Several districts around here held the school based, SAT in August in schools that were not holding in person instruction. 10 kids to a classroom and masks. It’s a graduation requirement here as well.
What are the chances CSU’s follow suit? In my head I have a notion that CSUs already used testing scores more than UCs which seem to be more strength of schedule and experience based; I’m not sure if I trust my own preconceived bias about this, though.
“Kids need some certainty in this already uncertain time. This had better not drag.”
I think that knowing what is going on would be very helpful for students. The entire college admissions process is already tough enough without the uncertainty. I would almost hope that the University of California does not appeal this just so that students know what they should or should not do.
I know someone who just took the GRE even though her first choice for graduate school says that they will not consider it this year. Her second and third choices require it. At least she knows what each school requires.
I have mixed feelings about whether this is a good ruling. Certainly the SAT test does measure some combination of your preparedness for university and your parent’s ability to afford a tutor. Now it also measures your ability to find a test site that is open. For us the SAT results and other measures (particularly GPA and references) were so much in agreement with each other than you could consider the SAT to be redundant with other measures.
Removing the SAT probably just removes one more source of stress, which is a good thing.
As a practical matter, the CSU system (which has about twice the number of undergraduates as the UC system) has long been EC-blind (except for CPSLO). Admission historically was based on a HSGPA * 800 + SATRW + SATM formula (or a similar formula using the ACT), but with the CSU system going test blind, HSGPA will presumably be the means of ranking frosh applicants for admission to campuses and majors (transfer applicants were/are ranked based on college GPA).
However, the CSU system does not have as much of an issue with compression at the top of the scale of HS_GPA that some campuses of the UC system have.
The UC powers-that-be believe that such standardized testing is discriminatory, and were already in the process of phasing them out, so why would the state legislators or Education Dept require such tests to be taken in HS?
California students take a number of standardized tests as mandated by both state and federal law. It should be simple to switch one of those out for the ACT or SAT.
Yeah, but you are completely missing the point. Why would anyone in their right mind “switch” to a test that one believes is discriminatory?
btw: Unlike some states, CA rejected the idea of using existing ACT/SAT for student progress testing; in true CA style, we had to develop our own tests that (supposedly) better reflect what is being taught.
I do understand your point. But it’s not everyone in the UC system that believes the tests are discriminatory…6 months ago the UC faculty senate voted to keep ACT/SAT in admissions, citing a ton of research that supports that decision. That research still exists. And there is an entire thread on that, so I’ll move on now!
One of UC Task Force report recommendations was to eliminate use of the SAT/ACT in admissions and develop a new assessment system. The authors of the report disagreed on whether the eliminate use of the SAT/ACT prior to developing the assessment system, resulting in a test blind period. After the report and COVID-19, in March UC voted to go test optional for a number of years (2 years, if remember correctly), then remove use of SAT/ACT in admissions, resulting in a test blind period, if the new assessment system has not been created.
Go check out the other thread, in which it is clear that the UC leadership believes that the SAT/ACT are discriminatory, and thus they voted to eliminate them from consideration: test optional for a few years, and then no SAT/ACT. That is written policy.
Sure, not everyone supports that decision, but then what decision ever gets made at a public Uni level that everyone agrees with. Regardless, the Regents approved the new testing policy.
This whole thing is infuriating. My DD has tried and tried to take this darn thing and had numerous tests cancelled. Her oct and nov dates have just been cancelled.
BTW, does anyone have the link to Davis and UCSB’s changed policies? Davis website is still saying Test Optional, not Test Blind.
@socowonder My son has had his test centers canceled twice as well For those saying that only low income students are having a problem in taking the tests is not true. We are not low income but my son has not been able to take the SAT either due to the lack of testing centers and seat availability. So for the fall of 2021 I feel that the UCs should go test blind to give a level playing field to all
The reference to “UC leadership” obscures the fact that the Regents are political appointees who tell the academic leadership what to do. The academics appear to want to admit based on merit, and recommended the consideration of test scores to facilitate that evaluation.
But California’s politicians certainly do not, as evidenced by them placing Proposition 16 on the ballot this November to repeal Proposition 209 (passed in 1996). Prop 209 stated 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.
