<p>From the Daily Bruin: The UC system is considering adopting a "SAT II optional policy":</p>
<p>
[quote]
Freshman applicants may no longer have to take the SAT subject tests.</p>
<p>The University of California Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools recently passed a proposal reforming freshman eligibility. This was the result of concerns that current application requirements were limiting otherwise qualified students from applying...</p>
<p>Rashid said that the board found that the SAT subject tests do not actually tell that much about a students potential.</p>
<p>The fact is that statistical studies show that we dont need (SAT subject tests). Those subject test scores tell us almost nothing beyond what we already know. They add almost nothing about a students ability to succeed. So here the requirement isnt helping us; instead it is differentially burdensome on certain groups....
<blockquote>
<p>Rashid said that the board found that the SAT subject tests do not actually tell that much about a student’s potential.
“The fact is that statistical studies show that we don’t need (SAT subject tests). Those subject test scores tell us almost nothing beyond what we already know. They add almost nothing about a student’s ability to succeed. So here the requirement isn’t helping us; instead it is differentially burdensome on certain groups.”<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I agree. But at same time I wish the UC would make up its mind. It was the University of California, several years ago, that led the charge to devalue SAT in admissions and boost the weight given to the SATIIs. They've got nobody to blame but themselves for the current situation.</p>
<p>When UC was pushing for SAT1 reform, they cite a UC study claiming that the achievement based SAT2 has better predictive value than the aptitude based SAT1. That study has been quoted repeatedly by the anti-SAT1 crowd.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, before the new SAT, SAT2 scores weight twice as much as SAT1 score because of this.</p>
<p>That was why UC pushed for the new SAT1 because it is supposed to be more achievement based.</p>
<p>Add me to the list who are trying the say the same thing.</p>
<p>Now suddenly UC decides that SAT2 has no predictive value. Apparently result of statistics can be changed to agree with what the UC administration favors at any moment.</p>
<p>Actually the big change in the proposal is not whether SAT2 counts in the eligibility index. The UC master plan has always been that if you qualify by the eligibility index, you are guaranteed to be accepted in some UC. In the new proposal, you are no long guaranteed (unless you are eligible by ELC), you are only guaranteed to be given a holistic review.</p>
<p>This sure makes me think that the UC administrators have some political reason to not be honest about what their statistics show. In another thread here on the Parents Forum, there was a very detailed discussion of research studies on UC admission, and the most statistically astute parents who commented on the studies were NOT saying that the SAT II tests should have no role in admission decisions. Indeed, I think Harvard is going in the other direction of giving SAT IIs MORE weight vis a vis the SAT I.</p>
<p>It will make admission less predictable, which is too bad for the academically top students who could be assured admission if they had top grades and scores (or maybe not for the "top top" -- just "top"). The aim is clearly to increase "diversity" at Cal and UCLA especially -- but it is the kind of approach that most top schools, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. take to admissions, so what's new?</p>
<p>This is from a UC report "Policy Foundation and Historical Development of UC Eligibility Requirements" that includes mention of the university concept of alternative admission paths "bright line".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Following its review of the 1996 study, and based on studies that demonstrated that the SAT I was a relatively weaker predictor of academic performance in the freshman year, BOARS added SAT II scores to the eligibility index and weighted them twice as heavily as SAT I/ACT scores. Requiring SAT II scores of all eligible applicants reduced confusion over the existence of a potentially eligible pool because it was no longer possible for students to meet the requirements of the eligibility index without presenting scores on the SAT II. These changes and the overall findings of the 1996 Eligibility Study were discussed with The Regents at three Board meetings in 1998 and 1999...</p>
<p>In July 2003, following extensive study on the part of BOARS and approval by The Regents, UC adopted a new testing policy covering use of new admissions
tests being developed now by ACT, Inc. and the College Board, as well as broader curricular coverage in the pattern of five test scores applicants must
submit. In doing so, BOARS tied the testing requirement more closely to the
fundamental purpose the eligibility requirements have traditionally served: to
enunciate standards for college preparation and communicate these standards to students and high schools. These requirements will take effect for students
entering in the Fall 2006 term. BOARS has recommended reweighting of the individual components of the test portion of the academic index but will not
develop a new index until additional data on the new tests are available. BOARS has recommended that this work be done in concert with the development of revised criteria, if necessary, in response to the 2003 eligibility study, so as to avoid the confusion for students, parents, and schools associated with changing requirements multiple times.
<p>This would be hilarious, if it was not that tragic.</p>
<p>From the early discussions about the UC system "battle" with The College Board, I gathered that the UC system was seeking a convenient scapegoat to mask its own ineptitude in developing reasonable admission policies. The stories about Atkinson finding his inspiration to attack the venerable SAT when witnessing his own granddaughter performance spoke volumes about the questionable process used by the UC. A fact clearly supported by the dates on the "supporting" documents, which strangely *followed *the "great" speech by Atkinson. Obviously, someone had to find a way to back up the boss, or find a better way to extract the silver foot from his mouth. </p>
<p>So, today, we'll have to believe that there was not that "much" science behind the institutions that had been rewarding the "knowledge" of Korean and Chinese by ... students who needed to demonstrate a third-grade mastery of a ...native tongue.</p>
<p>If U stands for University, one might --with a dose of sarcasm if not malice--think C stands for ... clueless. Maybe, they should save on the wasteful spending to rename the Berkeley Law School**, and start hiring people who can develop consistent policies. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, this sad saga is not confined to California as we now have an "expanded" monstruous SAT, added millions of expenses shouldered by families but only serving to enrich a foreign contractor, and all of that for a component that is hardly used by universities and colleges. </p>
<p>**Officials at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law spent nearly $25,000 on a branding consultant to help them give the school a new name: "UC Berkeley School of Law."</p>
<p>I can't say I am unbiased about this, given my D's profile ( much higher SAT 1's than 2's ,really high writing, and URM to boot), and I haven't read all the links, but I thought the SAT 2 research suggested that the writing SAT 2 was the most predictive, and that's why they made it part of the SAT 1's. I've chosen to interpret D's SAT's a reflection of her learnig environment, and perhaps how well prepared she will be for college classes, but NOT a measure of her ability. With regard to learning environment, most of the kids at her tine scholl don't know about the SAt 2's until pretty late if at all, and "self-study" seems unherad of. They mostly aspire to go to Christian Schools, even a kid with a 2340 SAT 1!</p>
<p>From one of the links in post #4
"ACHIEVEMENT VERSUS APTITUDE TESTS IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS "</p>
<p>"Of the various tests that make up the SAT I aptitude and the SAT II achievement tests, the best single predictor of student performance turned out to be the SAT II writing test. This test is the only one of the group that requires students to write something in addition to answering multiple-choice items. Given the importance of writing ability at the college level, it should not be surprising that a test of actual writing skills correlates strongly with freshman grades."</p>
<p>It does seem a little silly to have spent any money to rename Boalt, when it was already the University of California Berkeley School of Law...but on the other hand, now that they have plans to raise the tuition to $40,000 a year, they can easily afford that $25,000.</p>
<p>Post #4 notes the proposal to only guarantee "holistic review" for those previously eligible under the statewide eligibility. I would think there would be bigger screams about that. I'm not prepared to argue the relative merits of SAT I v II, but I do think there's value in following the eligibility index under the Master Plan--if you're in the top 12 1/2%, you're in. I guess this ties in to the other thread about making UC private...</p>
<p>I think this is driven by UCLA's push to admit more African-American students in defiance of Prop 209. The SAT Subject tests benefit native speakers of Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Spanish, and therefore are a strength area for most applicants in those ethnic groups. African-American applicants have no similar area of strength. Some on campus argue that those candidates are therefore at a disadvantage.
Look what last year's revised admissions policies at UCLA did for student numbers...it was just a hazy way to ignore the state law that requires race-blind admissions.</p>
<p>Thanks for that link...the report states that one of the "expected benefits" is "better representation of California's various communities." It is clear that this proposal would eliminate SAT subject tests in order to increase admissions discretion and is part of the drive to defy Prop 209, which prohibits consideration of race for UC admissions.</p>