University of California Will Stop Using SAT, ACT (sfgate.com) 285
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: The University of California board of regents voted Thursday to stop using the SAT and ACT college admissions exams (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source), reshaping college admissions in one of the largest and most prestigious university systems in the country and dealing a significant blow to the multibillion-dollar college admission testing industry. 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.
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. [...] 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."
A spokesman for the College Board, which oversees the SAT, said the organization's "mission remains the same: to give all students, and especially low-income and first-generation students, opportunities to show their strength. We must also address the disparities in coursework and classrooms that the evidence shows most drive inequity in California."
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. [...] 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."
A spokesman for the College Board, which oversees the SAT, said the organization's "mission remains the same: to give all students, and especially low-income and first-generation students, opportunities to show their strength. We must also address the disparities in coursework and classrooms that the evidence shows most drive inequity in California."
It's like they've forgscotten... (Score:3, Insightful)
There was a reason they're called the STANDARD APTITUDE TEST.
Because school systems all had various ways of teaching various subjects and it was a tool colleges used to discern a student's ability in Iowa against one in, say, New York.
But that doesn't matter now because merit is evil and what really matters is a subjective standard so that the preferred social groups du jour get admitted and less of those undesirable groups that need to be held back until they learn the error of their ways.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It should be pretty obvious by now that merit has had little to nothing to do with college admissions.
Re:It's like they've forgscotten... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that if you go by merit you end up with a student body that is 40% Asian and 1% black.
Many people don't see that as acceptable.
California could fix the imbalance by improving the elementary and high schools so black kids get a good education, but that would be expensive. So instead, they will tweak the admissions process to achieve racial "fairness".
Re:It's like they've forgscotten... (Score:5, Interesting)
The schools aren't the problem. One of the more expensive lessons we've learned over the past 30 years is that increasing budgets doesn't improve outcomes.
The real problem is poverty. We can fix that easily, but we won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Narcc,
You wrote "... poverty. We can fix that easily....". What approach would you use to fix poverty? Do you think that a universal basic income or welfare would fix poverty? I would think that the amount of income needed to fix poverty in the USA would be something like $10,000 per adult plus $5,000 per child per year. That would add up to about 3 trillion dollars per year. That does not seem easy. What am I missing? (Maybe we could just identify the poorest 10% which would
Re:It's like they've forgscotten... (Score:4, Interesting)
> That would add up to about 3 trillion dollars per year. That does not seem easy. What am I missing?
The fact that the majority of people would be immediately paying back those benefits in taxes, so that their net cost to a UBI would be zero, if not actively paying in. A person making $40,000 per year doesn't need a UBI to pull them out of poverty - they're not in poverty. A UBI just gives them an instant, shame-free safety net that doesn't require them to completely burn through all their savings and other assets first the way welfare does.
A bit under 12% of the US population lives in poverty, meaning your $3 trillion estimate should be closer to $360 billion. For context, current welfare spending (federal, state, and local) is about $470 billion, plus another $642 billion for Medicaid. Of course, $10,000/year won't even cover rent in a shithole in a lot of places, so you'd still need some local and state spending to make up the difference.
A whole lot of the final cost number depends on exactly how you claw back the UBI from those who don't need it. Income taxes are the most straightforward way, but risk reducing the incentive to work more/harder, though unless its *very* badly designed it won't duplicate the active disincentive provided by the welfare cliff.
Increased sales, VAT, or excise taxes are another interesting option - that raises prices for everyone and claws back the UBI based on consumption rather than spending, providing greater incentive for everyone to spend their money on improving their station rather than consumption. Such taxes are regressive by nature (hitting poorer people who spend most their money harder than richer ones who invest), but to claw back a UBI that might work out okay.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
When you see poverty, you see stupid, lazy, people who make bad decisions and are just out to con you out of an honest buck.
When I see poverty, I see you. I see your friends and family. I see myself.
It can happen to anyone. Once you're there, it can be difficult to escape. Not everyone can claw their way back out, no matter how hard they work.
I want a strong social safety net so that the people I care about don't end up in the gutter. That it helps everyone else is just a bonus.
When you see someone fal
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's like they've forgscotten... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bite - how?
Last I checked, the poverty level gets redefined pretty regularly so that "poverty" is whatever fraction of the "standard of living" they want it to be. So, as we get more prosperous, we redefine "poverty" upwards.
Yes, there are people who are seriously disadvantaged. Yes, helping them out would go a long way towards fixing some serious societal issues. But, alas, we won't get rid of poverty until we stop redefining it every decade or so. Because there will ALWAYS be people at the bottom. Yeah, everyone could have a supercomputer and a maid/butler/whatever, but if we define the poverty line so the bottom 20% are in "poverty", we'll always have 20% of the people in poverty.
Note, by the way, that, once upon a time, "living in poverty" meant "not having a telephone in your house". Nowadays, we feel sorry for (or look down on) individuals who don't have an expensive phone/computer in their pocket....
Re:It's like they've forgscotten... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. It's almost poverty might be relative to the overall wealth of the society you live in. Luckily the overall wealth of the society you live in never changes, so thus we never need to redefine poverty.
Re: (Score:3)
We should worry about that when it happens, not when we have a class of children who are too hungry to pay attention in school.
Free breakfast and free and reduced school lunches do wonders to boost academic achievement. That's how we know that this is "real" poverty, and not something at the bottom of your slippery slope.
Re:It's like they've forgscotten... (Score:4, Insightful)
But, alas, we won't get rid of poverty until we stop redefining it every decade or so. Because there will ALWAYS be people at the bottom.
This is a dangerous way to view poverty. Poverty is NOT merely being in the bottom 10%. Poverty is having to decide if you pay the electric bill or buy food.
Being the bottom 10% would not be bad if you could have an assured amount of food and shelter. Having running water and electricity would be nice too, but those are luxuries compared to food and shelter. When you are in poverty, food and shelter are uncertain. This is where the misery is. It has nothing to do with telephones and electronic devices.
I am guessing you have never experienced poverty and that is how you can equate it with not having the latest iDevice. That would be why poverty is so difficult to fix; lack of empathy.
Re: (Score:3)
Education needs active parents. Who play a strong roll in their child education.
What helps manage the parents roll. Is how much time they can spend with their children.
If they have to work shifts where the child is alone, to make the payments, the child's education will suffer. Then if there is only one parent, that makes it worse, because there is no backup or extra support.
Both Myself and my Sister have Masters Degrees and is rather well respected in our professions. However our parents were Blue Collar
Re: (Score:3)
The schools are the problem, but money isn't. It's not a particular mystery how to teach kids. Discipline in the school and classroom, and drills for basic skills and information. Level kids so they can be taught appropriately difficult subjects. Don't buy into every teaching fad that shows up every 5-10 years. And encourage lots and lots of reading.
The big one is discipline, though. A good teacher can manage a classroom of 100 if those kids are motivated learners. But one unruly kid can sap an outsized chu
Re:It's like they've forgscotten... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll bite. I grew up in abject poverty. I won't get into the details, but I certainly have the have the background. Here are a some things that could make significant differences in reducing poverty.
The law of supply and demand. This is a brutal reality whether you are talking about face masks, sports cars, jobs or cocaine. It applies to everything.
1) When you increase the supply of labor you decrease the demand for local unskilled labor. Enforcing immigration law. is the single most important thing to ending poverty as this addresses the supply side of the equation. Illegal immigrant compete with those in poverty for low skilled jobs and help drive down wages which perpetuates poverty. For similar reasons you also need to stop immigration programs such as H1B and OPT (or your countries local equivalent) which compete with college students and force them to compete with unskilled workers for entry level jobs.
2) You have to address the demand side of the equation by enforcing labor laws with employers so that they stop hiring illegal immigrants. Employers will then start hiring people from their respective countries again for low skilled jobs since they can no longer hire cheaper labor. This will result in the hiring of people previously without a job or a lower paying into these same low skilled jobs. Due to added competition wages will necessarily rise which will help raise people out of poverty.
3) Transition people off of welfare. Right now people will stay on welfare because it pays better then low skilled jobs - especially when you factor in the benefits. Offer people a transition period where people are allowed to double dip and keep their welfare benefits while they start working. Address the perception that they are foolish for working instead of collecting benefits. Offer an additional tax credit for the first 5 years after a person gets off welfare.
4) Limit the scope of poverty benefits. Don't allow someone to collect welfare for more than two children. If you can't afford to take care of your kids then you shouldn't be having them. We certainly don't allow someone who can't afford to take care of a child to adopt a child. Some people can get on welfare and stay their for life. No one should be on welfare for more than a year. Welfare was never intended to be a lifestyle, it is supposed to be a safety net. If someone needs taken care of by society for more than a year chances are they are permanently disabled and they should be on a permanent disability benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The problem is that if you go by merit you end up with a student body that is 40% Asian and 1% black."
The problem isn't the testing, nor the SAT. Those just reveal the symptoms of the problems. Lowering entrance scores, elimination of testing, and skewing it to reward without merit will simply further destroy [what is left of] the integrity of higher learning. Admitting people that are actually able/ready learn at college is not a "problem" and not doing so just sets those students on a path of fai
Re:It's like they've forgscotten... (Score:5, Informative)
> There was a reason they're called the STANDARD APTITUDE TEST.
It was never called that. The "S" was always for "Scholastic," and while the "A" started out as "Aptitude" it eventually became "Assessment."
Of course your comment is well taken as no one, even you, remembers what "SAT" stands for anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
isn't highschool the standard prep school? (Score:2)
isn't highschool the standard prep school anyways?
HOWEVER: if your fucking university costs tens of thousands of dollars per year, you could just let anyone in, it's not like they're not paying for being in. if they pay and don't pass the universitys classes that's on them then.
what they might actually be fighting against here is that the university itself isn't worth it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
if your fucking university costs tens of thousands of dollars per year, you could just let anyone in, it's not like they're not paying for being in.
People are paying a high price for exclusivity.
If they just let anyone in, they wouldn't be able to charge any more than a community college, because the degree wouldn't mean much.
Re:isn't highschool the standard prep school? (Score:4)
isn't highschool the standard prep school anyways?
No. No, it really isn't. As someone who has taken courses at the community college level, it seems to me that your typical high school diploma no longer assures that a student will be ready for a college education. High schools are incentivized to graduate students with acceptable standardized test scores first and foremost, meaning most high school graduates will require remedial education in English language and mathematics to be able to proceed at the proper college level. High school graduates have been trained to take tests, but they don't really know how to function in a classroom environment that requires individual initiative. Even in a class like English 1A, a lot of them really seem lost -- which is only natural when you consider that they have never even been encouraged to do any reading on their own, but only what they've been assigned. A large part of what community colleges do these days is to attempt to fill that gap, but it's a thankless job when a lot of students are really too old to begin a basic education, especially when they have other factors to consider (jobs, family, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Even in a class like English 1A, a lot of them really seem lost -- which is only natural when you consider that they have never even been encouraged to do any reading on their own, but only what they've been assigned.
I'm not disagreeing with the premise of your responses here, but I'm curious how you would encourage the students to read on their own as a teacher, without some form of an assignment?
Re: It's like they've forgscotten... (Score:2)
Wait a sec (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wait a sec (Score:4, Interesting)
Solution? Ditch the Standardized tests, and find anything to point a finger at. Well, other than fix their broken "no feelings hurt" approach to education.
Funny thing is, all those rural "flyover" states people like to call dumb and ignorant have some pretty good literacy rates, a large percentage of college attendees, and a very good college graduation rate.
Re: (Score:2)
How about, cough, cough, the spawn of the smart, rich, ugly and greedy combined with the stupid, poor, pretty and greedy (basically the slightly less ugly, slightly more smart, still greedy as fuck and rich) are having real problems with those tests and they want shake and bake tests for the those useless types. Minorities of course will still be screwed.
The purpose of the fucking tests is not equal access, the fucking purpose is to test for those who will be able to most successfully complete the course.
Re: (Score:2)
rich ... are having real problems with those tests
Not true. Rich people send their kids to special prep classes that typically boost SAT scores by 200 points.
This change is not driven by the rich. They benefit from the current system.
Re: (Score:3)
Goodhart's law applies to the SAT as well. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". The SAT (and IQ tests in general) have been a target for almost a hundred years now.
Re:Wait a sec (Score:5, Interesting)
Standardized tests were a big step FORWARD for equality. Before them it was trivial to discriminate against kids who were poor or the wrong color because there was no standard. Standardized tests now are racially and economically biased because the pre-college education system is biased in that way. You can't fix that by changing the test. Abandoning standardized tests will just make things even more biased.
I've always been rather suspicious of organizations pushing this, because the position makes no sense. They don't propose testing reforms or preparation reforms or use of the tests students are already taking in secondary schools, they propose abandoning standardized tests and returning to a system which is known to be more biased against poor people of the wrong color. I really worry that they are sham organizations that exist to bilk donors who don't understand this out of their money.
Also possible that this reporter got taken in and that UC has no intention of abandoning standardized tests, but is trying to push back against the commercial ones. I'm onboard with that. There is no good reason for a pair of private companies to have this special status in US education. It would make perfect sense for a large university system like the University of California to set their own standard admissions test if they aren't happy with these vendors.
Re:Wait a sec (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always been rather suspicious of organizations pushing this, because the position makes no sense. They don't propose testing reforms or preparation reforms or use of the tests students are already taking in secondary schools, they propose abandoning standardized tests and returning to a system which is known to be more biased against poor people of the wrong color.
It is very easy to understand. Those who propose abandoning standardized test WANTED to have bias, bias in a direction they like.
You see, standardized tests are not giving them the mix of students they wanted (which they will call "diversity"), e.g. there are too many Asians with high scores. IOW, it is not biased in the direction they wanted (whatever that is), and it is very difficult to change the tests to give them their preferred bias. So by abandoning standardized test, they can then pick whatever criteria that will provide the bias they liked, and change it whenever they like.
Re:Wait a sec (Score:4, Insightful)
This. It's not politically correct, but let's be honest: They want fewer asians and more blacks selected. Probably also fewer whites and more hispanics, but let's stick to the main two groups for the moment. There are two main reasons for the disparity in test results. These reasons are not PC, so we're not allowed to talk about them. Bet: someone will call me racist for daring to mention them here.
- Culture. Inner-city black culture: shattered families, parents don't push kids to take school seriously, studying is "acting white", etc. Asian culture: hard work, intact families, parents push kids to take school seriously, to get ahead in life. Result: Asian kids get a lot more out of school.
- IQ: The IQ of the average asian is a lot higher than that of the average black. Since we aren't allowed to discuss this, we don't really know if the cause is environmental, cultural, genetic, or some combination thereof.
tl;dr: Addressing the real problems would be difficult. It is a lot easier - and a lot more PC - to say "the tests are biased".
Doesn't make sense (Score:3)
The UC system has always considered race and economic background in their admission criteria. It's not like they used the SAT and only the SAT to determine admission. To me it sounds like this is a payoff to some favored entity disguised as the new UC standard test creators.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Not since Prop 209. In 1996 the voters in California amended the State Constitution to prohibit the use of race to discriminate in college admissions, among other parts of government.
Once it was implemented, minority students in the UC and Cal State systems have achieved much higher graduation rates [nas.org], as they no longer mismatch students to schools that their test scores and grades show they aren't as prepared for.
This stop using tests plan is just part of an effort by UC Administrators to bypass the State Constitution and figure out ways to go back to discriminating for and against people based on their perceived race by reducing the amount of objective information considered in the admissions process.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Reminds me of the Chinese Imperial Examination (Score:5, Informative)
This was used in China for about 1500 years until around 1900. It did select officials, a pretty desirable job. Now, in theory this test was completely egalitarian and everybody could take it. In practice, without years of preparation by expensive tutors, you had zero chance of passing and hence the unwashed masses were nicely kept out.
Most standardized testing is like this to some degree: It can be gamed. The alternative is testing that is very different each year. But that comes with its own problems, in particular that it cannot be done in a general way (it will be specific for specific subjects or subject areas) and it requires really experienced and highly capable test designers and people that grade the test (which almost assures that this fails, because the testers will almost always be the wrong people for the job). It also adds an element of subjectivity, which in litigation-nation is not a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese imperial exams were just a class filter though. That's the thing about picking a winner by who writes the best poem: it objectively filters out the lower classes, while leaving the rich-enough-to-be-educated to pick from. The choice can then be made based on weight of bribes and family infuence, and who's to argue with the judges?
Most standardized testing is like this to some degree: It can be gamed.
While true, without a doubt. lets assume that no matter what happens the 0.1% get their kids in wherever they like. That still leaves most of admissions open to ever
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese imperial exams were just a class filter though.
That's definitely not true. To begin with, you had to be able to read, and writing poetry means you can write, which is an achievement in itself.
Secondly a traditional Chinese education involved a lot statecraft, including things like why previous dynasties have failed, how to be a good administrator, starting from the very beginning with the San Zi Jing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an experted on traditional Chinese education, but I have a hunch that in answering questions like why previous dynasties had failed, you wouldn't get high marks for disagreeing with the current dynasty's positions.
It's the perennial problem of education (or at least, the western university s
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an experted on traditional Chinese education, but I have a hunch that in answering questions like why previous dynasties had failed, you wouldn't get high marks for disagreeing with the current dynasty's positions.
I don't think a civil service exam is ever going to be the right time to expound your innovative theories on dynastic failure, or innovative theories on anything.
In ancient China, new theories like that would have been expounded at tea with friends, when deep things were discussed, while looking at nature. Or taught in a monastery as deep knowledge by a monk, and gradually the knowledge would spread widely (if the theory were valuable and practical, or just interesting). Or brought breathlessly to the emp
Re: (Score:3)
You make a test which reflects specific preparation for the exam, rather than actual knowledge. The SAT & ACT can definitely be gamed. They give unusual tests covering topics that will probably not be specifically covered in a public high school, but which a tutoring center will definitely identify and repeatedly drill. For instance, for the SAT Essay, a tutoring center will give students an essay template they can essentially memorize. 200+ point jumps for test prep schools is totally normal. It'
Re: (Score:3)
And just why should colleges be looking for "dynamic, well-rounded" individuals? I don't know any billionaires that fit that description. I doubt if you do either. But that's what the college student aspires to, except for the ones majoring in Gender Studies.
My University years was when i discovered the career I wanted. But it wasn't the program I was enrolled in. I toyed with dropping out after my 3rd year, but concluded having that useless piece of paper would let me pay off my student loans faster. So I
Re: (Score:2)
Duh, of course not. If they grew up rich, of course they're not going to be dynamic and well-rounded (at least, not according to non-rich values. I'm sure the prince of Monaco will consider his son to be dynamic and well-rounded, and quite possibly their social peers will think so as well).
And for the extremely rare "self made" billionaires, survivor bias makes sure you wo
A $30 book + free time would prepare you for SAT (Score:4, Interesting)
... for the SAT Essay, a tutoring center will give students an essay template they can essentially memorize. 200+ point jumps for test prep schools is totally normal. It's a huge advantage for rich kids ...
A $35 book accomplished the same thing. If you were disciplined enough to read the book, do the exercises, and take the practice tests. Wealthy kids have advantages, this is not one of them. SAT, GRE w/CS subject, GMAT ... true for all of them in my experience.
Exams discriminate against the lazy (Score:2)
You will have to admit that. Lots of people are lazy, and they should have the same opportunities as anybody else!
The Chinese exams may have required a middle class education. But they filtered out dumb people from the middle class. You had to be smart and educated. The upper class did not need a job.
The trouble with the Chinese system is what they examined. Lots of useless rote learning.
Re: (Score:2)
You will have to admit that.
Yes. However the lazy will unlikely graduate from college. Well, a real college and a real degree program.
Re:A $30 book + free time would prepare you for SA (Score:4, Interesting)
A $35 book in no way is as good as a tutoring center specifically teaching to the SAT and ACT.
These books *specifically teach* the SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, etc. It is literally the same lessons as in the tutoring center. It gets the same 200+ point boost. The difference is in motivation. It requires self motivation. The tutoring center has the advantage that mommy can drop you off and someone will supervise you and spoon feed the same lessons as the book.
While theoretically there may exist a few students who can do it
Blue collar working class high school here, industrial region, passable by not thriving economically. The book was commonly how it was done, not the expensive learning centers. Been there, done that. Many classmates. Many relatives.
If you want to follow that train of logic, why have AP classes at all? Students could just buy a $35 book! Why have school?
Because the learning center isn't really teaching you math, english, etc. They are teaching you how to take a standardized test, the process of the test, how to translate the knowledge you already have to that test. That knowledge took years to accumulate. Learning how to express that knowledge in a concise testing format is something else, something else that is much easier and quicker to learn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple, you discard questions that show disproportionate correlation with the background of the students,
What does that mean? ( "disproportionate correlation with the background" )?
Are you saying, for example, if Norwegian Americans keep getting a certain question wrong, then that question is biased against Norwegian Americans, and should be removed?
What if knowing the answer to that question is important to the test? What if its a math question?
What if Norwegian Americans simply aren't as good at math as Swedish Americans? And if you keep removing math questions to prop up the Norwegian Americans' s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
UC isn't like the east coast schools like Harvard or Yale where getting in is the hard part; everyone graduates from those schools.
UC already fails out a LOT of kids. So sure, let em all in but they're only hurting the ones not prepared for that level of work after they turn around and flunk our the same kids they let in who couldn't get in through the normal means.
I feel bad for those kids. They'll waste a year of their lives, a lot of money, and feel like shit when they get kicked out.
Re: (Score:2)
My experience with UC is very different from what you're describing. The workload was reasonable, maybe even a little light, and given resources were more than adequate. I'm sorry to hear that you had so much trouble. Who knows, maybe they're extra hard on undergrads.
Re: Doesn't matter (Score:2)
Re: Doesn't matter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Professors are pressured by administration (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not when I was at UC. If that has changed then woe for the whole system.
Nor I but that was decades ago. The "not in the syllabus" story is based on an incident of a former classmate who went on to become a professor. Sadly this was in a computer science program. The dean who pushed the professor to offer extra work to justify changing a D to a C was a former professor who kicked our asses in class. It was good for us, we learned. The student in question was getting a D by failing to turn in assignments. There was no medical or other valid excuse. He just didn't do the work duri
Tests Measure Ability Do They Not? (Score:3)
Re: Tests Measure Ability Do They Not? (Score:2)
They want one that tests ability, not wallet size.
Only a very modest wallet required (Score:3)
They want one that tests ability, not wallet size.
Preparation for the SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, etc ... requires only a very modest wallet. A $35 book will do. Assuming the student has the personal discipline to read it, do the exercises, do the practice exams, etc. Been there, done that.
... you won't make it in college.
If you can't afford such a book, or lack the discipline to use it, frankly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A test that can't be studied for was the intent of so-called General Aptitude Tests. And in theory they can't be studied for. But it can be prepared for by growing up among the privileged class. I was once administered an IQ test containing pictures of objects to identify. Included were a shuttlecock and a flatiron. Really, in late 20th century N. America? My examiner didn't even know the term "shuttlecock". She knew it as a "birdy".
I remember when there was interest in studying "Black English". Whitey here
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was once administered an IQ test containing pictures of objects to identify.
Thats wasn't an IQ test. Maybe you were lied to, or maybe you are lying, but there is no way that thats an IQ test.
Is this really what you stains have been going on... misinformation about IQ tests?
Re: (Score:2)
Colleges are not remedial education (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone is not prepared for college, then they need to go get their GED, or go take a couple of semesters at a community college, or whatever. Eliminating entrance requirements could result in dropping the quality of education, because first-year instructors won't be allowed to retroactively fix the problem by failing these students.
As for why more minority students perform poorly on objective tests like the SAT and the ACT? it doesn't matter. Whatever the causes, they occur earlier than college admissions, and must therefore be addressed before college admissions. College is not remedial education.
Finally, we also continue with the fallacy that every student should go to college. In fact, most kids would be better off heading for a trade. You don't need a college degree to be a construction worker, a welder, a hair dresser, an auto mechanic, or any of a zillion other things.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is not prepared for college, then they need to go get their GED, or go take a couple of semesters at a community college, or whatever. Eliminating entrance requirements could result in dropping the quality of education, because first-year instructors won't be allowed to retroactively fix the problem by failing these students.
And don't forget that California also has a massive Cal State university system, where admissions are pretty easy.
Nobody claimed the tests were perfect (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody claimed the tests were perfect. There is no such thing as perfect - everything has flaws. The question is, if you don't use standardized tests, then how else are you going to normalize for differences in high schools? Unless you can provide a suitable alternative to standardized testing, all you're doing is getting rid of a small bias in the standardized tests, and replacing them with a much larger bias due to differences in high schools.
Re:Nobody claimed the tests were perfect (Score:5, Interesting)
In some countries they have a "trial semester" instead of an exam. So you go to class for an entire semester, at the end there are evaluations, and the best students get in. I'm not sure that prevents bias, or is less stressful. But it's something. In the US that could be implemented by having to do a semester in a Community College to prove yourself.
Another way to do it is the way Georgia Tech did it in their online master's program (MIT and others have since done something similar). You are allowed in, but you have to get a good grade. In a practical sense you could be allowed to take some online courses, and if you do well, that can be used as proof to get in.
Again, I'm not sure these systems prevent unfair advantage by those that have lots of money. Because you can always throw money at coaching, tutoring or outright cheating. But there are alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm all for testing, but ACT/SAT suck (Score:3, Interesting)
A much better test would have a smaller number of tasks, but with a much greater complexity. Chinese gaokao is a great example, the current Russian standardized test is also good.
Yet tests are still the best predictors of success (Score:3)
These tests are objectively bad for math/physics.
And yet the faculty representatives who wanted to keep the tests point out that despite their various shortcomings they are still the best predictor of success in college (ie graduation).
Re: (Score:2)
It's somewhat intuitively understandable, to get a good GPA score you need to actually do a lot of work (so you need to be able to concentrate and actually do stuff). This translates well into requirements for college graduation - you don't need to be super-smart, you just need to work hard.
Meanwhile, a trained monkey c
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What? (Score:2)
californians are funny (Score:3)
you can either have meritocracy, or you can have universal public education for free (or nearly free), but you can't have both, as they are mutually exclusive. god I feel dumb for having to point this out.
it seems that in the public mind this concept of equality (or "equity" as they like to call it) being understood as equal access to public services (education is a public service) is somehow compatible with free market based college/uni system. am I the only one who thinks this is a logically impossible construct?
Re: (Score:2)
There never has been, and there never will be, such a thing as a meritocracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing group performance for individual performance. Certainly, there will be individuals who perform better or worse than others, but those should average out across a large enough group.
Unless you want to claim some sort of racial superiority (which I suspect you do) we would expect that equal opportunity should lead to equal outcomes between groups.
Total BS. Never mind equal opportunities, even given equal genetics, some cultures are objectively worse at producing successful adults. Some cultures produce smarter adults than others.
So, given equal opportunities between two cultures (say Chinese in China and Africans in Africa), the Chinese culture of 10 hour schooldays with emphasis on academic performance is going to beat the African culture of evangelical religious superstition.
All the equal opportunities in the world isn't going to fix Africa unt
According to Calfornia (Score:2)
Why does it cost students anything? (Score:2)
Except their time.
Students with debt so they can have a career is the barrier to entry. If they want equality make access open to all and you pass or fail on the merit of your own abilities and commitment to study.
No every place uses standardized tests (Score:4, Informative)
In Ontario (Canada) there is no standardized test that we write before we apply to universities. We just submit our high school grades. That said, some universities keep a database of students' success in their university vs. which high school they came from, and they apply an adjustment factor to the incoming high school grades to compensate for the grade inflation that happens in some high schools. (Toronto, we're looking at you.)
In Ontario the funding for schools is determined by a formula at the provincial level based on number of students, number of high needs students, and adjustments based on geography (some schools are more expensive to operate based on where they're located). This differs from the US where a significant portion of school funding comes from the local school district so wealthy areas get far more funding per student. So high schools are a little more "equal" to begin with here, at least for funding. Where you see inequality is where experienced teachers get first pick of schools, and they tend to choose the suburban & rural schools with fewer "problem" kids. The new teachers all tend to end up spending a few years at schools in the poorer neighbourhoods. That creates inequality because areas with wealthier families end up with more experienced teachers. So it ain't perfect.
At any rate, we don't have standardized tests to get into university. It's hardly a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Paying to manipulate SAT/ACT scores is waaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than donating enough dough to get a building named after you on campus.
I told you so, didn't I? (Score:2)
Just a few days ago in response to an article here wondering whether colleges were still a meritocracy, I opined that major schools were replacing SAT scores by "stories" in an effort to appear less "racist." People thought I was exaggerating.
No problem, I suppose. We can just keep having China produce all our Stuff.
Minority students score lower? (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:3)
I see millions of Asians raising an eyebrow.
Re: (Score:3)
"minority students score, on average, lower than their white classmates"
I see millions of Asians raising an eyebrow.
"Minority" doesn't mean minority. Minority is shorthand for "black" and "brown". Minority usually doesn't include East Asian or Jewish kids. It's just another language trick to mask uncomfortable issues.
Standard tests reveal failure of Cali's schools (Score:3)
At the very heart of this disgrace is the absurd notion that inequities can be resolved by "wagging the dog". A common measure of success for secondary education is the number of students that go on to college. College is seen as the path to generational success. So, idiot policymakers see that and decide sending as many students as possible, regardless of qualification or likelihood of success (most don't finish first year) is a win-win for fixing the problems their incompetence created. They are wrong of course, and their foolish actions do nothing but spread and exacerbate the problems they claim to be fixing.
Will be quota (Score:3, Informative)
Now we are in a new regime where equal numbers are the rule. A court just ruled that UC can be sued because using SAT/ACT "discriminates" against certain favored groups. The California law defines such "discrimination" as a policy which has a disproportionate effect on some favored group, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT. That means that ultimately, the number of students admitted from each favored group must be proportional to their numbers in the population.
The most severely negatively impacted group by this will be Asians, who are disproportionately represented in UC admissions more than any other group including so-called "whites."
This will lead to a decline in the UC system, as good students are forced to go elsewhere, while professors begin to realize that their classes are ever more full of dolts, making UC less attractive to top research and teaching talent.
Re: (Score:3)