To be clear, I am not trying to keep any particular demographic out of top UC schools. I think a holistic review of applications that also includes test scores allows schools to admit whatever student body composition is wishes. Might a school think that lower SEC students are better prepared to succeed at top colleges because they have already shown they can overcome adversity (a totally reasonable hypothesis, btw)? If so, they can absolutely use that grit as a factor in admissions decisions. Maybe that grit even weighs more than a higher test score that a privileged student applies with because the privileged student has had numerous supports throughout his education. Perfectly valid. I am not saying schools should only look at test scores. I am saying they should be one factor among many that admissions teams look at when evaluating applicants. Personally, I think test scores are most helpful when they are used as a tool to validate a high GPA or a high grade in a particular class. A student who receives an A+ in AP Calculus should not be earning a 2 on the AP exam and a 550 on the math SAT. If this is a kidsâ stats, UCSD can question the rigor of the AP Calculus class and grading. This disconnect can happen at highly privileged schools just as much as under resourced schools.
I also wonder how closely the UCSD math placement process actually correlates with standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT.
Do students above a certain cutoff level on SAT/ACT consistently do well on the UCSD math placement test? Or are students managing to get through high school math and even do adequately on SAT/ACT, but are missing fundamental middle school level math or elementary math skills, and this deficit is then exposed on the UCSD math placement test?
I did read through the entire report and I donât know the answer to this.
There have been dozens of threads touching on whether the UC should use scores. Why does this have to be yet another one?
Why does a discussion of math proficiency of a relatively small number of students at UCSD (all kids impacted by covid) have to turn into yet another thread where disgruntled posters exclaim that the UCs need to redo admissions because because a kid with a 1500 didnât get in and but a kid with a 1200 did get in?
And if test scores were required, and it still happened, would you really accept the explanation that it was based on other factors?
There was an earlier report or draft too, discussed in another thread, and I donât think the answers were in it either. I canât find the link but I think you participated in the discussion. you might recall it?
Something seems weird about the report. How does one determine that the students are at middle school level (or 4th-6th grade, from the earlier report) if they are checking for college math aptitude.
Also, is it a temporary issue due to the losses related to covid, or is it more than that?
The Fall 2023 math skills assessment described at the end of the report specifically tested elementary and middle school math, but I donât know whether this is part of the current math assessment.
the Mathematics Department designed and administered a skills assessment test to carefully identify where the students had the most knowledge gaps in elementary and middle school material. The assessment test was designed by the core group of permanent ladder and teaching math faculty who are both subject matter experts and pedagogy experts in mathematics education. The test was designed to carefully follow the California Common Core State Standards in Mathematics, and consisted of 30 questions that covered mathematics topics that are required to be taught in grades 1-8 in all California public elementary and middle schools.
Oh, Common Core mess just caught up. Congratulations! Finally someone understands that writing essays in elementary school about why 3 greater than 1 for 2 pages and ending up with wrong reasoning while giving full credit is not the way to teach math. Surprise⊠I had 1 kid out of 3 coming through common core disaster. She was first year experiment. I had to teach that kid a lot of math myself. She was puzzled why my explanations worked and her teacherâs did not⊠DD had so many holes that it was Hercules efforts to get her to 720 in Math in SAT. Well guess what? Not everyone can pay private tutors and not everyone has mom who used to be Math major years ago⊠Welcome to Curriculum 2.0/Common Core realityâŠ
I have no axe to grind vis-a-vis UCSD. I think the California system in total does a great job of doing what it is designed to do. I think youâre going to see stresses and failure and underperforming anywhere that huge. No system is going to be able to customize a curriculum and a program that works for every single kid all the time, and delivers something that is cost-effective and politically viable.
But I do think itâs just as patronizing to low SES kids to defend remedial work as âbaked inâ somehow to their educational needs as it is to try and shunt those kids out of the elite universities. I suspect that if you were to conduct a longitudinal study of top 100 (too many, not enough?) ranked Uâs (use whichever ranking you want) you would find that at private Uâs, the kids who need remedial work are very, very strong in some other area. So the musical prodigy needs remedial HS English (and English may even be a third or fourth language). The published novelist needs remedial math. And of course the athletes- some who walk in prepared to do university level work in every way and are outstanding academically across the board, and others who will need remediation.
But thereâs a logic to the system- kids with extreme talent in one arena who need help in another, but allegedly thatâs what holistic admissions is supposed to do now that Harvard is no longer using âholisticâ to systematically exclude Jewish, Asian, or other kids.
The patronizing piece is to assume that as a cohort, low SES kids NEED remediation (some do, some donât), and that their entire value to the university lies in their ethnic, racial, or economic âidentityâ in some way. Moreover, what under-resourced means in California is different from West Virginia/Kentucky, and is different from New Hampshire/Maine or Illinois. So defending this remedial track across the board strikes me as a really blunt instrument. You are likely not increasing the number of Black or Brown kids in Vermont by ignoring test scores at the flagship and providing a solid remediation track.
Yes I know Iâm quoting myself, but it is an actual question⊠I would love for some knowledgable person to address it if they can.
The reason I bring this up is that I myself went to college having only completed 3rd grade math. (I went to a weird hippie school.)
I had severe math deficits. But I was able to pass freshman Calculus (nobody thought to give me a placement test, and I didnât think about whether I was ready for it). Because I had no idea about how I was supposed to do math and therefore solved problems in very weird ways, the math department convinced me to be a math major and recruited me to join their math competition team. The higher level math classes were better for me because I loved doing proofs, and because calculators and computers existed. I never really got over my elementary and middle school math deficits though. I am bad to this day at practical applied math stuff, and I had trouble helping my kids with their elementary and middle school math homework.
So Iâm just wondering if some of these students have holes in their math knowledge that is being exposed specifically by UCSDâs math placement testing process focusing on grade 1-8 math?
(and just to be clear, I do not recommend going through life with big gaps in math knowledge! 
)
Edited to add: I also did okay on the Math part of the SAT, and I have no idea why! Maybe there were enough questions that only required logical thinking or good guessing 
I saw in the paperâs recommendations to return to standardized testing that scores are used in placement if scores are provided after admission.
As an aside, last year the UC portal would accept self-reported SAT scores for meeting a requirement, but would only take subscores from the paper SAT, whereas the digital version was not yet approved and does not report these same types of subscores. Since the test has only been available in digital form since March 2024, Iâm wondering if they ever got around to approving the digital test. I canât find the UC admissions page this was on.
Patronizing? I thought we were talking about students who were admitted, but are deemed by the very institution admitting them to need remedial level instruction. Remedial - which I took to mean they lacked the foundational level skill sets they should have mastered in high school, before they can take standard college level classes. To me this means it has been determined by the school that they are -not- ready for the actual college level material. (( They are not taking college course level -which also means, to me, they are less qualified than someone who meets or exceeds that threshold (in that area) and is ready for college level material))
Isnât that what this topic was about?
So a kid who has taken Quantitative reasoning, Stats, Calc etc in HS (and especially if itâs âAPâ designated) and has passed those classes with âCâ or above (though to get into top flagships its likely to need to be at least a B) or say at least a â4â on the AP for those courses or a bare minimum Math SAT of say 550+ for non-stem majors which donât require heavy quant ability, then it should follow theyâd be unlikely to need âremedialâ math.
Since UC schools apparently donât utilize standardized test scores or AP scores, I would guess this means relying on course rigor. Youâve either taken your math classes (with corresponding grades) or you havenât.
If you are at a high powered high schools with resources and AP advanced mathematics, but you havenât completed algebra/pre-calc - the question would be why not - and are you capable? An SAT math score of 550+ would probably indicate you could start at entry level college math (not remedial) or you could take a school administered placement test to see if you could test up and out.
If you are at an under powered high school with few resources, and have taken the highest level math(s) available there, even if they are not âAPâ CALC AB or âStatsâ, but rather an âAâ or âBâ in Algebra/Precalc, then you might not need an SAT score to demonstrate readiness, but certainly if you have both - the course(s) and a math SAT above threshold, then you shouldnât need âremedialâ courses. School placement testing (and subsequent course performance) should be able to verify the correlation between using course achievement (level), course rigor (AP/IB), AP test scores or SAT/ACT scores and preparedness.
When you strike out SAT/ACT standardized testing and/or when you strike out AP scores you lose some ability to identify preparedness. And the further when you roll back off course rigor (AP/IB) or even course levels, because the student either didnât attempt it where available or it just wasnât available, I donât know how you can reliably say âyeah, youâre ready for college mathâ.
That is the strange thing about the report. It states that âabout 20% of students placed into Math 2 had passed AP Calculusâ (and presumably received a good grade, because UCSD is selective that way). Theyâve also presumably received good grades in their other HS math courses leading up to calc. Even at the worst possible high school, it is hard to imagine a student getting an A in an AP Calc class without knowing anything?
Thatâs why I am wondering if some students have math deficits at the elementary and middle school levels that are being picked up by UCSDâs testing specifically?
My understanding is that the digital SAT allows students to use Desmos for the entire math section. (I donât know anything about the ACT.) Might this also have the effect of masking holes in studentsâ elementary and middle school math knowledge? Is it possible that some students are receiving acceptable scores on the SAT despite such deficits? I ask because I truly donât know!
Weâd like to assume, right? An âAâ in the AP course, or a 4 or 5 on the AP test, or an SAT math of 700 or ACT Math of 32 etc⊠something in their should signify that they are college math readyâŠ
As an anecdote, my S24, was a Guaranteed Sophomore Start at UNC-CH. His high school was a high powered well know magnet school in one of the two large metropolis counties in NC. He had taken AP CALC AB and Statistics (with "A"s) and "5"s. He did his freshman year at Purdue, not in engineering but in business (Daniels School of Business) - so even with their business math being less ârigorousâ than their engineering math, the STEM heavy Purdue suggested he take both CALC AB and Stats (again). He aced both, while âcoastingâ in them so he could focus on his other classes.
So he accepts his Guarantee Sophomore Start position at UNC-CH, and they said wouldnât automatically accept his Purdue Calc AB and Stats taken through the business school as his math requirements for his Economics Major enrollment at Chapel Hill, but they would use them for some other general education / elective type credits⊠so then he rolls out⊠okay will you take my AP "5"s for credit out of both of those classes. Uh Yes, those we will take. Lol.
Seems like a waste of schedule space to retake (less rigorous) business calculus after AP calculus with an A grade and 5 score.
My Purdue engineer took the AP credit and moved to the next level. She was told if she could get over 80% on the old finals to feel confident moving on. Iâm really surprised that Daniels wouldnât have the same policy.
Maybe. I think it depends on what the end goals are - I encouraged him to take the AP credits for courses which were not in his core and/ or would be âterminalâ to a specific series.
I was curious about it as well, but we arenât looking to graduate early (<4 years), I had some concerns about the teen aged boy who is definitely very outgoing/social dropping into the college free for all - and he has graduate professional school aspirations. Two "A"s in core courses as refreshers while he could focus on the other four per semester worked out as hoped.
Itâs not for everyone. My daughter at UT-austin has a boyfriend in Computer Science who used major AP credits in order to graduate a year early and start at Lockheed Martin - cost savings was significant concern for him.
Not retaking courses for which one has AP credit can have other benefits besides early graduation. A student who takes the advanced placement may gain schedule flexibility by finishing lower level prerequisites earlier, while getting additional free electives (possibly later) in place of the courses skipped with AP credit.
It is a good idea to try the collegeâs old final exams for the course allowed to be skipped to check oneâs knowledge by the collegeâs standards, so that one can make a more informed placement decision.
What do you mean by âhigh math scoreâ? The UC system is test optional and quite a few of the admitted students without algebra 1 skills had a 4.0 in their math classes.
I donât find it hard. Cheating is rampant in many schools, and schools have little incentive to lower GPAs and more incentives to increase them, as students with a high GPA have an easier time getting in to UCs and a higher graduation rate makes the school look better. I believe ânumber of students taking AP classesâ is also an important metric, so naturally you canât make the AP classes too hard or students wonât take them.
I am not a knowledgeable person on this subject, but I can confirm that I had a similar elementary schooling. While my experience is not as stark as yours, my math education in primary school was quite limited (it was better in middle and high school), and I missed much of what is ordinarily taught in 2nd-6th grade. Yet I excelled in higher level math courses through college. Based on my experience, I can absolutely believe that there are students with big gaps in 4th-6th grade math who can still excel in Calculus and above. Not that I recommend my path. I wish that I had been given a stronger background when I was younger since I think my deficits in more basic math hurt me in other ways. While I think it is likely that @tamagotchi and I are not the typical âremedial mathâ student, I also imagine that we arenât alone in our success in math at a very rigorous university despite initially having a weak background. At the same time, I am hesitant to apply my experience 25+ years ago to UCSD now.
I agree with this. I personally am terrible at math. I suspect I actually have dyscalculia but that wasnât really a known thing when I was in school so of course was never diagnosed. A lot of it fits, but thatâs neither here no there at this point. I did reasonably well on the SAT and went to a mid-tier university when I took, I forget the actual name of the course, but it was essentially âmath for poetsâ or something of the sort. Math for the non-math-y students, perhaps what would even be considered remedial math. I never took calculus, not in high school nor in college, nor any other upper level math. I took that one math for non-math majors class that fulfilled the math requirement and never looked back. I graduated from college magna cum laude and in cursu honorum, which I would consider a successful undergrad career despite my math inability. I took the GRE and hoo boy! My math score was truly an embarrassment. My English and Logic scores were both nearly double my math score - thatâs how low the math score was. And despite that was accepted to grad school at Georgetown where I was required to take a microeconomics course that involved graphing things and I passed by the skin of my teeth. Yet I ultimately received an MA with distinction from my department. I later attended UC Berkeley where I received another MA and a PhD. Throughout this academic journey, where by most measures I was quite successful, I would have been a remedial math student at best and even then would have struggled and did struggle when forced to math. So what? Did I not deserve the education I received because of that? I certainly proved myself academically capable time and again despite it.
My daughter is similar. She is not a math kid. Never took pre-calc and never took calc. She is a junior at UC Berkeley - she took Stats through dual enrollment and fulfilled the only math credit her college requires, so she has never had to take a math class -remedial or otherwise - at Cal. If she did have to take one, Iâm sure it would be a struggle for her. And so what? Does that mean that she does not deserve to be there? She is double major working towards both a BS and a BA degree concurrently, has a 3.98 GPA, and is in her collegeâs honors program. By all measures, she has been very successful academically. She has also served as a peer advisor in her college, has led clubs, has assisted professors with research, and has contributed to the campus and campus life in myriad ways. But she would probably need a remedial math class, if any additional math had been required of her, as she has not taken pre-calc or above, and it sounds like many here would consider her unworthy of admissions for that reason, despite the fact that she has more than proven herself in many other ways.
So to me this is a bit silly. So what if a student accepted to a UC - even a top UC - has a weak spot, whether math or something else? That doesnât make them undeserving or incapable of taking advantage of the academic opportunities that a UC can offer. Many students with a weak spot achieve great things in their stronger areas. I am glad the UCs seem to understand that and evaluate applicants based on what they have the potential to contribute, even if they are not perfect by every possible measure.