What goal, exactly?
I have no idea what this camp is or what they believe. Could you describe it? Also could you explain how comparing admission rates calls it into question?
I’d ever expect the acceptance rates to be the same for these two groups, and I am curious as to why others would assume they would be?
You can keep repeating unsupported assertions about CA kids, but that doesn’t make them true.
One of the goals is to admit applicants whose test score is not a good representation of the rest of the application. However, this does not mean everyone in the applicant pool meets this description of having scores that are not a good representation. Many persons with low test scores also have weak rest of application including a combination of weak grades, weak course rigor, weak LORs, weak ECs/award, etc.
If admit rates are identical, then that is suggestive of non-submitters being favored over submitters due to the previously noted correlation between different parts of the application. However, there can be exceptions. For example, suppose a public college has auto admit without scores for students who have a top x% class rank and expects others to submit scores, so the top class rank kids mostly apply test optional, while the low class rank kids mostly apply test submitter. At this college, I’d expect test optional applicants to have a much higher admit rate than test submitter. To determine which group is more favored, you need to consider more than just admit rate.
I’m not familiar with the website, but the article title begins, "Opinion: " . Regardless of size of a news organization, I’d treat the article differently if the title begins, "Opinion: " than if it does not. My comments about reporting quality and conclusions were based on the referenced article, rather than the size of the news website.
And your substance-less responses don’t make my comments false, either. I know families who have opted out of the testing rat race. I know families who are content with the options in Ca, from CC to CS to UC. No tests considered. Chasing test-based merit money may be right for your family, but it is by no means the only path available to others. Some choose another path, whether you acknowledge it or not.
ETA: Of those who attend college after a attending Ca public high school, 85% attend either a CSU, a UC, or a CaCC. 4 percent attend in-state privates, and only 11% attend college out of state. 85% of these students didn’t need to take the SAT or ACT.
However, some (not all) of those 85% did take an SAT or ACT, if they thought that they needed an SAT or ACT score to apply to a private or out-of-state college.
California or elsewhere, standardized tests are but one of the activities that can be stressful to high schoolers. Trying to maximize their GPAs, build shiny portfolios of ECs, get 4s or 5s on AP tests, and craft college essays that stand out from the crowd, can all be stressful. But peculiarly only standardized tests get singled out.
In terms of stress on students, I don’t think enough is being made about the effects of watching the 25/75th percentile scores of all schools go through the roof. Because these schools want to have their cake and eat it too - they like TO because it gives them more flexibility, but also because it makes them seem more selective. And watching all of the scores go up makes everything feel more uncertain for the students. Not to mention the game of deciding whether or not to send scores.
Curious where that 85% stat comes from. My DS25 is a “high stats kid”. With the complete craziness that is now the UC admissions process, he is thinking of applying to 1 maybe 2 UCs and 1 CSU. And we are assuming he will be denied. Outside of that he’s focusing his efforts OOS. A huge majority of his friends are doing the same thing. He has to take the SAT.
It’s just a sad fact for a lot of CA kids.
Among California public high school students who enroll in college:
- 28% enroll in public four-year campuses in-state (18% at CSU, 10% at UC). • 57% enroll in public two-year in-state community colleges.
- 4% enroll in private in-state colleges, predominately four-year institutions.
- 11% enroll in out-of-state institutions.
Interesting data and quite a few years old. I would love to see something current. I looked at my county which is more in line with what I’m seeing than the overall state. Thanks for the link.
These are simply not useful stats since they include CC and non-capped CSUs that never required the SAT. What is important is to examine UC admissions, comparing pre-pandemic 2019 with the most recent 2022 stats for CA residents (Undergraduate admissions summary | University of California):
| Total applicants | 2019 | 2022 | Growth | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any campus | 115987 | 132488 | 14% | |
| Berkeley | 50148 | 72466 | 45% | |
| Davis | 55375 | 65414 | 18% | |
| Irvine | 70570 | 84774 | 20% | |
| Los Angeles | 69613 | 91588 | 32% | |
| Merced | 23467 | 26229 | 12% | |
| Riverside | 43148 | 46498 | 8% | |
| San Diego | 66064 | 84344 | 28% | |
| Santa Barbara | 65817 | 73595 | 12% | |
| Santa Cruz | 44371 | 53074 | 20% | |
| Total applications | 488573 | 597982 | 22% | |
| Per applicant | 4.21 | 4.51 |
| Admits | 2019 | 2022 | Admit rate 2019 | Admit rate 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any campus | 71479 | 85254 | 62% | 64% |
| Berkeley | 9336 | 10483 | 19% | 14% |
| Davis | 19608 | 21130 | 35% | 32% |
| Irvine | 14995 | 15656 | 21% | 18% |
| Los Angeles | 8354 | 8425 | 12% | 9% |
| Merced | 17256 | 24252 | 74% | 92% |
| Riverside | 24219 | 31095 | 56% | 67% |
| San Diego | 17849 | 20117 | 27% | 24% |
| Santa Barbara | 17689 | 19643 | 27% | 27% |
| Santa Cruz | 19989 | 22856 | 45% | 43% |
| Total admits | 149295 | 173657 | 30.6% | 29.0% |
| Per applicant | 2.09 | 2.04 |
| Enrolled | 2019 | 2022 | Yield 2019 | Yield 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any campus | 36347 | 39709 | 51% | 47% |
| Berkeley | 4634 | 5233 | 50% | 50% |
| Davis | 4871 | 4794 | 25% | 23% |
| Irvine | 4712 | 4592 | 31% | 29% |
| Los Angeles | 4433 | 4980 | 53% | 59% |
| Merced | 2091 | 2378 | 12% | 10% |
| Riverside | 4588 | 5162 | 19% | 17% |
| San Diego | 4359 | 5281 | 24% | 26% |
| Santa Barbara | 3636 | 3858 | 21% | 20% |
| Santa Cruz | 3024 | 3433 | 15% | 15% |
There are a number of salient points in this data. Firstly, the surge in applications to top UCs (UCB, UCLA and UCSD), up 28%-45%, accompanied by a collapse in admit rate. That’s mostly a product of more applications per student (4.51 vs 4.21) rather than growth in CA residents applying. More people are taking their shot at a top UC, but that’s creating more uncertainty for everyone about the outcome.
And although at face value it looks like the overall admit rate has increased, that’s due to more applicants being redirected to Merced and RIverside, many of whom likely weren’t interested or didn’t even apply to Merced but were redirected there because they were guaranteed a spot at a UC through state or local eligibility guarantees (top 9%).
However, the most important takeaway result is the notable decline in overall yield at the UCs as a whole (down from 51% to 47%) despite strong yield growth at top UCs, which indicates that fewer applicants are getting admitted to UCs that they want to attend, and they are deciding to go elsewhere instead. Some may go to CC or CSUs, others may decide to go out of state. But these outcomes are not a sign of a healthy state flagship university system or one that families are likely to be happy and less stressed about.
Let’s omit the following types of comments from posts, please:
• You clearly don’t understand
• Why don’t you go back and read…
• So let me rephrase so that we all understand…
Aside from not being helpful, they are ToS violations. And to be crystal clear, using similar phrasing to the above violates ToS.
Additionally, please refrain from flagging posts simply because you disagree with content. And if you flag a post complaining about a user’s behavior, please ensure that you’re not guilty of the same behavior. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
I’ll also note that there are two different issues associated with stress and the SAT.
Firstly there is everyday stress during your high school career. Unless you are sufficiently disadvantaged to have existential stress just surviving, most high school students could have a stressfree time in high school by not caring about grades, advanced courses or ECs, going home and playing computer games every evening, and planning to go to CC afterwards. But if you want to apply to a selective school, then there will be stress associated with getting As, taking advanced courses, pursuing ECs, and potentially taking the SAT. The amount and source of stress will differ by person: those who test poorly or who have test anxiety may feel more stress taking the SAT (or AP exams), those who are introverts may feel more stress running for class president or applying for/working in a customer service job, and those who are not athletically talented may feel more stress trying out for the soccer team or trying to become a varsity team captain. If you want to limit the amount of everyday stress, you would let people choose which of these areas they want to use to showcase their strengths, and you would go test optional, not test blind or test required.
But there is a second area of stress and that is in the application process itself. The process is made more stressful if you have to apply more widely and have less certainty about whether you’ll get into a school you want to attend. It is made less stressful if you have more idea about where you stand. A less selective school may use only quantitative factors or in some states like TX, quantitative factors alone may allow some students to know they’ll be admitted to a desirable selective school. But even if this is not the case, if you can compare yourself on quantitative measures to prior applicants using sites like Naviance, and have a better idea about your chances, your stress can be eased. That is made harder if the only quantitative factors being considered are GPA and not SAT, because you can’t go to Naviance and ask what is the likelihood of admission for a varsity sports team captain from my school, or someone who did X hours per work working at Starbucks. In this case SAT required will generally result in the least amount of added stress due to uncertainty, followed by SAT optional (at least those submitting a SAT score might gain some idea of their chances) and last of all test blind.
In summary, I can see reasons why SAT optional might ease the everyday stress for some high school students. Some may even conclude that outweighs the application stress from added uncertainty. But there is no basis for concluding that SAT blind (as we have in CA) improves the situation in terms of either everyday stress or application stress for students and families.
A couple of random thoughts reading through this thread:
Schools like Bowdoin, who have been TO for decades, share scores for the matriculating class. These include those from applicants didn’t provide them until after they were admitted. Still, they are quite high.
This suggests that the AOs are pretty good at finding other data points that get them to the same point. If we look at all the things that correlate to higher scores, though, it’s quite possible that while eschewing scores, they still may be reinforcing the same preferences. (Not accusing them of that, btw, just suggesting the possibility. ) It’s hard to know how many of the students who submitted scores were the ones who broke the stereotype and got a look for that reason vs how many mirrored other good (possibly privileged) students but simply lacked a stellar score. Conversations around whether the juice is worth the squeeze are tricky when we can’t know, except through anecdotes, who benefits. Even with a poor score, the son of the guy who donated the athletic complex will be admitted. And many of the impressive Questbridge kids do have scores.
The SAT tests something quite specific, and it may or may not be something that matters depending on the school and the course of study. With that said, given how education and grading policies vary, standardized data could be very valuable - applied knowledgeably and correctly. I recall a teacher at DS’ school saying that one of the things he loved about the IB program was that it kept teachers honest - were they delivering content effectively, were their biases getting in the way, were their grading standards appropriate? That’s what standardized tests offer - an opportunity to calibrate. For that reason, it would seem helpful for AOsto use scores. In context. But as @MITChris pointed out, they may need instruction on how to do that.
Some schools are equipped to provide a path for capable students coming from high schools that didn’t prepare them well. Others will fail them. Schools should recognize where they are on that spectrum and get whatever info they need to ensure the students they admit will succeed. If those are scores, so be it.
Lastly, through many outlets, there is more info about who is admitted to schools. Many people see this as a formula - if I have these grades, this many APs, this EC, these scores, etc, I can get into X school. But at many schools, and almost all that people pursuing this course target, it doesn’t work like that and probably never will, and requiring scores won’t change that.
It’s something I personally worry about very much for my kids though I try to keep my worries to myself and not to let them influence their decisions regarding their educational and career pathways. As my brother tells me, they’re bright and have been provided with a strong foundation and I’ll just have to trust that they will find their way (which is easy to say as his child is only 6 months old. We’ll see if he’s whistling the same tune when they’re older).
Here in Canada, despite the fact that our PSE and economic landscape is very different from the US, I am seeing the same rat race to get into the most selective programs possible as well. A certain segment of high school students are facing an ever increasing amount of pressure (some from their families and some self-generated) to get into the handful of programs they perceive will provide material advantage to landing lucrative careers. Students themselves greatly fear not being able to find well paid employment post-graduation and they are constantly being bombarded by the message that they’ll all end up becoming minimum wage earning baristas. Rampant high school grade inflation has just made the stress worse.
This wasn’t really a worry when I attended high school and applied to university almost 40 years ago. Nobody really sweated their grades and no one really worried about their employment prospects. Given the ever increasing degree of income inequality and the projected disruption of AI to the employment sector I just see this situation continuing to get worse.
Just when I think we’ve collectively said everything there is to say on the topic…
I think it’s a mistake to say that SATs favor wealthy kids. In fact, test scores are one of the harder things to “game” which is why I continue to maintain that they’re an important data point. Parents can buy a “boondoggle EC” or they be heavy handed with an essay edit, or pay for traveling sports clubs and specialized camps to give their kid a hook. They can also pay for SAT prep, but the kid has to show up and perform. It’s not a given that test prep = high score.
Thus, while it’s certainly accurate to say that most high-scoring kids are affluent, that’s different than saying that all affluent kids are high scoring. Studies show that test prep helps, but even with prep, many affluent kids aren’t breaking 1400. Prep isn’t a guarantee of a score.
So how does it help the lower SES kid? Because AOs are rightfully considering context and a low-income kid who worked at McDonald’s to help pay the family bills isn’t being considered in the same bucket as the affluent, private school kid from a wealthy zip code.
We visited a bunch of schools in the past year.
When the topic of standardized tests was brought up, the AOs said the same thing.
It’s completely up to you. Not sending them “won’t hurt you.” We evaluate submitted test scores in context of your background. There is no minimum score.
One AO was bold enough to say that if you don’t send a test score but if all of the other applicants in your school/district have submitted very high scores to them, they will draw their own conclusion.
While I have a lot of criticism of the SATs, I am also a proponent of test-optional over test-blind.
I really don’t think that a student who As in every one of the most rigorous math classes that their high school provides needs to have a 790 on the SAT math section to demonstrate that they have mastery of the subject. No matter how much grade inflation a school has, a student who has achieved an A from every single math teacher is likely to have the mastery required to do well in math in college. Similarly, a student whose math grades are in the C range likely does not really have the mastery on math required for any major that requires math at the level required by engineering or physics, even if the get 800 on their math SATs.
However, students who have mostly Bs in their math grades, but have scored 780 on the math SATs indicate that they likely retained enough of what they learned to do well in majors such as biology or geology, which require competence in math, but not excellence.
I also think that the SATs should be revamped. Success on the SATs is dependant, in a large part, on knowing how to do well on the SATs. A kid will do better on their second SAT without any additional prep, simply because they understand how to answer the SATs. Moreover, more than half of the SAT prep is learning how to answer the SAT questions, rather than learning mastery of the material. SATs should be built more like the tests that students get in high school and in college.
In short, I think that the SATs/ACT can be a valuable additional measure for some students, but are neither critical not required.
I also don’t have an issue with colleges which have a relative low SAT score requirement. I do not see an issue, for example, with Public colleges in a state which provides free SAT testing to all high school students and require student to have a minimum of the 50th percentile for entry. I do think that this also requires both affordable open admission Community Colleges, and the availability of good affordable training programs for the trades.
[ aside]
If we believe that high school is not enough to prepare people for life in the world, training programs for the trades can also be developed that provide college-level gen-ed classes alongside professional training. There is no reason that a plumber or a carpenter shouldn’t have a grounding in science and humanities.
[ /aside]
My comment has little or nothing to do with test prep. The advantage comes in the quality of education and educational opportunities, the stability of lifestyle, the wherewithal to navigate the future demands of higher education from a young age, the absence of stressors, etc. The focus on access to test prep misses the depth of the correlation. The depth of the correlation is also where the double counting comes in to play.
Yes, there is no doubt that affluent kids have certain advantages that are wide, deep and which compound over time. Test scores are just one manifestation (there are certainly many, many other manifestations).
But isn’t that why AOs (and most of us on this thread) believe context is so important?
There is a lot of range between kids whose parents are drug addicted and the child is barely getting enough food and lacks housing stability (a tragedy and devastation by any standard), and coming from a family with the kind of wealth that enables them to put their name on the new science center at a university. Within that range are many variables, some of which are mitigated or enhanced by wealth (e.g., a great school district); and some that aren’t (an alcoholic parent, for example). Each kid has a different context, their SES being but one variable.
I will continue to maintain that more data, particularly objective data, is useful. Not dispositive—but useful—in determining preparedness and “fit.”
We clearly disagree and I respect your experience and opinion.