<p>
[QUOTE]
University of California regents today gave preliminary approval to a change in freshman admission standards that would drop the requirement for SAT subject exams and make more students eligible for a review of their applications while guaranteeing admission to fewer of them. If approved by the full board Thursday, it will take effect for students seeking admission for fall 2012, with current high school freshmen the first to be affected.</p>
<p>The proposal's backers, including UC President Mark G. Yudof, contend the overhaul is needed to ensure that talented students are not shut out of UC for technicalities or because their high schools do not offer enough college-prep classes. "I believe it increases both fairness in our system and opportunity for our students, and it does so while maintaining the very high standards that are the bedrock of our institution," Yudof said at a regents meeting in San Francisco. </p>
<p>However, some critics in the university and the Legislature see the plan as an unwarranted departure from California's long-held master plan for higher education and as an apparent attempt to get around the state's voter-approved ban on using race as a factor in public college admissions. Some regents also described it as just too complicated.
<p>
[quote]
University of California leaders on Thursday approved eligibility changes to allow thousands more high-school seniors to have their applications reviewed.</p>
<p>The reform, passed by a committee of the Board of Regents, would affect today's high-school freshmen when they apply for college in 2011. The full board is expected to vote on the measure today.</p>
<p>The 10-campus university system would greatly expand by as many as 30,000, according to UC estimates "the number of applicants considered by admissions officers. This would occur mostly by dropping a requirement that applicants take SAT subject tests. Many high-quality students are left out of UC simply because they do not take the tests, faculty leaders told the Board of Regents in San Francisco.</p>
<p>UC leaders stepped back from a proposal to lower grade requirements from a 3.0 grade-point average to 2.8 ½" that had raised concerns about quality.
<p>Sheesh, thanks guys, glad I paid all the extra fees and wasted the days for those stupid tests that you UCs just had to have to show subject mastery. </p>
<p>It is is rather self-serving to say that this action makes so many more kids eligible, all those kids had to do to be eligible is take the test, so it was already within their control.</p>
<p>Wasn't the SAT II developed to satisfy the UCs in the first place?</p>
<p>Wasn't there just a recommendation this past summer from UC regents to use SATII instead of SATI/ACT? papa, maybe you remember the article I am referring to.....nothing like doing a 180.....</p>
<p>also, assuming this is just for in-state kids?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Wasn't the SAT II developed to satisfy the UCs in the first place?<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>No, they already existed before that. What was done to mollify UC president Atkinson was to move the SAT II Writing test into the main SAT as the writing section.</p>
<p>This move is 180 degrees opposite from the direction Atkinson took the UCs and also 180 degrees opposite from the direction Harvard says it is currently moving.</p>
<p>rodney, yes I do seem to recall some ironic back-and-forth on this issue; my mind fails me though in recalling directly the details. Here's some history that I could find....</p>
[quote]
Atkinson's proposal, which would replace the familiar SAT I aptitude test with five SAT II subject tests, drew the opposition of UC Regent Ward Connerly. Connerly alleged that the heightened emphasis on SAT II subject tests is a direct response to pressure from influential Latino politicians, a charge they have denied. </p>
<p>The UC president recommended earlier this month that UC abolish the use of SAT I aptitude tests in admissions policies, replacing them with SAT II subject tests in English, mathematics, history and social science, laboratory science and a foreign language.
[quote]
The immediate impetus for redesigning the SAT was the attack on the test launched early in 2001 by University of California president Richard Atkinson. Himself a cognitive psychologist and an authority on testing, Atkinson charged that the use of the exam was distorting educational priorities and practices....</p>
<p>Atkinson also asserted that analysis of three decades of undergraduate data at the University of California had shown that the SAT II subject tests, in conjunction with high school grades, were actually a slightly better predictor of success in college than the SAT, and that adding the SAT to the mix improved the predictive power by only a trivial increment. (Interestingly, the same data also seem to show that the SAT II writing test is the best single predictor overall.) Since the SAT II tests could thus be substituted for the SAT without any sacrifice of predictive validity, Atkinson recommended that the University of California system drop the SAT requirement in favor of the SAT II or similar achievement tests assessing mastery of specific college-preparatory subject matter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>gotta go, will try to find more flip-flop history later.....</p>
<p>I'm intrigued by the statement that they don't want to "shut out" kids whose HSs don't offer enough college prep classes....</p>
<p>It seems to me that if the UCs don't require the college prep classes, many of the HSs will be forced to bow to pressure to drop them and degrade the curriculum in order to save $$.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, they already existed before that. What was done to mollify UC president Atkinson was to move the SAT II Writing test into the main SAT as the writing section.</p>
<p>This move is 180 degrees opposite from the direction Atkinson took the UCs and also 180 degrees opposite from the direction Harvard says it is currently moving.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Long story made short: the ineptitude and outright stupidity of the UC leaders handed the College Board an economic and operational victory. After all, what was there to expect from an institution that used mercenary "researcH" to support the knee-jerk reaction of Atkinson who relied on the interview of his grand-daughter to start his little war on the SAT.</p>
<p>Rather than having to use his baterry of (correct) research to defend the SAT, Caperton walked out with a bigger and more expensive test, having successfully elevated a little used test (SAT II Writing) to become part of the main SAT. Kaaaa-shing! </p>
<p>As a result, the entire nation is now paying the price for the shortcomings of the UC, a system that was not really trying to identify a better admission test as much as one they could blame for their own past misdirections.</p>
<p>Perhaps, another UC genius will concoct a system that imposes 5 APs to every high school student in the country, and ask TCB a small commission to help balance the UC budgets.</p>
<p>This takes effect for the current high school freshman class. Really for anyone applying for freshman entrance in 2012, so anyone who has paid for/studied for tests has not wasted their time and/or money.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is is rather self-serving to say that this action makes so many more kids eligible, all those kids had to do to be eligible is take the test, so it was already within their control.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even here on CC, there are many, many parents and students who didn't know anything about the SAT IIs until reading about them here. There are far too many CA high school counselors who are ignorant about the requirements for admission to their state university, and that's been burning a lot of students who would have been potential admits, especially those who are first generation or whose parents came from out of state. I think it would have been better for UC and CSU to lean on the school districts to get out the word about the tests, since schools seem to manage fine telling their students about the a-g coursework.</p>
<p>I thought colleges were complaining about the high level of remediation (Usable</a> Knowledge: Remediation at the college level) they had to provide and that colleges were having to turn away students. Why would they move to make admissions more accessible unless it is in anticipation of a downturn in the number of applicants in coming years?</p>
<p>I agree with you in general, but don't forget the new sheriff ("genius") in town was schooled at UT. He could have easily stopped this runaway train, but chose not to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are far too many CA high school counselors who are ignorant about the requirements for admission to their state university...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except for the fact that the test requirements for admission have been in place for more than a generation. Back in the dark ages, they were called achievement tests, and were required.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that's been burning a lot of students who would have been potential admits
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is UC's unfounded assumption. Yes, they are "potential" admits (as are any 18 year olds who are breathing), but there is absolutely no data to support that those "potential admits" will even apply. It's UC's version of the (Merced) Campus of Dreams: 'Build it and they Will Come'...</p>
<p>More eligible applicants + more applications with same number of student places on campus = more rejections, which now creates a more "selective" campus...and higher college rankings.</p>
<p>Is it an alternate reality world in the University of California system? All along they have refuted the SAT I. College Board changed their SAT I in response to complaints about the test.</p>
<p>For years, the UC system has said that the SAT II's were a "better predictor of student academic success". So why junk the SAT II? </p>
<p>Making it easier to get into the University of California system may seem like a good idea on the surface. But it isn't. The UC system already grants extra consideration for those low income or disadvantaged students who may not have the same academic advantages of other students. They have a system set up that allows any student who has followed the UC a-g requirements eligibility, a minimum gpa of 3.0 and have eligible SAT or ACT and SAT II (two) subject tests access to the university. </p>
<p>Yet, it is rare for a student with a lower gpa to even gain access to admission. When they can fill every bed and meet their target numbers for admission, why open up the pool to even more students? </p>
<p>It is heartbreaking when students apply, are eligible for admissions, but don't meet what the UC is looking for. I see that this situation will get even more widespread of students thinking they are eligible, when they don't stand a chance of admissions. Why take a student with a 400 CR and 450 Math SAT I and a gpa of 3.0, when they can fill their classes with students with much higher gpas and SAT I's? </p>
<p>This policy won't affect students for years to come (current high school freshman class of 2012), but it will have an impact. The students are not the big winner, here. UC will look more accessible to students on the cusp of eligibility, they will be able to market to even more students and UC will still get those applications dollars and a higher selectivity index, to boot.</p>
<p>Don't you know why UC wants to eliminate SAT IIs? The key is diversity! This is the holy grail to UC. URM generally don't do as well on standardized tests, and they might not have accessibility to the tests for reason of money, geographic location etc. Also, it is harder to admit URMs with lower scores than that of some non URMs who get rejected. Thus, they get affirmative action and reduce the chances of anyone legally contesting this policy all in one stroke.</p>