The SAT will soon be ignored in California public colleges because it's "racist"

https://www.foxla.com/news/universit...use-of-sat-act

Quote:

---

Top leaders at the University of California say they support dropping the SAT and ACT exams from admission requirement.

UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol T. Christ, along with the UC system’s chief academic officer, Provost Michael Brown, said Friday that research has convinced them that performance on the tests is so strongly influenced by family income, parents’ education and race, that using them for college admissions decision is unfair.

---

Ugh.

I've heard this nonsense for over 30 years. I remember, as 15-year-old in high school, one of my teachers said of the SAT, "All it really tests for is how rich your family is."

Even then, I thought it was absurd. There were plenty of kids in my school from super-rich families who nonetheless ended up with crappy SAT scores.

Their point essentially is that rich white and Asian people have the resources to buy SAT prep courses for their kids. In addition, more educated parents will be more familiar with the SAT and get involved with their kids' preparation for it, whereas parents who aren't highly educated (even ones who are middle-class or higher) might not. And regarding race, well...... black and Hispanic people score lower on average than whites and Asians, so the test has to be racist, right?

But none of this makes the test unfair. All of these concerns apply across the board to academics. If your parents care about your education and get deeply involved, you are FAR more likely to do well in school, regardless of your family's income. This is a big reason why Asian-Americans do best academically as a racial group, followed by whites, followed by all other races. Some of it also has to do with the school and learning environment for the kids. Schools in nicer areas tend to be free of gangs or other distractions from everyone learning, thus kids in the better schools have the advantage.

However, one good thing about the SAT is that it more tests ability than learning, especially the math part. If you are naturally good at math, and if you've completed Geometry (not a high level math course), you will score high on that section, even if your parents suck and your school sucks. The verbal portion requires a bit more preparation and knowledge of vocabulary, but still you won't do horribly on that part if you possess raw intelligence.

I noticed during my time in high school, some of the lazier slacker kids who typically got mediocre grades managed to get fairly high SAT scores, whereas some of the workhorse-but-average-intellect students who got mostly A's ended up with mediocre scores. And then there were those kids who were both smart and hardworking, who did the best. And that's the way it should be, which is exactly why the test exists. It's a useful tool for colleges to use to determine who is likely to succeed and who is likely to be overwhelmed by the material.

It seems that the left is obsessed with simply removing the test because they don't like the way the results are breaking out.

"Oh no! Black people and poor people aren't scoring well on the SAT! Well, we could try to fix the underlying problem leading to this..... buuuuuuutttttttttt... how about we just remove the test and call it racist and classist? Yeah! That sounds like the best solution!"

LOL liberals

College as a whole, outside of stem, is virtually worthless.

Of course the testing they rely on is worthless, too.

If you score a 1600 on your SAT, Berkeley is definitely going to take that into consideration and probably prioritize accepting you. I am sure the point of this is in borderline cases to justify accepting applicants with lower scores (or no scores) to fulfill diversity quotas. When the UC's were forced to drop Affirmative Action the student bodies at most of their campuses became almost exclusively Asian and White. This is probably just an attempt to legally work around this and restore the racial diversity they crave.

Gosh, I wonder how Druff did on the SAT to reach this opinion?

I'm not sure on this one, but anecdotally my parents definitely poured a lot of money into getting my math score up, and it worked.

I've always thought that standardized tests should be part of the puzzle in determining admissions for undergrads to university, but not overly so. More so for graduate degrees.

Anecdotally again, my sister was a near perfect candidate as a high scho student with a high IQ, but inexplicably sucked comparatively on both the SAT and ACT, costing her admission to her preferred school of Princeton. She ended up transferring there anyways and graduated with a 4.0.

Druff is talking about California public schools. Kids call them safety schools

I am astounded that more people don’t comment on the humor of Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman spending hundreds of thousands to get into UCLA or USC.

Richer parents do send kids to those prep courses which in itself isn’t racist, but if the overall effect is less poor kids getting into college the result could be considered racist.

However, all of those schools consider race in the application process which technically IS racist...even though they aren’t supposed to even consider race due to state law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe

Gosh, I wonder how Druff did on the SAT to reach this opinion?

I'm not sure on this one, but anecdotally my parents definitely poured a lot of money into getting my math score up, and it worked.

I've always thought that standardized tests should be part of the puzzle in determining admissions for undergrads to university, but not overly so. More so for graduate degrees.

Anecdotally again, my sister was a near perfect candidate as a high scho student with a high IQ, but inexplicably sucked comparatively on both the SAT and ACT, costing her admission to her preferred school of Princeton. She ended up transferring there anyways and graduated with a 4.0.

---

Sounds like your sister likely had some severe test anxiety regarding those tests. Or she is drop-dead gorgeous and slept her way into getting excellent grades from her profs.

Ignoring the creepy incest factor of evaluating your sister, how about giving us a ballpark estimate of her sex appeal. I’m sure Druff would like to know, as he compulsively seems the need to comment on how good a woman looks even if not relevant to the topic. #VeronicaBrillLooksGoodForHerAge

Why sully Princeton with inclusion in this thread.

Perhaps the Veronica lookalike majored in Art History at Princeton. There was a time when college wasn’t a trade school.

The competition is so great that something has to be applied to reduce the numbers. Looks might be another metric. She was a casualty of the SAT but overcame it. No tears.

My favorite writer of all time, Michael Lewis, was a Princeton Art History major. School is sometimes about learning.

I agree with the faults pointed out re: the SAT and college admission

but, there's another way, one I think is better for the colleges and students...a student wanting to get into the UC system is best off going to junior college and getting good grades--UC's really don't want to provide freshman and sophomore level classes, and were it not for athletics, they would probably eliminate those levels--they want their professors to teach classes leading to PH.D's, Masters, & Bachelors degrees rather than instruct in general education coursework.

So a student should go to junior college and prove they are capable doing college level work. Much more likely to gain admittance that trying to enter directly from high school. Also, the tuition is lower and usually less than the federal income tax credits available (netting out to tuition no cost).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe

Gosh, I wonder how Druff did on the SAT to reach this opinion?

I'm not sure on this one, but anecdotally my parents definitely poured a lot of money into getting my math score up, and it worked.

I've always thought that standardized tests should be part of the puzzle in determining admissions for undergrads to university, but not overly so. More so for graduate degrees.

Anecdotally again, my sister was a near perfect candidate as a high scho student with a high IQ, but inexplicably sucked comparatively on both the SAT and ACT, costing her admission to her preferred school of Princeton. She ended up transferring there anyways and graduated with a 4.0.

---

The SAT isn't perfect. Yes, prep courses can help, though only to some degree. They can quickly teach you some things you didn't know, and more importantly, they show you how to avoid the trick questions and generally get familiar with the test. However, they cannot magically make someone bad at math score high on the math part. I had a friend in high school who, despite being very smart, just sucked at math. He did better than me on the verbal part, but could never get an average math score, no matter how hard he tried.

The SAT also focuses too much on vocabulary on the verbal part, and students who aren't fast test-takers are at a disadvantage, as the time to complete each section isn't very long. I remember barely finishing some of the sections in the allotted time.

I wouldn't mind seeing the SAT further reformed or replaced with another test. I know the ACT has been growing in popularity over the years.

However, it's important to have some standardized test in place for admissions, due to the wildly different grading standards at high schools. This is especially true because many high school classes are graded on a curve, so often you're graded on how you perform compared to your immediate peers, rather than how you perform compared to other kids in the state. Furthermore, some schools -- both public and private -- have been engaging in grade inflation in order to give the appearance they're doing better than they really are.

I actually disagree with you about grad school. I feel that standardized tests for grad school are less important, since the student has already demonstrated whether or not he/she has the ability to succeed in college. Yes, grading practices also differ widely from college to college, but grad schools already know which colleges are tougher to achieve high grades. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a standardized test for grad school admissions, but I could more see dropping that than I can see dropping the SAT.

If schools really felt the SAT wasn't accomplishing what they wanted, I wouldn't be so skeptical of this decision. Unfortunately, it seems this is mainly being driven by SJW types who believe the test to be "racist" and "classist", which is a lot of nonsense. As I said, wealthier people have always had the edge when it comes to academics, and it's silly to drop one particular test because whites and Asians are outperforming the other races. You need to look at the underlying cause and attack that, not the test which exposes the problems.

Also, the recent college admissions scandals should actually validate the SAT's value.

If it were that easy for rich people to hire coaches to get their kids up to a high score, then these wealthy celebrities wouldn't have had to cheat the admissions process.

However, despite their immense wealth, they were still unable to get their kids' scores up very much. This led to plan B, which was cheating the admissions process (or the SAT itself).

Sounds to me like, short of cheating, a good SAT score can't be bought.

Great success!

Pooh does not approve this action

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe

Gosh, I wonder how Druff did on the SAT to reach this opinion?

I'm not sure on this one, but anecdotally my parents definitely poured a lot of money into getting my math score up, and it worked.

I've always thought that standardized tests should be part of the puzzle in determining admissions for undergrads to university, but not overly so. More so for graduate degrees.

Anecdotally again, my sister was a near perfect candidate as a high scho student with a high IQ, but inexplicably sucked comparatively on both the SAT and ACT, costing her admission to her preferred school of Princeton. She ended up transferring there anyways and graduated with a 4.0.

---

The SAT isn't perfect. Yes, prep courses can help, though only to some degree. They can quickly teach you some things you didn't know, and more importantly, they show you how to avoid the trick questions and generally get familiar with the test. However, they cannot magically make someone bad at math score high on the math part. I had a friend in high school who, despite being very smart, just sucked at math. He did better than me on the verbal part, but could never get an average math score, no matter how hard he tried.

The SAT also focuses too much on vocabulary on the verbal part, and students who aren't fast test-takers are at a disadvantage, as the time to complete each section isn't very long. I remember barely finishing some of the sections in the allotted time.

I wouldn't mind seeing the SAT further reformed or replaced with another test. I know the ACT has been growing in popularity over the years.

However, it's important to have some standardized test in place for admissions, due to the wildly different grading standards at high schools. This is especially true because many high school classes are graded on a curve, so often you're graded on how you perform compared to your immediate peers, rather than how you perform compared to other kids in the state. Furthermore, some schools -- both public and private -- have been engaging in grade inflation in order to give the appearance they're doing better than they really are.

I actually disagree with you about grad school. I feel that standardized tests for grad school are less important, since the student has already demonstrated whether or not he/she has the ability to succeed in college. Yes, grading practices also differ widely from college to college, but grad schools already know which colleges are tougher to achieve high grades. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a standardized test for grad school admissions, but I could more see dropping that than I can see dropping the SAT.

If schools really felt the SAT wasn't accomplishing what they wanted, I wouldn't be so skeptical of this decision. Unfortunately, it seems this is mainly being driven by SJW types who believe the test to be "racist" and "classist", which is a lot of nonsense. As I said, wealthier people have always had the edge when it comes to academics, and it's silly to drop one particular test because whites and Asians are outperforming the other races. You need to look at the underlying cause and attack that, not the test which exposes the problems.

---

As someone who taught junior college for 10 years, many entry level students lack basic writing and critical thinking skills. The SAT is an ineffective tool to measure these abilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

As someone who taught junior college for 10 years, many entry level students lack basic writing and critical thinking skills. The SAT is an ineffective tool to measure these abilities.

---

These individuals do not belong in college in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

As someone who taught junior college for 10 years, many entry level students lack basic writing and critical thinking skills. The SAT is an ineffective tool to measure these abilities.

---

These individuals do not belong in college in the first place.

---

and that is what Junior Colleges are good for: find the student able to succeed right away, develop the needed basic skills and thinking abilities in those with potential, and weed out those can't develop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

These individuals do not belong in college in the first place.

---

and that is what Junior Colleges are good for: find the student able to succeed right away, develop the needed basic skills and thinking abilities in those with potential, and weed out those can't develop

---

That’s called trade school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger

and that is what Junior Colleges are good for: find the student able to succeed right away, develop the needed basic skills and thinking abilities in those with potential, and weed out those can't develop

---

That’s called trade school.

---

trade school is for those who can't / won't develop into 4 year school material; trade schools develop vocational skills such are welding, plumbing, bookkeeping, poker playing...its where you go if you can't / would rather not do 4 year college

JUCO's are a proving/development ground that are free of distractions caused by students required by law to attend--public middle and high schools are filled with those space takers--( and I am for lowering the required age for attending school &minimum working age from 18/16 down to 14: in other words, get the donkeys out of the public schools and working like the animals they chose to act like )

really, the UC and Cal State Univ systems imho should drop all freshman & sophomore level courses and offer only upper division stuff/graduate level....and re: athletics, partner with near-by JuCos to offer courses to the athletes -- and tell the NCAA to accept it or F-off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanlmar

Druff is talking about California public schools. Kids call them safety schools

I am astounded that more people don’t comment on the humor of Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman spending hundreds of thousands to get into UCLA or USC.

---

20/30yrs ago,,,,ya...but usc and ucla are no loner safety schools in 2020. these two schools are extremely difficult to get into now for many different reasons.

universities dictate how many students they will accept. ..if some middle of the road college wants to be more exclusive just admit less in it will play out in 2 years, and more of these pretentious 18 yr old kids will want to go there. not because it's a good fit mind you. ..but because it's "better" as the the most common answer given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger

really, the UC and Cal State Univ systems imho should drop all freshman & sophomore level courses and offer only upper division stuff/graduate level....

---

no mainstream college is going to do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

As someone who has posted on pfa for 10 years, many posters lack basic writing and critical thinking skills. The SAT is an ineffective tool to measure these abilities.

---