thoroughly assess applications, anti-bias training for application readers, and strengthened supports to help students complete their degrees.
They don't admit the purpose of abandoning SATs andACTs, but they do say the tests should go bye-bye because they are racist.
Cecilia Estolano said that her vote to eliminate SAT and ACT testing requirements was one of her proudest moments as a regent. She said the next thing to do is to prepare more students for UC admission and support them once they enroll.
>
She said that generations of educational inequity baked in discrimination, baked in structural impediments to our students. We have to provide the supports to enable our students to succeed if we are going to expand educational access in an equitable way.
Not all high schools are doing away with tests.
The SAT and ACT testing in California will not be stopped by the UC decision. The Los Angeles Unified school district still administers the test to its high school students, and counselors advise them to take it to maximize opportunities to apply to other colleges.
Berkeley isn't doing as badly with race in graduation rates.
The six-year graduation rate for UC is 84 percent. The UC rate was 75 percent for black students, 77 percent for Latinos, 89 percent for Asian and Pacific Islanders and 86 percent for whites.
There are still racial differences. There are substantial inequalities in racial proportions in the student population with data taken only from Berkeley.
The University of California-Berkeley's student population is 30.2% Asian, 26.8% White, 14.1% Hispanic or Latino, and 5.31% Two or More Races.
Hispanics, white, black, and Native Americans make up 18% of the U.S. population. The performance of these groups on standardized tests is mirrored by that.
What should we do? Berkeley doesn't want an all-Asian-and-white student population, and neither do I. California is forbidden to use affirmative action in any explicit way, though merit and affirmative action are tradeoffs.
It doesn't help to throw out one measure of merit, and a good one, the standardized tests. My view is that all students should be considered qualified. You have a pool of students who will thrive at Berkeley. What to do with the pool? If you are above the bar, Steve Pinker suggests a lottery for admission.
I do not like the lottery. Affirmative action for race is not allowed in the pool above the bar.
The Supreme Court ruled that race can be used as a criterion for admission because it was seen as an innate good. I think it's a good idea to make up for the terrible way we treated minorities in the past, as well as making sure students have role models for success. The latter thinks that Berkeley students will get good positions in society and become professors. I favor affirmative action in hiring. We have the issue of trading off credentials versus equity again.
One way to assess quality is being removed from many American colleges and medical schools. I don't think the tests are racist, and I see that as unjust. Kendi would say that the test is racist.
Some people prefer less information on students than others. The way I see it can be adjusted for racial balance. We can not lie to ourselves about why we are deep-sixing these tests. What is the downside of having to take SATs andACTs?
Luana.
