I am actually not optimistic with social sciences in general. Standardized tests being the best predictor of academic/work place success (r=.5 or higher) has been known for years. Folks in other disciplines have come to the same conclusion as well. I think the breakthrough will come in molecular genetics and the like:
Indeed. And the President of Chicago even so stated. He didn’t say that standardized testing was not helpful in admissions; rather, he said it hindered their other goals. It is also why the U-Cal system does not count standardized testing as much as top privates.
btw: U-Cal studied thousands of admissions, grades against various tests and they found that the old Achievement test for English had the highest predictive value of any single test (other than AP English). (But if I recall incorrectly, I’m sure someone will refresh my old memory.)
fwiw: love to see someone ask the Chicago Prez the obvious question about the GRE for their highly-ranked grad programs, or the GMAT for thier highly ranked b-school.)
This thread is being sidetracked by the decision made by the University of Chicago to no longer require standardized testing with the implications for the students that will apply to that school. Although a great discussion topic, it does not have any direct relevance to the current UC topic at hand. If you want to post your thoughts on this specific discussion, I suggest you post on this thread:
Previous UC studies like https://cshe.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/publications/rops.geiser._sat_6.13.07.pdf suggest that the predictive quality of frosh admission factors for college GPA in order is: HSGPA > SAT II writing > SAT II third test and SAT I verbal > SAT I and II math (table 4 et al). Note that the SAT II writing, formerly English language achievement test, later became the writing section of the SAT reasoning test with 2400 maximum score.
Harvard’s admissions dean once said in an interview that the order of predictive value was AP scores > SAT subject scores and the writing sections of SAT/ACT > HSGPA > SAT/ACT (except the writing sections).
Of course, both of the above may have been before large scale gaming of the SAT writing section by test prep companies.
Both of the above suggest that standardized tests focused on achievement are more useful in predicting college performance than those which are supposedly “aptitude” or “IQ” tests, and that the latter are weaker than HSGPA.
I think considering the current state of things in California they should have a constitutional initiative on the ballot that calls for Holistic admissions and diversity in the admission process.
@ucbalumnus I think you are confusing correlation with causation. It is true that poor blacks and Hispanics wont do as well initially as other groups. However, given some time and resources to develop their foundations they will do just as well.
^^I believe that Berkeley did have holistic admissions prior to Prop 209. (Well, Cal was really more “subjective” back in the day, placing weight on EC’s.) UCLA and the other UCs went to holistic after 209.
But note, UC has more heavily weighted HS GPA over test scores for a long time.
Actually, holistic admission for UCs is the current system; previous admission systems were point systems.
Holistic does not mean that race and ethnicity must or must not be considered. It just means that each application is evaluated as a whole, using whatever criteria is to be used.
Hmmmmm….personally I don’t think you could have “holistic” admissions without considering race/sex/ethnicity……otherwise it would be considered merit based only (merit IMO includes athletics/EC’s/etc.)
Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative or CCRI) is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education
That’s true but then those factors are much more difficult to discern then GPA/Scores/Race/Ethnicity/Gender, and with the amount of applications they get its unlikely they go into depth on any of those non traditional factors.
People get this wrong all the time. Long before Prop 209, UC admissions has been Comprehensive Review, but CR is based on a point system that used to be published – until students started gaming the point system. Race is not a factor in CR, nor has it been – certainly since 209. Personal challenge is a factor. Since there is a push both on the institutional side and on the applicant end (those with personal challenges), this factor is at least qualitatively prominent right now in UC admissions. Thus, in pragmatic terms, there is in fact a higher bar for those without what UC determines are personal challenges. Example: If you have an UW 3.8 + some UC-defined personal challenges [real example there, this year], but many of your competitors have a slightly lower GPA, similar scores, and even more personal challenges than you have, you are less likely to be admitted to Berkeley if you are not from Northern CA than those same competitors.
@epiphany Thank you for the clear explanation. That actually makes a lot of sense given who I see getting into UCB as a transfer and who doesn’t make it. My question is this: are the personal challenges solely subjectively described and reported? I have seen many students try to “game” the personal challenges issue through their transfer apps. Does anyone check on their stories? How would they? For example, if they say they have a parent who is mentally ill, does anyone ever ask for proof? Most of my students self-report anxiety, but when you ask them for specifics, it’s clear that they are using the term colloquially and not clinically. And yet they talk about overcoming anxiety in their apps all the time. Would that give them a leg up?
What’s surprising to me is that more applicants haven’t started to game the personal challenge/adversity ticket. Relatively easy to make up something for the essay, since UC does not accept recs, almost no way to verify. (Sure, UC does randomly audit applications, but no way to prove that adversity or an ‘ism’ did not happen.)
@bluebayou We must have cross posted! I think they have started to game that system. Some do it quite intentionally and some simply, being teenagers, think that their everyday life sorts of challenges are massive challenges, and they overstate them.
indeed, @ccprofandmomof2 they have started gaming the system, and the majority of them (among those that I see doing this) are not just exaggerating or misunderstanding terms; they are overreaching subconsciously, even if not consciously being deceptive. And then, of course, there are the outright liars.
A modicum of control is provided by the fact that UC considers certain (verifiable) situations to be objectively challenges. Except that it’s still quite political, i.m.o. That is, an Asian student here on his own, challenged in the area of written English, will absolutely be given a higher bar than an undocumented Latino/a immigrant with a language challenge. If I were Asian, I would be screaming about this much more than I would be spending keystrokes about the so-called “bias” in elite private admissions, where Asians are the largest minority at virtually all elite universities, and are disadvantaged only in numbers applying to similar/same programs from similar/same geographic regions.
I think this preference at UC is blatant discrimination. I guess this could alternatively belong on the Race thread in College Admissions, but we are talking about UC methodology here.