Posted on 02/12/2020 11:42:37 AM PST by karpov
...
[A] task force of the faculty senate at the University of California, of all places, is resisting the movement to ban test scores in admissions.
The 227-page report, completed in late January, recommends that the UC system keep standardized tests like the ACT and SAT as admissions requirements, and it demolishes the logic of the politically motivated anti-testing movement. The report dispatches the myth that standardized math and reading tests are useless for predicting college performance. Based on data from tens of thousands of students in the UC system, the report concludes that “test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average.”
Scores are also “about as good at predicting” total college GPA and the likelihood a student will graduate. While the “predictive power of test scores has gone up,” the report adds, “the predictive power of high school grades has gone down.” One reason is grade inflation, which is likely more of a problem at wealthy high schools.
Those agitating against tests claim to be advocates for students from underprivileged backgrounds. Yet privileged students are more likely to know the kinds of extracurricular activities and essays that please admissions officers. The report quotes a former UC Santa Barbara professor: “the fuzzier the admissions criteria, the greater the disadvantage suffered by those not already steeped in the academic ethos.”
What about the test score gap between groups? Some college administrators think dropping tests will make it easier to meet politically defined racial-composition targets.
Yet the faculty task force found that admissions policies play only “a relatively small role” in the underrepresentation of black and Hispanic students at the UC. Instead, “the single biggest factor” is “relatively low rates of completion” of required high-school course work among minority students.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation. For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.
...
The racial and ethnic makeup of the population admitted to the University differs significantly from that graduating from California high schools. In 2019, only 37% of the California resident students in the admitted freshman class, and 26% of all admitted students, were URMs, defined as Latino, African- American, and Native American students. Approximately 59% of California high school graduates were URMs. Further, the 37% (or 26%) are not distributed evenly across campuses; at Berkeley, for example, only 26% of admitted California freshmen (and only 18% of the admitted students overall) were URMs. The difference in fraction of URMs between the high school student population and the undergraduate population is a matter of concern. The Task Force was concerned about the extent to which standardized tests may contribute to this underrepresentation of URMs at UC.
Analysis of admissions results by the Task Force concluded that UC takes into account students’ contexts when evaluating test scores. Applicants from less advantaged demographic groups are admitted at higher rates for any given test score as a result of comprehensive review, which is a process that evaluates applicants’ academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them and takes into consideration the capacity each student demonstrates to contribute to the intellectual life of the campus. The point was not what the STTF expected before we commenced our data analysis. Task Force members took note of the average differences in test scores among groups and expected to find that test score differences explain differences in admission rates. That is not what we found. Instead, the STTF found that UC admissions practices compensated well for the observed differences in average test scores among demographic groups. This likely reflects UC’s use of comprehensive review, as well as UC’s practice of referencing each student’s performance to the context of their school.
Do these people even realize how fast their heads are spinning?
Reminds me of cartoons where someone’s head twirls faster and faster, and then flies off into space.
University of California commonsense? Must be protecting their funding.
Some college administrators think dropping tests will make it easier to meet politically defined racial-composition targets. Yet the faculty task force found that admissions policies play only “a relatively small role” in the underrepresentation of black and Hispanic students at the UC. Instead, “the single biggest factor” is “relatively low rates of completion” of required high-school course work among minority students.
Isn't requiring course work an admissions policy?
It's clearly racist to not admit someone to college just because they're not prepared for college. /s
;^) Since it's California, this getting rid of ACT and SAT is probably yet another ploy to get around Prop 209.
Gasp, Captain Obvious has undoubtedly visited the UC campus.
It takes 7 years to graduate from a UC school?
If you don't graduate in 7 years, it's as Bluto (Belushi) said in "Animal House": "Seven years of college down the drain."
Is affirmative action racist?
bkmk
I remember an example of so-called “racially-tinged” questions: “X is to (group of Xs) as boat is to ___” The answer was “regatta.”
Now, I am pretty dang white and I 100% assure you never in my life had I seen a regatta. I knew what one was because I READ. A LOT. But my underprivileged (read: poor) background did not stop me from reading and learning.
To suggest that People Of Color are unable to read and learn is a perfect example of the soft racism of lower expectations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.