<p>L.A. Times article about the potential for UC to drop SAT II requirements:
UC</a> panel seeks to drop extra SAT tests from admission requirements - Los Angeles Times</p>
<p>Is this a way around Proposition 209 (law ending racial preferences in college admissions)?</p>
<p>I'm not big fan of the SAT IIs, but I really wish the UC would make up its mind. It was over the past decade that the UC led the charge to de-emphasize the SAT and elevate the SAT II in its place. And the funny thing is that when they did that it was charged that it was a way around Prop 209, because Latinos could get an admissions boost by taking the Spanish SAT II. Now de-emphasizing the SAT II is also said to somehow be a way around Prop 209.</p>
<p>I think the reason that the UC's initially wanted to emphasize the SAT II's was because they saw the SAT II Writing as being the most important & most significant, especially in terms of predictive value. Students who can write well have the ability to do well in college; those who can't will struggle. </p>
<p>When the SATs were modified so that writing was included in the initial SAT, that left the SAT II as an unneeded holdover. So the reasons for favoring SAT II were rendered obsolete, and it actually became a barrier to admission because of the extra time and cost required for testing. So there are a lot of students in California who go into the CSU system even though they would qualify for UC admission, simply because they didn't take all the required SAT IIs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Disproportionately affected are blacks and Latinos in large urban and rural schools who might not be advised by counselors to take the exams, according to recent studies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Every such "study" is just anecdotes. Just bcos thousands of kids in LA may have the gpa to be eligible for UC doesn't mean that they really want to go (or could afford to go away) to a UC. For many, Long Beach or Cal State LA are much better family options. The Big Uni is just dreaming if they really think they are missing out on a gazillion kids. Heck, Merced is still accepting applications today. ANY kid could apply without Subject Test scores under special circumstances and s/he'd have an excellent chance of acceptance.</p>
<p>IMO, UC should drop the SAT and just require three subject tests: a Math, an english (move Writing back to where it was), and a subject of choice; big plus factor for native speakers of a foreign language. [Every UC study shows that Subject Tests are a better predictor of Frosh performance than the SAT/ACT.]</p>
<p>
[quote]
UC should drop the SAT and just require three subject tests: a Math, an english (move Writing back to where it was), and a subject of choice
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree only if they can make the subject test harder so that they can tell the difference among the high end scores.</p>
<p>This is old news. </p>
<p>The ambivalence of the UC regarding the SAT Subject Tests (there is no such thing as a SAT II) is not surprising. Neither is the obvious repudiation of their previous "studies" that were nothing short of fabricated to support the misguided agenda of Atkinson after he stuck his foot in the mouth at the convention. </p>
<p>The UC could have acknowledged their absolute cluelessness in rewarding elementary school tests such as the SAT II Chinese and Korean to the extent they did without attempting to blame ETS and the College Board for an ineffective SAT Test. </p>
<p>The unfortunate part is that the entire country is paying the price for the ineptitude of the UC to design admissions policies that marries their conflicting desires for an outright academic meritocracy and social engineering. While seeing how Atkinson was masterfully played by Caperton and The College Board might have been hilarious, the joke has been replayed on millions of students who have to endure the new SAT test.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Every UC study shows that Subject Tests are a better predictor of Frosh performance
[/quote]
It was the writing test that had the most significant predictive value.
[quote]
Before 2006, UC applicants had to submit scores from the main SAT plus three subject tests, including one for writing. But under pressure from UC, the main SAT was changed and a writing portion was added to it. That took away from the subject tests what many considered to be the most reliable predictor of freshman academic success.</p>
<p>Now students usually choose their two strongest subjects, hardly a level field for admissions decisions, say UC faculty arguing for the change.
[/quote]
UC</a> panel seeks to drop extra SAT tests from admission requirements - Los Angeles Times</p>
<h1>6 - I could not agree more. I voted for restoring the old SAT.</h1>
<p>I'm with coureur. (Post #2) And it's not just that inconsistency that annoys me. It's no/yes/no for the SAT II, for UC. It's Yes (two subject tests) for many privates (and UC), yet not a single Subject Test for other privates. It's take the whole bleepin' 3-part SAT <em>I</em> for most U's, public & private, but (wink-wink) we just won't "count" the Writing, will we? (Or we'll "look at it" but not give it value in admissions). Never mind that you may have an awesome score on the Writing; we will not combine your 3-part total score, just select our 2 fave sections.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that colleges shouldn't determine their own separate admission requirements: they should. But have some logic to it. If you're applying to a major reach, and/or to a reach academic program, you best have good scores in the very areas in which you proclaim interest. If the college is not such a college, or the student does not have those intentions, the college should be asking for some different Wow factor from you, evaluating your particular preparation for the program (including distribution requirements) at their college.</p>
<p>I vote for no SATs and UCs reimburse all the parents for the SATs we had to pay. That would make them bankrupt.</p>
<p>Xiggi, </p>
<p>But surely changes to the SAT have kept you on your toes...trying to help students maximize their scores. </p>
<p>I can see how changes to a less multiple choice-dependent format would mess with test taking strategies.</p>
<p>I say keep the format evergreen so it's less prone to coaching.</p>
<p>Oh and I can see why the College Board was upset, when fully 13% of its market could be jeopardized. It's all about maintaining revenues for the College Board and test prep centers like Kaplan.
NPR:</a> SAT: A Cynical Marketing Ploy</p>
<p>As a state taxpayer, I don't know if I should be embarrased for the lack of competence demonstrated by the UC higher-ups, or outraged at the constant waste of taxpayer and student-applicant dollars. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>And again, I echo another poster -- this time, Blue.</p>
<p>College Board was quite happy with the old SAT, until UC pushing them into the "new SAT marketing ploy".</p>
<p>I can see advantage of a less multiple choice test format. The closest model is the AP test, so we can expect the cost, test time length, result report time would be close to the AP. I can imagine what the students' reaction to such a test would be like. And I can also imagine a FairTest essay about a even more cynical marketing ploy.</p>
<p>UC didn't push them into anything. UC wanted to drop the SAT because of dissatisfaction with the format, and College Board made the choice to change its format to try to keep its best paying customer. UC is finding that the changes have brought about different issues & concerns, and so it wants to further refine the system.</p>
<p>As far as students are concerned, the changes don't hurt anyone because they only effect future applicants, and obviously changes will be announced well in advance. Since they are contemplating dropping a requirement rather than adding or changing one, there is no possible way that any student would be harmed -- it simply makes the application process easier.</p>
<p>I disagree, calmom. The persons harmed would be the applicants held to a possibly higher standard of admission, & who therefore may be turned down this year, before the dropped requirement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UC didn't push them into anything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This has to be the most uninformed post on cc. Faced with losing ~15% of its cutomers, CB did whatever UC Pres. Atkinson wanted.</p>
<p>Yes, UC is finding unintended consequences. But, in fact, they are not unintended at all. The big publishing houses were chomping at the bit with glee since the changes meant that the new SAT was more formulaic and easier to prep for. None of this was a surprise. Former Pres. Atkinson was just a reformer with zero information.....</p>
<p>Frequent changes like this make you wonder what the administrators are doing and they are not beneficial for the students who get caught in the changes.</p>
<p>Atkinson's philosophy is that standardized test for admission should be base on achievement and not aptitude. He thinks the test should be curriculum based, the students should be tested on material that is related to what they study in their classes. So SAT 1 is bad and SAT 2 is good. He claims UC study shows that the predictive validity of the SAT 2 is much less affected by differences in socioeconomic background than is the SAT 1, so SAT 2 a fairer test for use in college admissions.</p>
<p>So after many years of "Four legs good, two legs bad!", suddenly it is "Four legs good, two legs better!". Does UC expects us to swallow this with some better evidence?</p>
<p>In a follow-up to the earlier story, an LA Times columnist sits down and takes a practice SAT II exam for Literature:</p>
<p>The</a> SAT? It tests our credulity - Los Angeles Times</p>
<p>Excerpt:</p>
<p>"They're intended to fool the average student," acknowledged Robert Franek, a Princeton Review vice president. </p>
<p>"Students are feeling the weight of the testing frenzy and the importance of every exam they take. Whether it's a brain-teaser type or choose-the-obvious answer, students sometimes get confused and make silly mistakes." </p>
<p>And so do journalists, apparently. Looking back over the questions I got wrong, some answers seemed so obvious it was embarrassing. Others questions were so tricky, they were just plain cruel.</p>