I found what is funny / pathetic about this is that there are tons of psychology / education / especially educational measurement top experts in the UC system, and they know how wrong it is, while they just keep mouth shut.
The whole anti-standard-testing movement is pushed by ideology leftists and corrupted bureaucrats, but the supposed experts just quietly watch the world burn. Lol.
Also quote: The Task Force in its review found—to some surprise—that tests such as the SAT provide a useful tool to support admissions leading to a more diverse pool of admitted students than UC otherwise would have had. The Task Force found that approximately 25% of low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented minor students earned their guaranteed admission into UC because of test scores. The Task Force’s report showed that test scores are better predictors of success for underrepresented minority students, first-generation students, and those whose families are low- income. Using recent UC-specific data, the Task Force found that test scores remain predictive of success even after student demographics are taken into account. That is especially true when compared to high school grades, whose predictive power has gone down due, in part, to grade inflation. These findings tell us that there is value in the evidence that educational assessments provide, but they can be improved—and so can the UC admissions process as a result. In a vote of confidence in its veracity, the Task Force report was unanimously endorsed by faculty members of the UC’s Academic Senate, 51–0.
I have a friend that’s a CSU faculty member in science/engineering. The amount of ideological crap coming down the pipeline is shocking to him… and he’s a pretty liberal guy. But he has a mortgage to pay and dealing with protesting students doesn’t really interest him. He became a professor because he liked teaching, not to become a target.
> he has a mortgage to pay and dealing with protesting students doesn’t really interest him
The great irony being it's decisions like this that are undermining support for the University of California. We're not there yet. But a few more of these, and I could see an off-year proposition that dramatically cuts the UC budget.
>The Smarter Balanced test only provided “modest incremental value” beyond high school grades in predicting a student’s first-year UC performance while “reflecting and reproducing inequality” in educational opportunities for underserved students, committee co-chair Mary Gauvain, a UC Riverside professor, told regents on Thursday. Using the state exam in admissions decisions could benefit some underrepresented students who test well but have lower grades, the committee report found, but would disproportionately favor Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and could reduce admission rates of Black, Latino and low-income applicants.
Every study I've ever seen has shown that high school grades by themselves are a good predictor of 1st year college success; high school grades + standardized test scores are an even better predictor. As noted, the use of standardized tests further benefits some underrepresented students who may have had challenges in high school. So what is the problem here? The only issue listed is that it might benefit Asian applicants more than Black and Latino applicants. Is this really where we are?
About 10 years ago in my old university they had no minimum score because back then Computer Science was still considered a fringe field for geek but I digress.
Eventually they had to put a minimum because there was too much low score students draining the professors and tutors time both in and outside class.
When Computer Science became mainstream and synonymous with making lots of money then they began to limit places and the problematic students went away.
All of this could be true if the test had zero, or even negative, value in measuring the ability to learn & desire to excel.
Picking any test, and curating for those willing to and capable of the work required to pass it, would create this result.
That’s the problem with this justification. It doesn’t have a functional limit.
“DIY University” covered the history of how this mechanic brought down the Ming dynasty in just a couple generations.
Tests can always be justified by non-causal correlation.
Assessments ARE the reason why validated methods of learning, like project based learning, are not widely adopted.
We have copious amounts of evidence now that teaching to the test is both psychologically harmful & reduces the ability to learn.
We will not change our education system until assessments are dethroned.
The movement to end assessment is our only hope as a society to stop teaching children based on archaic & wrong ideas about how we learn & develop work ethic. It is a significant factor in why a generation is experiencing alarmingly destructive levels of anxiety on a daily basis.
We all have a lot to gain by building education programs where students demonstrate what they learn.
Tests are the worst possible option.
Check out “Most Likely To Succeed” for powerful alternatives.
How does one examine the retention of memory in the individual? I agree with the exclusive entrances in regards to exams, but how does one demonstrate knowledge of necessary concepts in order to show one is eligible for progressing in the learning? Tests are a form of qualification. One may have the desire but, if one does not have the aptitude to retain abstract intellectual ideas, how does it benefit anyone for one to be participating in the progress of human knowledge?
> The Task Force found that approximately 25% of low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented minor students earned their guaranteed admission into UC because of test scores. The Task Force’s report showed that test scores are better predictors of success for underrepresented minority students, first-generation students, and those whose families are low- income. Using recent UC-specific data, the Task Force found that test scores remain predictive of success even after student demographics are taken into account. That is especially true when compared to high school grades, whose predictive power has gone down due, in part, to grade inflation.
This seems very weasely worded to suggest that standardized testing benefits low income, first-generation and minority students, but since it doesn't actually say that in a straightforward way I'm left feeling that in reality it doesn't. Which would make sense, and is probably the main reason for this change.
In China there is 1 exam, the Gaokao. This exam in no small part decides your future. In the past, you had one attempt, and if you failed, tough luck. Now they let kids retake it a couple times.
One exam. One billion people. One standardized metric to determine who goes where.
There are flaws to this of course. The rich, with better access to tutoring and such, naturally have an advantage over the poor. But herein lies the benefit of such a system -- it is an explicit advantage. Everybody knows it. Everybody can see it. The path to obtain it is as clear as day -- "simply" have enough money. Similarly, the path to obtain success is clear -- succeed on the Gaokao (besides cheating, which is a whole other thing, and corruption, which is yet another thing).
People naturally stratify themselves in competition. When you eliminate standardized metrics to distinguish people, they will find other ways. Your friend has an internship opening that your kid can fill. Your boss lets your kid work under him. You know people who can help your kid get ahead. Meanwhile, the underprivileged are still pushed down, but in a much more subtle way. It is not scores that divides them and the privileged. It is connections -- and when you are a kid, these connections come from your family. And if you are poor, you do not have these connections. And unlike the singular exam, the path to obtaining these connections is not so clear.
Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students. It hurts them, but because it is a subtle hurt that ties to their family's place in society instead of a loud hurt like the cost of tutoring, people pretend it is somehow better. It is not. It is worse.
It has been my impression from people who lived in China that guanxi (connections) is far more important than the Gaokao and the main difference between the have and the have-nots is whether you and or your parents have a permit to live in a city.
When I bring the point of the standard exam as a great equalizer they immediately laughed and told me that the US is a egalitarian paradise compared to what goes on there.
My ex-boss is Chinese and this is what she had to say:
The best universities in China are public universities.
Performing competitively in the single standardized exam is the only ticket into the most competitive university programs.
Everyone's results are posted publicly.
The government works very hard to prevent cheating, or loss of trust in the exam or its results.
Growing up in a communist country, the further removed from the standardized college entrance exam you are, the more connections matter. Standardized college entrance exam will get you into a good university, but connections decide your first job after graduation. It only gets worse from there.
the gaokao has also equity scores, requesting lower results for minorities, foreign nationals, persons with family origin in Taiwan, and children of military casualties
China's system is not much of value in comparison. UC's problem is that there is no verification on acquired knowledge. Not standard test. You can have non standard test on how much and how well someone learned the knowledge.
> One billion people
If you referring to people who take the exam, it's 10.78M [1].
> One standardized metric to determine who goes where.
This is just to determine the entrance to public university. Of course, the people who can afford alternative higher education is negligible compared to those taking gaokao.
But there are actually a lot of people who won't take gaokao, as they entered vocational school, in 2019 6M entered the so-called vocational high school.
> Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students.
You got it wrong.
It's not about privilege it's about the effectiveness and efficiency of the talent selection. Secondary is about giving education as a means of climbing social ladder.
Unlike the SAT in California which due to Prop 16 cannot have affirmative action, the Gaokao has affirmative action. That is the biggest difference, and UC was happy with an analogue to the Gaokao.
>a student’s high school grade-point average, the rigor of courses taken, special talents, essays and extracurricular activities.
All of these metrics seem MUCH more gameable than the SAT. Sure, buying an SAT practice test book might bump your score up by 20 points. But if you look at the rigor of courses available, that is going to vary DRASTICALLY from school to school. At least when I was in high school, poorer schools had a lot less to offer in terms of AP classes, and wealthy people have obvious advantages when it comes to extracurricular activities and some "special talents"
That's the point. UC wants to implement affirmative action but can't because voters rejected Prop 16. So they do this to make it easier to justify that their target demographics are "qualified" because now there's no objective measurement metric to judge people by.
I can’t believe how much it feels like 1984. “War is peace.”
‘University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, "The failure of Proposition 16
[repealing that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.]
means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity."’
Wonderfully empowering for the admissions administrators! Schools will be needing to keep on a lot of low-level staff:
>record-breaking number of freshman applications for fall 2021 — more than 200,000
>evaluate the flood of applications without test scores, using 13 other factors
And will be able to produce whatever demographics are demanded by the politics of the moment:
Well, America is still more or less a democracy -- the locally-ruling parties don't seem to have entirely corrupted election systems, yet. So getting involved in politics might make a difference. Best hurry up, while you can.
More likely, hire private tutors while you go to a Title 1 school in Santa Ana or some other impoverished area, then mark yourself as part-Native American and non-binary on your college application. If you can't afford private tutors, well, guess you had the bad luck to be born Asian.
"Special talents, achievements and awards in a particular field, such as visual and performing arts, communication or athletic endeavors; special skills, such as demonstrated written and oral proficiency in other languages; special interests, such as intensive study and exploration of other cultures; experiences that demonstrate unusual promise for leadership, such as significant community service or significant participation in student government; or other significant experiences or achievements that demonstrate the student's promise for contributing to the intellectual vitality of a campus."
I’m curious why we’d expect achievements in STEM at the age of 16/17, when students are applying for college.
To keep this in perspective, kids haven’t even taken Science 101 at this point.
And the exceptional students who have won Olympiad golds or created open source software, etc, would more than be covered by the “special talents, achievements and awards in any field” section.
> I’m curious why we’d expect achievements in STEM at the age of 16/17, when students are applying for college.
A student in my dorm had designed and built a computer using random TTL chips while in high school. Me, I'd torn a car completely to pieces, rebuilt the engine, and put it back together.
Is this true? Not American when I was in school by 16 you would expected to know some physics, chemistry, biology and even computer science to some extent…
In physics 16 year olds have already been thought classical mechanics, optics and electro magnetism…
I for one welcome the UC systems choice to erode the signaling value of their degree. Hopefully more universities adopt this approach. Employers may in turn value said degrees less and eventually maybe we can burn down all of higher ed.
I am down for higher education that includes technical schools and apprenticeships as well. Colleges are great! What I am not OK with is creating illiberal propaganda machines using public funds where no dissent is allowed and adolescents at a tender age get to them hypersensitized to identity and identity-politics. Fuck everything about that.
I agree and not even remotely jokingly. Higher education outside of STEM has been nonsense for quite some time. Inside of STEM, it has been an outdated form of education for just as long. The encroachment of socialism into the educational sphere needs to accelerate. The sooner it destroys itself the better.
That's great if your only requirement is to train software developers to write CRUD apps - you can learn to do that by watching youtube videos, reading self-study materials, and taking MOOC classes - but if you want mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical engineers, and be a leader in materials science or chip manufacturing, then you still need universities.
So the price of this "equity" movement is going to be (and always was) mass de-industrialization and transforming the economy to third world status in which only immigrants educated in more sane institutions overseas drive all of the technological innovation.
I just don't see a how a nation can build state of the art planes, missiles, satellites, ships, and chips if its universities decide to eliminate objective measures of intelligence.
Because of unstable home issues, I was unable to do well in high school classes because I couldn't spend time outside of school studying and doing homework assignments.
But I did extremely well on the SAT, and PSAT, which got me several scholarships and college admission.
Without the SAT to accurately gauge my potential, I wouldn't have succeeded.
This is a disgusting new policy, and will harm people.
It really is madness. "We tested as many ways as we could think of, but we couldn't game it to get the results we want so we just decided testing doesn't work". These are the people in charge of training our children, and they think this these are valid conclusions.
Readit News
The whole anti-standard-testing movement is pushed by ideology leftists and corrupted bureaucrats, but the supposed experts just quietly watch the world burn. Lol.
Update: I found experts in the UCLA were tasked to make the suggestion. They suggested a new admission assessment. So the bureaucrats just totally disregarded their recommendation . See https://50.cresst.org/2020/05/20/cresst-recommendation-for-n...
Also quote: The Task Force in its review found—to some surprise—that tests such as the SAT provide a useful tool to support admissions leading to a more diverse pool of admitted students than UC otherwise would have had. The Task Force found that approximately 25% of low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented minor students earned their guaranteed admission into UC because of test scores. The Task Force’s report showed that test scores are better predictors of success for underrepresented minority students, first-generation students, and those whose families are low- income. Using recent UC-specific data, the Task Force found that test scores remain predictive of success even after student demographics are taken into account. That is especially true when compared to high school grades, whose predictive power has gone down due, in part, to grade inflation. These findings tell us that there is value in the evidence that educational assessments provide, but they can be improved—and so can the UC admissions process as a result. In a vote of confidence in its veracity, the Task Force report was unanimously endorsed by faculty members of the UC’s Academic Senate, 51–0.
The great irony being it's decisions like this that are undermining support for the University of California. We're not there yet. But a few more of these, and I could see an off-year proposition that dramatically cuts the UC budget.
Dead Comment
>The Smarter Balanced test only provided “modest incremental value” beyond high school grades in predicting a student’s first-year UC performance while “reflecting and reproducing inequality” in educational opportunities for underserved students, committee co-chair Mary Gauvain, a UC Riverside professor, told regents on Thursday. Using the state exam in admissions decisions could benefit some underrepresented students who test well but have lower grades, the committee report found, but would disproportionately favor Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and could reduce admission rates of Black, Latino and low-income applicants.
Every study I've ever seen has shown that high school grades by themselves are a good predictor of 1st year college success; high school grades + standardized test scores are an even better predictor. As noted, the use of standardized tests further benefits some underrepresented students who may have had challenges in high school. So what is the problem here? The only issue listed is that it might benefit Asian applicants more than Black and Latino applicants. Is this really where we are?
Eventually they had to put a minimum because there was too much low score students draining the professors and tutors time both in and outside class.
When Computer Science became mainstream and synonymous with making lots of money then they began to limit places and the problematic students went away.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Picking any test, and curating for those willing to and capable of the work required to pass it, would create this result.
That’s the problem with this justification. It doesn’t have a functional limit.
“DIY University” covered the history of how this mechanic brought down the Ming dynasty in just a couple generations.
Tests can always be justified by non-causal correlation.
Assessments ARE the reason why validated methods of learning, like project based learning, are not widely adopted.
We have copious amounts of evidence now that teaching to the test is both psychologically harmful & reduces the ability to learn.
We will not change our education system until assessments are dethroned.
The movement to end assessment is our only hope as a society to stop teaching children based on archaic & wrong ideas about how we learn & develop work ethic. It is a significant factor in why a generation is experiencing alarmingly destructive levels of anxiety on a daily basis.
We all have a lot to gain by building education programs where students demonstrate what they learn.
Tests are the worst possible option.
Check out “Most Likely To Succeed” for powerful alternatives.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/why-univer...
This seems very weasely worded to suggest that standardized testing benefits low income, first-generation and minority students, but since it doesn't actually say that in a straightforward way I'm left feeling that in reality it doesn't. Which would make sense, and is probably the main reason for this change.
Am I just being too suspicious?
One exam. One billion people. One standardized metric to determine who goes where.
There are flaws to this of course. The rich, with better access to tutoring and such, naturally have an advantage over the poor. But herein lies the benefit of such a system -- it is an explicit advantage. Everybody knows it. Everybody can see it. The path to obtain it is as clear as day -- "simply" have enough money. Similarly, the path to obtain success is clear -- succeed on the Gaokao (besides cheating, which is a whole other thing, and corruption, which is yet another thing).
People naturally stratify themselves in competition. When you eliminate standardized metrics to distinguish people, they will find other ways. Your friend has an internship opening that your kid can fill. Your boss lets your kid work under him. You know people who can help your kid get ahead. Meanwhile, the underprivileged are still pushed down, but in a much more subtle way. It is not scores that divides them and the privileged. It is connections -- and when you are a kid, these connections come from your family. And if you are poor, you do not have these connections. And unlike the singular exam, the path to obtaining these connections is not so clear.
Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students. It hurts them, but because it is a subtle hurt that ties to their family's place in society instead of a loud hurt like the cost of tutoring, people pretend it is somehow better. It is not. It is worse.
When I bring the point of the standard exam as a great equalizer they immediately laughed and told me that the US is a egalitarian paradise compared to what goes on there.
Everyone's results are posted publicly. The government works very hard to prevent cheating, or loss of trust in the exam or its results.
Dead Comment
> One billion people
If you referring to people who take the exam, it's 10.78M [1].
> One standardized metric to determine who goes where.
This is just to determine the entrance to public university. Of course, the people who can afford alternative higher education is negligible compared to those taking gaokao.
But there are actually a lot of people who won't take gaokao, as they entered vocational school, in 2019 6M entered the so-called vocational high school.
> Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students.
You got it wrong.
It's not about privilege it's about the effectiveness and efficiency of the talent selection. Secondary is about giving education as a means of climbing social ladder.
[1] https://3g.163.com/dy/article/GBTPVA0U0517M6OP.html?spss=ada...
All of these metrics seem MUCH more gameable than the SAT. Sure, buying an SAT practice test book might bump your score up by 20 points. But if you look at the rigor of courses available, that is going to vary DRASTICALLY from school to school. At least when I was in high school, poorer schools had a lot less to offer in terms of AP classes, and wealthy people have obvious advantages when it comes to extracurricular activities and some "special talents"
‘University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, "The failure of Proposition 16
[repealing that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.]
means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity."’
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...
https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/fres...
... ... Cupertino tiger mothers, note well.https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/fres...
"Special talents, achievements and awards in a particular field, such as visual and performing arts, communication or athletic endeavors; special skills, such as demonstrated written and oral proficiency in other languages; special interests, such as intensive study and exploration of other cultures; experiences that demonstrate unusual promise for leadership, such as significant community service or significant participation in student government; or other significant experiences or achievements that demonstrate the student's promise for contributing to the intellectual vitality of a campus."
Notably absent is achievement in any STEM field.
It's covered by the first line of your quoted comment, right? "Special talents, achievements and awards in a particular field."
To keep this in perspective, kids haven’t even taken Science 101 at this point.
And the exceptional students who have won Olympiad golds or created open source software, etc, would more than be covered by the “special talents, achievements and awards in any field” section.
A student in my dorm had designed and built a computer using random TTL chips while in high school. Me, I'd torn a car completely to pieces, rebuilt the engine, and put it back together.
Deleted Comment
In physics 16 year olds have already been thought classical mechanics, optics and electro magnetism…
Defeats the whole meritocratic element tho, makes you think about the real reason behind this
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
So the price of this "equity" movement is going to be (and always was) mass de-industrialization and transforming the economy to third world status in which only immigrants educated in more sane institutions overseas drive all of the technological innovation.
I just don't see a how a nation can build state of the art planes, missiles, satellites, ships, and chips if its universities decide to eliminate objective measures of intelligence.
But I did extremely well on the SAT, and PSAT, which got me several scholarships and college admission.
Without the SAT to accurately gauge my potential, I wouldn't have succeeded.
This is a disgusting new policy, and will harm people.
They are too weak to say "SAT hasn't produced the results we wanted, so we're going to..."
"seek more equitable ways to assess a student"
They're again, too weak to say "from now on, admissions will be based on color".
"the state exam ... would disproportionately favor Asian Americans"
Oh, the horror, tests show that Asians are smart. Can't let that happen.
If a square peg doesn't fit a round hole, we just need to use a bigger hammer.