What will UCs look at instead of SAT and ACT? Subject tests? AP Scores?
UC’s have used 14 areas of review criteria for admissions, so now they will use 13. GPA has always been King for the UC’s so most likely your transcript/HS course rigor and GPA will have a greater impact.
However, if the repeal of Prop 209 passes in November this year, then it is entirely possible that some of these criteria will be changed for admissions in 2021 and beyond (particularly the content of and weight given to criterion 13 on “Academic accomplishments in light of your life experiences and special circumstances”). To quote outgoing UC president Napolitano:
“It makes little sense to exclude any consideration of race in admissions when the aim of the University’s holistic process is to fully understand and evaluate each applicant through multiple dimensions. Proposition 209 has forced California public institutions to try to address racial inequality without factoring in race, even where allowed by federal law. The diversity of our university and higher education institutions across California, should — and must — represent the rich diversity of our state.”
I just wanted to add that UC has had a long on-going feud with College Board (I’ll abbreviate it “CB”), and previously, e.g., CB buckled to UC’s not liking of the vocabulary section and took it out. Then CB put larger weights on certain questions, but that’s still out there unchanged, and it undoubtedly angered UC again.
There are some that feel that UC and CB will make amends, but this time, of course, it has a completely different air about it, because Napolitano led the Regents to go against the Academic Senate and vote it out, when before they would threaten CB and eventually back off when CB would make their concessions. The thought of another vote with a reversal seems impossible. But if CB approached UC and bows before it and grants its wishes, who knows?
I hope this will happen, but Napolitano seemed to have other ideas by making a big splash in one of her last acts as president, despite having nothing concrete for the future, and I don’t think students should be experimental rats. And the new CEO of CB seems to be pretty tough minded, so he may not make concessions. He may not care that CB is losing one of its biggest customers (actually of course it’s the students who apply to UC, but many will still be taking the test anyway because they’ll be applying beyond UC). The individual campuses could also advise the students to add test scores as an accomplishment when UC takes the reporting of scores out of the application process because some departments at UC like Engineering will still need something to reinforce top-tier math and science grades. Or as some have said, UC could switch to the various SATIIs which is another CB test, which would mean that the average student could be taking a good five IIs.
Personally, I don’t think that is gonna happen, but if it did, it would be mighty ironic. It wasn’t that long ago when another UC study showed that the biggest impact on college success (first year grades?) was GPA, then AP scores then Subject Test scores, then SAT/ACT.
@bluebayou . . . Then they will have moved up one notch; that’s better than nothing. One of the complaints, of course, the anti-SAT/ACT crowd has had is that the tests are too general, so the subject specificity of SATIIs should seemingly appease them.
Obviously, they can’t make AP tests mandatory because some high schools don’t have the funding to have a decent amount of AP courses, but that’s why I think that the college-prep students who go to underfunded high schools should dual-enroll at their local community college, provided that these students have the aptitude to take lower-level college courses like calculus. And even if they don’t do so well, that’s okay because they will have gotten a more rigorous education, and they can continue on at community college and transfer in later.
And I still think that UC’s finding of gpa being first in importance towards “college success” is a bit fallacious because it’s a UC study, and they’re just trying to reinforce their prejudices that gpa is the most important marker to success in college. I agree that it ultimately is, but there are various things that need to be added concomitant to grades. I think this is borne out at UC because just about everyone at its campuses has excellent grades, yet there are some UCs – the newer campuses particularly – that lag in graduation statistics, which doesn’t necessarily point to “success.” And even at UCLA and UCB, there are a good 5%+ beyond those who don’t make it year two that that never fall off the map, even if time to degree were to be extended out to 10 years.
So without the SAT and ACT, both campuses will have a longer time-to-degree marker, unless they include the quality of high school in admissions, which works against their desires for diversity. Again, UCLA has raised its four-year to 81.6% (?) and UCB’s is ~ 78% (as it’s a bit more STEM than UCLA). Lowering graduation at the two and the others would be working against UC’s mission.
Let me finish my thought in the last P. Without something to reinforce grades, UC will certainly be become a more diverse entity by the inclusion of more students from underperforming high schools, but the dichotomous outcome of UC not fulfilling its mission in the state to educate its portion of the ~ 40m people in CA would ensue (i.e., educating the masses). There would be an increase in dropouts and the average time-to-degree metric will be extended significantly. That’s why I think that UC should let CSU do its job and UC do its own.