What If Colleges Used Only Test Scores to Fill Campuses?

If one black athlete is significantly better than a white athlete, but the white athlete gets chosen on the basis of race, HELL YES I am against college sports.

 

Studies, laws, research etc.......it can all be organized, cited, stated and all that. Somehow we have to bring about genuine change and that can be done by people who set examples. Mindsets have to morph naturally and in numbers large enough to bring about real change. It has to come from within the system. Of course it helps if rules are in place, but just having rules, rarely changes a system from deep within. Social Psychology can really help us understand this. There are natural corrections in society throughout history, and rightly so. We need to understand behavior and emotions, two of the hardest things to fathom. Scores have their place, but there are other things colleges need to process, because they are a microcosm of our society outside. Sorry this is so long.

 

on the University of California doing away with the SATs for college admission. Author argues this will hurt minorities in the long run

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/why-university-california-dropping-sat/619522/

excerpt:

The University of California Is Lying to Us
Does getting right with contemporary concepts of anti-racism mean reviving one of the state’s most shameful traditions?

***
In May, the University of California announced an immediate end to the use of standardized testing in admissions and scholarship decisions at the nine schools in its system that accept undergraduates. It is a move so widely hailed by the administrators and faculty that you know someone’s getting hustled, and in this case the marks are the state’s low-income Black and Latino students––the very ones whom the new policy is supposed to help. The university has long claimed that it is “shaped and bounded by the central pervasive mission of discovering and advancing knowledge.” What’s one more lie?

The university has averred that standardized tests discriminate against low-income Black and Latino students; its evidence is that these students tend to perform worse on the SAT and ACT than students from other racial and ethnic groups. If we were to think about this assertion rationally instead of emotionally, we would have to face what California has done: consigned its most vulnerable students to some of the worst K–12 schools in America. There can be no more obvious example of state-sponsored discrimination than the condition of these schools, which, decade after decade, have robbed students of 13 years and given them little in return. All the standardized tests do is reveal the obvious outcome of our cruelty. Saying it’s the tests’ fault is like feeding children a poisoned sundae and then blaming the cherry on top for making them sick.

Do the tests prevent low-income Black and Latino students from getting college degrees? This is the charge of a lawsuit filed in 2019 and settled by the university in May that claimed that requiring test scores for admission “actively prevent{s} Plaintiffs from accessing public higher education and its attendant opportunities.“

Only the counterrevolutionary impulse would lead anyone to want to douse the flames of social justice with the fire r****dant of fact. But the truth is that no high-school graduate in California is denied higher education because of a test score. The UC schools are some of the most competitive in the state, but the Cal State system has more than twice as many campuses and costs about half as much to attend, and some locations have an admission rate of almost 90 percent. Students reluctant to earn a degree from the “lesser” system may avail themselves of the best deal in American higher education: Earn a 2.4 GPA in the requisite courses at a California Community College, and your ability to transfer to a UC campus is guaranteed. Not a single standardized test need ever be taken.

Here are some more of the fiercely held arguments for dumping the tests: Test scores don’t reflect the character-forging aspects of life as a poor teenager; the tests force students from underfunded schools to compete against “affluent whites” who can afford expensive test prep; high-school GPA is a much better predictor of students’ ability to succeed in a UC program anyway.

These are not facts. They are assumptions, all of them flawed or flat-out incorrect.

First, poor students were not pitted against rich students. One of the ways the UC system found to work around the state’s ban on affirmative action was to evaluate test scores “in local context.” You didn’t need to be a top test taker in California to be UC-eligible. You just needed to be a top test taker within your own school. Moreover, UC admissions adopted a system of “holistic review” to take into account the hardships that applicants faced, allowing students to express themselves in essays that are read by an army of readers.

Second, while high-school GPA has been found to be more predictive of success at college than standardized test scores at some schools, the exact opposite turns out to be true for students at UC schools. There, standardized test scores say more about which applicants are likely to earn a degree and to do it in less than eight years; they also correlate strongly with students’ GPA at the university.

The biggest barrier to getting into the University of California is not the SAT; it is, again, the GPA. Because students at underfunded schools have such limited access to college counseling, they often assume that if they want to go to the UC, they should keep an eagle eye on their GPA. What many don’t know is that, to be eligible, they must complete a series of 15 college prep classes called the A-G requirements. Good grades in other classes don’t count. (And—shockingly—some high schools don’t even offer all the A-G requirements.)
​

more at the link

 

Did they mention how much it costs to go to UC?

 

About 7,000 per semester for in-state.

 

Think of all the money that can be made through student loans that they otherwise wouldn't be getting from kids who are not prepared for this level of university. 1 professor can lecture 500 kids in 1 zoom session. Don't have a laptop? That is ok. We can add this $400 laptop to your student loan bill for $2000.

 

As an Alumni and a donor to the UC I am not for this and do think no longer requiring standardized testing as a factor in admission could actually harm students.

In my profession I was required to take 6 tests for licensure and most professions require taking a test for license. Now I will agree a test isn't going to necessarily determine if someone is going to be a good architect, engineer or doctor but licensure is about establishing a baseline of credibility and as such there needs to be some sort of baseline for comparison. In the future students who graduate and go on to professions will still have to deal with standardized testing of some sort if they want to become successful in those fields.

 

White women are the biggest recipients of AA

 

Lol

 

Damn those alcoholics

 

No license for software dev/eng baby yeeeeeeeehaw

 

@tinman >>>>>>>>>los pollos h

 

Who is Test?