5 ms·

That sound you hear is panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system in an attempt to figure out how best to influence their kid's probability of

That sound you hear is panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system in an attempt to figure out how best to influence their kid's probability of admission since paying a few grand for prep sessions (for piece of mind, mostly) on what's a pretty darn good measure of academic aptitude is a waste of everyone's time, now that the test is rendered meaningless ... until California develops their own. I'm sure whatever they come up with will be quite the improvement. If there was a checklist that you'd go down to help the University system implode "remove testing for academic aptitude" is probably right before "all objective measures of performance are banned". At that point who the hell can justify paying $150k+ for a "degree"? Edit: pasting this from my below comment. I think people are misinterpreting my comment as suggesting elite parents would've been against this - far from it. They absolutely wanted this because now it's easier to hide middling academic aptitude from admissions boards at elite schools. To be clear: Removing this test helps elite parents, and hurts those who can't afford spending money on "summer experiences" abroad or poverty tourism or whatever.

MattGaiser 6y ago
> That sound you hear is panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system in an attempt to figure out how best to influence their kid's probability of admission It is far easier to influence extracurriculars and grades with money. I went to an expensive private school. Nobody there (nor their parents) would have opposed eliminating the SAT and replacing it with essays and activities.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  Yeah, I think people are misinterpreting my comment as suggesting elite parents would've been against this - far from it. They absolutely wanted this because now it's easier to hide middling academic aptitude from admissions boards at elite schools. To be clear: Removing this test helps elite parents, and hurts those who can't afford spending money on "summer experiences" abroad or poverty tourism or whatever.
  - anon102010 6y ago
    The most direct way to get admitted to an elite university is to have your parents be a major donor. This is not a secret, but explicit. In the past it HAS been embarrassing if that admit came with a low or super low test score. So no question are the elites happy about this. https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirmative-action-white-students-legacy-athletes-donors.html https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirm...
- blululu 6y ago
  Might be why the test is getting eliminated. In my experience people support the SAT in proportion to how well they did on it. Since the test applies a uniform ranking and only the top 20% of takers are proud of their performance, the test does not lend itself to being popular.
fullshark 6y ago
Whatever the system is, parents with resources and the awareness to care about gaming the system will game it.
- riazrizvi 6y ago
  The fact that they made this change without an improved alternative, is particularly troubling.
anon102010 6y ago
Haha.. I think you have this backwards! If you think money can buy a good SAT score - go make some. Reality? Much easier to pay for a trip to "volunteer" in africa or at the local hospital, get on sports teams etc etc. If you have $$ being head of club X is a cakewalk! I had life changing SAT scores, and while prep helps, that slacker kid isn't getting 1600
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Money can help you craft a heck of a lot of evidence of leadership.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- remarkEon 6y ago
  I think we're agreeing here. I don't think money buys a good SAT score (I'm willing to read something that suggests otherwise). Wealthy elites do all of the above poverty tourism as well, but if they can redirect those funds to other "holistic" activities that have nothing to do with academic aptitude it's easier to hide the mediocrity in a "stellar resume".
- bananabreakfast 6y ago
  It's 2400 now btw. There are three sections
  - marnett 6y ago
    No it is not. In 2005 it went from 1600 to 2400. In 2016 it went from 2400 back to 1600.
  - NathanielLovin 6y ago
    They got rid of the writing section in 2016, it's back to 1600 (with optional essay)
- caseysoftware 6y ago
charlesju 6y ago
I think you're underestimating how much of the inequality has been baked in by Junior year of High School. 16 years of living a life where parents and teachers nurture the students for maximum growth is going to be easily reflected in any way you want to measure aptitude against someone that grew up in a rough environment. From the article it seems like the UC are going to develop their own test, that will further divide those with resources that can study and prep for multiple tests and those that cannot. The issues with the diversity in the UC system are rooted in a much deeper level of inequality in society that probably cannot be fixed with these band aids.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  Seems totally unrelated, unless you believe that academic aptitude is 100% environmental.
  - charlesju 6y ago
    Empirical data shows those from upper middle class families tend to do better than those living near the poverty line. Seems pretty well documented at this point.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      So? Empirical data also shows that if you’re 7’ tall you tend to be good at basketball. Pointing out that people who are doing well now tend to do well in the future is not a useful observation. My original point in this discussion was that removing the tests actually hurts people who are not doing well now, since they have fewer opinions to game the system and having an empirical and objective test of their abilities is the best (and cheapest) opportunity to stand out.
philsnow 6y ago
> panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system Speaking as a graduate of the UC system, I doubt "elites" are clamoring to get their kids into it.
ciarannolan 6y ago
>That sound you hear is panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system [...] Are you sure? Because I think the "elites" or very wealthy will be perfectly fine with removing objectivity. In fact, it helps them. This hurts working class and poor applicants who don't fit the, shall we say, "background" that admissions offices of elite universities are looking for in 2020. As time goes on I have less and less respect for credentials from elite institutions because of this.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  I've edited my comment because I wasn't clear. I agree with you. >This hurts working class and poor applicants who don't fit the, shall we say, "background" that admissions offices of elite universities are looking for in 2020. Exactly this. The test was a way out, especially for gifted kids from poor backgrounds.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

MattGaiser 6y ago

> That sound you hear is panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system in an attempt to figure out how best to influence their kid's probability of admission It is far easier to influence extracurriculars and grades with money. I went to an expensive private school. Nobody there (nor their parents) would have opposed eliminating the SAT and replacing it with essays and activities.

remarkEon 6y ago
Yeah, I think people are misinterpreting my comment as suggesting elite parents would've been against this - far from it. They absolutely wanted this because now it's easier to hide middling academic aptitude from admissions boards at elite schools. To be clear: Removing this test helps elite parents, and hurts those who can't afford spending money on "summer experiences" abroad or poverty tourism or whatever.
- anon102010 6y ago
  The most direct way to get admitted to an elite university is to have your parents be a major donor. This is not a secret, but explicit. In the past it HAS been embarrassing if that admit came with a low or super low test score. So no question are the elites happy about this. https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirmative-action-white-students-legacy-athletes-donors.html https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirm...
blululu 6y ago
Might be why the test is getting eliminated. In my experience people support the SAT in proportion to how well they did on it. Since the test applies a uniform ranking and only the top 20% of takers are proud of their performance, the test does not lend itself to being popular.

fullshark 6y ago

Whatever the system is, parents with resources and the awareness to care about gaming the system will game it.

riazrizvi 6y ago
The fact that they made this change without an improved alternative, is particularly troubling.

anon102010 6y ago

Haha.. I think you have this backwards! If you think money can buy a good SAT score - go make some. Reality? Much easier to pay for a trip to "volunteer" in africa or at the local hospital, get on sports teams etc etc. If you have $$ being head of club X is a cakewalk! I had life changing SAT scores, and while prep helps, that slacker kid isn't getting 1600

MattGaiser 6y ago
Money can help you craft a heck of a lot of evidence of leadership.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
remarkEon 6y ago
I think we're agreeing here. I don't think money buys a good SAT score (I'm willing to read something that suggests otherwise). Wealthy elites do all of the above poverty tourism as well, but if they can redirect those funds to other "holistic" activities that have nothing to do with academic aptitude it's easier to hide the mediocrity in a "stellar resume".
bananabreakfast 6y ago
It's 2400 now btw. There are three sections
- marnett 6y ago
  No it is not. In 2005 it went from 1600 to 2400. In 2016 it went from 2400 back to 1600.
- NathanielLovin 6y ago
  They got rid of the writing section in 2016, it's back to 1600 (with optional essay)
caseysoftware 6y ago

charlesju 6y ago

I think you're underestimating how much of the inequality has been baked in by Junior year of High School. 16 years of living a life where parents and teachers nurture the students for maximum growth is going to be easily reflected in any way you want to measure aptitude against someone that grew up in a rough environment. From the article it seems like the UC are going to develop their own test, that will further divide those with resources that can study and prep for multiple tests and those that cannot. The issues with the diversity in the UC system are rooted in a much deeper level of inequality in society that probably cannot be fixed with these band aids.

remarkEon 6y ago
Seems totally unrelated, unless you believe that academic aptitude is 100% environmental.
- charlesju 6y ago
  Empirical data shows those from upper middle class families tend to do better than those living near the poverty line. Seems pretty well documented at this point.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    So? Empirical data also shows that if you’re 7’ tall you tend to be good at basketball. Pointing out that people who are doing well now tend to do well in the future is not a useful observation. My original point in this discussion was that removing the tests actually hurts people who are not doing well now, since they have fewer opinions to game the system and having an empirical and objective test of their abilities is the best (and cheapest) opportunity to stand out.

philsnow 6y ago

> panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system Speaking as a graduate of the UC system, I doubt "elites" are clamoring to get their kids into it.

ciarannolan 6y ago

>That sound you hear is panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system [...] Are you sure? Because I think the "elites" or very wealthy will be perfectly fine with removing objectivity. In fact, it helps them. This hurts working class and poor applicants who don't fit the, shall we say, "background" that admissions offices of elite universities are looking for in 2020. As time goes on I have less and less respect for credentials from elite institutions because of this.

remarkEon 6y ago
I've edited my comment because I wasn't clear. I agree with you. >This hurts working class and poor applicants who don't fit the, shall we say, "background" that admissions offices of elite universities are looking for in 2020. Exactly this. The test was a way out, especially for gifted kids from poor backgrounds.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]