I didn’t see the comments from profs, but a part of me wonders if it’s the same thing like when older people lament about “kids these days” and how everything always seems to be in decline. I taught at a UC for several years (first as a GSI then as a lecturer for a while post-PhD) and I constantly complained about students coming in underprepared for college. I taught a freshman/sophomore composition class: many students were incapable of writing a single coherent paragraph, the majority were completely mystified by semicolons, unintentional plagiarism galore, weak textual analysis skills, and on and on…Whereas, you know, back in MY day 
This was the years between 2006 and 2014, long before test optional/blind. Students were unprepared for college-level work even then with all the testing, and at the time, I wasn’t the only one to complain about this. So, indeed, a part of me feels like this is just more of that “Back in MY day…” complaining, only now they can point to test scores as some kind of tangible reason, whereas before we pointed to, I don’t know, video games and iPhones or something.
I teach at a school that has been test optional since long before COVID. Students coming in post-COVID are missing some basic things that were lost (for many, not all) during the COVID disruption. This is not due to test-optional policies, which have not changed. Some of the things lost are not the things tested on the SAT.
Yes, that makes a lot of sense, too.
I am curious how the UC system’s test blind admissions is going to pan out over the longer term. Mostly because they are also looking at only two years of grades, and limiting the weight they place on rigor with the capped weighted averages. And no counselor letters or interviews. There must be tens of thousands of applications that look similar stats wise. I’m obviously not in California, but it seems so far, admissions seems to be even more arbitrary than elsewhere, based on the threads last cycle. But would love to hear more from Californians.
I strongly agree with MITChris’s point that test optional unfairly puts the onus on 18 year olds to decide whether their scores are good enough to submit or not. We were confident that our 2023 senior had done well to submit, but so many of her friends really struggled with this (and whether to submit a frequent topic here) Better to have the Admissions Office make determinations about scores, particularly if students are being evaluated in comparison to their socioeconomic peers, and there are no hard cut offs.
I don’t think it would be hard to educate high school college counselors and families about how scores might be evaluated via outreach.
I expect that is, in effect, the new norm; a lottery style system essentially. Most schools’ reputations are built on graduate/ research, so it may not take a ranking hit
In some other thread (long ago), an argument was made to simply move college admissions to a lottery system. Perhaps that’s the easiest way to go. Would save lots of money for colleges and students who would not have to spend on tests or test prep!
I’m not sure…I don’t know how much weight had been placed on test scores prior to them going test blind, perhaps @gumbymom or @ucbalumnus know more. All the other factors you mention are still the same, and stats aren’t the only thing they are looking at…there are certainly differences in activities and PIQ answers across candidates. They are also looking in context of the HS and student’s neighborhood/family among other things, I assume the UCs use CollegeBoard’s Landscape to help here.
You can see the general factors in the admission decision at the following link. And that page has links to each UC’s factors/process: How applications are reviewed | UC Admissions
Kids are light years different now from kids 10 years ago. They are technological wonders who know how to use the tools and data out there to get what they want. The cost is that they don’t read or communicate as effectively. (and this is not going to change). But, the education system is by and large stuck in the 1970s way of how they think “college students” should be when they come in. Covid and online learning exposed the cracks. The cracks are professors out of touch with the changed dynamic of students coming in. The SAT’s represent an archaic measure.
This 1,000%. The data are so very clear about this.
A friend of mine started test prep in the 8th grade. Are her relatively high test scores impressive?
Yes, they definitely use counselor-provided school profiles and, at least for in state students, they are often familiar with school/neighborhood context. They often know which school grade inflate/deflate, etc. They also often have a sense of how well other students from those have performed. I will also mention that each campus has a process for supplemental review for students that they feel they need more information about. For UCB, they can request letters of recommendation, for other campuses, I think they use questionnaires (although I don’t have experience with other campuses, so not 100% sure what they use, but they do have a process). And some campuses do use the weighted uncapped GPA, so rigor is fully considered.
I think these are quite important, too, especially on a campus basis as each campus tends to have certain qualities they are particularly looking for (whether leadership, collaboration, innovation, etc). I think the PIQs do a good job of assessing that, much as a job interview helps hiring managers narrow down their candidate pool. In fact, a job interview is the rough equivalent of the PIQs (unlike other kinds of admissions personal statements).
America’s global competitors would love nothing more.
Isnt it more likely they are just using unofficial quotas for admission? That way they get the “right” mix, however defined, and no one can legally challenge the process as discriminatory.
I expect this results in admitees with a broader range of ability than in the past,but the school can compensate with more remedial courses, which were once only prevalent in community colleges or less selective schools. Essentially a flattening of the school hierarchy, for example, between UCLA and UC Merced.
Our kids started test prep in pre-K. If by “test prep” we mean learning reading and math (both in their mother tongue other than English).
They scored 35 on the ACT in middle school (youngest in 7th grade).
I don’t apologize.
I’m not sure I understand. Quotas of what? I know they do consider things like first generation students and that there has been additional emphasis on this in recent years. I am not sure if there is a quota at play, although I wouldn’t be surprised if there are long term goals in place for engaging more first gens. Also, there is essentially a quota for in state vs out of state students but, same thing, it is more of a long term goal for ensuring that the UCs are meeting their mission of serving Californians. Yes, that may mean accepting less qualified Californian students in place of more qualified out of state students. I don’t think that means accepting UNqualified Californian students, however,
I think you would be shocked by the UC admissions from our private Texas high school. Full pay students used the UC system very successfully when they didnt qualify for their own state flagship due to class rank rules. Quite the popular option.
For CA residents, admission readers see three GPA’s: weighted-capped, which is for primarily for eligibility; weighted-uncapped, and unweighted. App readers also see a class rank of sorts, based on students from that HS that applied to UC that year.
btw: UC has for years more heavily weighted GPAs over test scores.
No doubt, and the UCs love out of state students because they pay $$$$. That led to some UCs accepting A LOT of OOS students to the detriment of in state students and that in turn led to the backlash that has led to what essentially amounts to state imposed quotas (or at least goals) to ensure that the pendulum swings back to favor in state students (with the promise of increased state funding to compensate).
I predict the UC student body will evolve remarkably quickly to mirror the state’s demographics ( limited only by the need to get sufficient full pay kids). Maybe it should. Maybe public universities shouldnt strive to be elite but merely represent the average public.