Harvard Dropping Subject tests for undergrad admission

[collegealum314]

<p>

This reminds me of something one of my coworkers told me (likely almost a decade ago). When I mentioned to him
that I think I do not like the idea of forcing all students to take the standardized test like SAT-1 or 2. His reply was that if there are no such “objective” tests, the offsprings of those of us in public high schools would have even more troubles in knowing how to get into a college. The college can do anything they want. The history tells us that they do not have a good record of having the interests of us who are not on the top of the society in their mind.

</p>

<p>Exactly. Eliminating an academic criterion for admission just means that admissions has greater latitude in admitting people who are not intellectually talented without having any consequences. This move is about more than just allowing those who are from bad school districts or are destitute to skip the SATII requirement.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>Atkinson’s speeches notwithstanding, the report [url=&lt;a href=“http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/boars/boars.testingrpt.toRegents_000.pdf]here[/url”&gt;http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/boars/boars.testingrpt.toRegents_000.pdf]here[/url</a>] indicates that the new SAT-R (with the writing section added) was found to be a better predictor of frosh GPA than the old SAT-I.</p>

<p>I.e. UC got what it was looking for (an admissions test with better predictive power than the old SAT-I).</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>More importantly, the real question is whether the Academic Senate voted to go along. If not, the speech by Atkinson was just that, a speech, but not policy. (Yes he may have requested a policy change, but unless the Senate approved it, there was no flip-flopping.)</p>