Well, CC is not a debating society and if your stance is that knowing higher levels of math doesn’t make you more capable in it than someone who doesn’t, then I don’t really know how to respond to what seems kind of obvious to me.
I’m also going to put it out there that the not-so-covert assumption some people here are putting forward that diversity = less capable, does not sit well with me. There are plenty smart and plenty stupid people of every race.
I don’t really think we are worse in STEM in general. Strong STEM programs may be difficult for some schools to deliver, but in general I think schools in the US do a great job.
I guess both can be true. Every school I know of is working on diversity and I think/hope progress is being made (If my son’s group of friends and co-workers are any indication diversity is improving).
I do, however, agree that STEM programs need to make sure they include significant writing requirements in their programs. Our S is a good example. Going into college, writing was his weakest area. However, he was required to take several classes with significant writing components, and he has improved quite a bit (recent GRE writing score 5.5).
If they are more capable, it surely doesn’t show up on the college admissions tests. Everybody takes calculus but algebra 1 and 2 on the SAT puzzles most.
“But is Wall Street more likely to want to see SAT scores (implicitly suggesting that what one did while in high school is still important even if you are a college graduate)?”
That’s a good question but I know that Wall Street asked for GMAT when interviewing MBAs (not sure they still do), so it wouldn’t be shocking if they asked for SATs/ACTs. As another poster said, they probably equate it with intelligence and so really doesn’t matter when you take it. Which actually reminds me that Procter and Gamble used to give an aptitude test as well, looks like they still do:
“The recruitment process at P&G usually involves an assessment with aptitude tests in it. This test is called the P&G Reasoning Test. This online assessment is used to measure skills and abilities that generally do not emerge from interviews.”
But P&G has had this test for a while (early 90s for sure when I got my MBA), and that was before today’s grade inflation.
Taking an AP calculus class, which is generally taught at a superficial level in HS doesn’t make one proficient in math. It could even be counterproductive if s/he skips a more rigorous course in college as a result. Generally speaking, HS curriculum today puts more emphasis on breadth than on depth. Shallow knowledge just isn’t sufficient to excel.
Keep in mind that prior to 1986, applicants could only apply to one UC campus, so applicants were very careful to use their one best shot at a campus that best matched their stats. A couple of people mention it here. http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/21526591/#Comment_21526591
Students who were rejected but otherwise met the UC minimum eligibility requirements had their apps redirected to another campus with available space. As a result, there was a huge disincentive to apply to a reach campus unless they were OK with going to Riverside, as that might be the only campus left with available space by the time their apps was forwarded on from their top choice.
Once the “one campus” policy changed in 1986 to where students could apply to multiple campuses, the number of apps increased drastically and the acceptance rates went from the mid 50s to the mid 30s for Berkeley, and the low 70s to the low 40s for UCLA. High by today’s standards, but about what you might expect from that era.
Here’s an article from 1988 that talks about how many students with 4.0s were being rejected from Berkeley and UCLA even then despite those higher acceptance rates. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-02-12-mn-28540-story.html
I applied to UCs prior to 1986. The paper application allowed applying to three UC campuses (note: there were eight back then with general undergraduate offerings). They did have a policy then of redirecting shutout applicants to other UC campuses that had space. For example, I knew a student in high school who applied to UCB but got admitted to UCI instead. He chose to start at the local community college and transfer to UCB after two years.
The impression I got then was the most UC campuses other than UCB and UCLA were not much more selective than the UC minimum eligibility standards (back then a sliding scale of 3.3 HS GPA / 400 SAT to 2.8 HS GPA / 1600 SAT or something like that; HS GPA was recalculated similar to now, but without the cap on honors points, but high schools offered far fewer honors and AP courses then).
In terms of how strong the students were when they got to college, more than half of incoming UCB frosh in the 1980s needed to take remedial English courses, and the four year graduation rate was under 40%. These days, about 5% of frosh need remedial English, and the four year graduation rate is over 70%.
Compare the content and exams from “calculus” courses at Harvey Mudd versus calculus courses elsewhere.
Along these lines, does anyone believe that Harvard’s all-male classes in the past were academically stronger than Harvard’s coed classes today, or that Rice’s all-white classes in the past were academically stronger than Rice’s classes today?
I graduated from business school in the early 1980’s and took several of these tests during recruiting season. Some were SAT-like (math, critical reasoning, reading comprehension) and some were skills based (timed tests to do MBA type financial analysis-- discounted cash flow analysis, loan amortization, etc.)
Every company I’ve ever worked for in a recruiting capacity has used some version of a standardized test for some roles. I’ve had PhD’s in English flunk a simple editing test, and have seen kids with a BS in finance with a 4.0 average flunk a “basic financial analysis” test. And of course my favorite- the kids whose resumes claim “fluent in X language” who cannot make small talk for three minutes with a staff member who is ACTUALLY fluent in that language!
But do they use a generic high school based test like the SAT or ACT, or do they use a standardized test for skills relevant to the job in question? Looks like all of your examples are use of the latter.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has developed its own series of tests (which we call “assessment tools” in typical corporate speak).
Many of them are similar to the SAT but have harder math (consistent with someone who is finishing college, not finishing HS). Many of them are skills based, but some have both skill and aptitude components. For example- if you’ve never taken a finance course, but have strong math skills, you will likely do better on a financial analysis test than someone with weak math skills who has taken the classes, memorized the formulas used but doesn’t really know much beyond a plug and chug level of reasoning. Similarly- if you read a lot (and/or are a good writer) you don’t need to have taken many or any writing classes in college to do well on a writing test… although it helps.
Is this your question? The tests I took when graduating back in the 80’s were all SAT type tests. I would not have been able to do well on the math portion coming out of either HS or college, but after a few semesters of econ, finance, stats, and operations research, had worked with numbers intensively enough to be able to “fake it” as a math person! So the skills and aptitude aren’t always separate from each other.
The reason for asking is that others were claiming that the “top firms” asked for standardized test scores like the SAT, versus giving their own job-relevant tests or quizzes like what you mention. The latter obviously makes sense, while the former looks less relevant.
The problem with your reasoning, @ucbalumnus, is that it isn’t clear if the doubling of the graduation rate at Berkeley (And the decrease in remedial writing) is due to improvements in student skill or dumbing down of the standard since your graduation. At both times, most of the students in attendance were from California public schools. So perhaps secondary school quality has dramatically improved in California over the last 40 years so that students enter far better prepared, or more likely the standards have changed so that some of those graduating now would not have done so in 1984.
Yes, I believe you could choose two backups in order of preference if you were rejected, correct? But you weren’t actually applying to 3 campuses.
The problem (as I understand it) was that all but Riverside (and maybe Santa Cruz) filled up fairly quickly even then. So lets say someone applied to Cal with UCLA as a backup and SD or SB as their third choice. If they were rejected, by the time their app got to UCLA, it was full, and by the time it was then forwarded from UCLA to SB or SD, those were often full. They probably could have gotten into UCSD/UCSB/UCI if they’d chosen one of those as their first shot, but now they might be relegated to Riverside, so students weren’t as tempted to “reach” as students now who apply on a longshot.
As mentioned before, I knew a student who got redirected to UCI, so it wasn’t just UCR that “got other campuses’ rejects”.
@ucbalumnus MBB, several of the tier two management consulting firms and top IB firms ask for SAT/ACT scores from undergrad applicants and GMAT/GRE from graduate school applicants.
I’ve worked for companies which ask for SAT/ACT test results.
You may not think the results are relevant- but the “on the job performance” for someone (in certain roles) who scored a 500 on the math SAT vs. someone who scored a 750 can be pretty easy to see. A new grad can have a 3.5 GPA from a top ten undergrad business program and STILL be weak in math, struggle with analysis, and be unable to answer basic questions. (Our costs went up last quarter, but our profitability did as well. Why?)
So it’s a quick and easy way to sort the pile. It doesn’t work in all disciplines- if you are a union-heavy company, hiring folks in labor relations with math skills out the wazoo isn’t going to help you in a negotiation. If you are a graphic design firm, your business development people need a strong sense of visual arts (not at the level of your design folks, who submit portfolios as part of the interview process, but still some level of appreciation) not necessarily 750 verbal SAT scores.
But for a lot of business hiring, SAT scores are a good proxy for “strong vs. weak”. They don’t tell you much beyond that- but in some cases, strong vs. weak is all you need to know.
@roycroftmom – the problem with your assumptions as to the UC system is that there have been other changes along the way, including much, much stricter rules about how long a student can stay around without graduating. When I was in school in the early 70’s, there was no limit – I knew students who had been undergrads for 7 or 8 years or more. In those days the tuition for in-staters was dirt cheap (around $200 a quarter) – and shifting from full time to part time enrollment was fairly flexible – and as I noted above, students weren’t facing crippling debt in order to attend college. So part of the problem with looking at the 6-year graduation rates is it was quite common for students in those days to take longer than that – often because they were also holding down jobs while attending school.
I can’t find stats going back before 1996 – but you can see charts with the trends since then here: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/ug-outcomes
As you can see in 1996 the overall cumulative 7 year + graduation rate was 83.3%, rising to 85.7% for the 2011 class (and not enough time for 7 year + numbers since then). So both first-year retention and overall graduation rates have been relatively stable over the years. But there has been a very strong trend toward students graduating sooner - moving from a 4-year rate of 42% in for 1996 to 64.5% for 2014.
Average TTD (time to degree) has decreased from 4.36 years to 4.17 years.
You can think this means that the UC’s have dumbed down their curriculum but I really think $$$ has a lot more to do with it. It’s a LOT more expensive to stay in school these days; need-based financial aid runs out if students don’t maintain a minimum course load or use up all of their allotted quarters or semesters – and housing costs have also increased dramatically, meaning it is far less feasible for a student to defer entering the work force with full time, career-oriented employment.
There’s also been an interesting upward trend for 3 year grad rates - from 1.2% to 4.0% – which may very well be due to a combination of increased use of AP credits combined with financial pressures to reduce overall time in college.
But how many people with 500 math SAT get admitted to “top ten undergraduate business programs”? Or is this just to screen out those who got in with the biggest hooks (big development relation or important recruited athlete)?
Of course, since SAT scores are gotten while in high school, they also include a significant component of parental SES/etc., such as test preparation, getting disability accommodations, etc…
It also means that there is another reason for high school students and parents to emphasize getting the highest SAT score possible, despite the apparent disdain on these forums for “test taking drones”.