Ending Systemic Racism through Systemic Racism - UC and the SAT

[VaporTrail]

Here are some responses this week to UC's decision to eliminate the SAT from their admissions process. I have articles from The Atlantic's Caitlin Flanagan and Substack's John McWhorter on the topic.

Flanagan Article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/why-university-california-dropping-sat/619522/
And here's an archive link to get around the paywall: Why Is the University of California Dropping the SAT? - The Atlantic (archive.is)

To summarize her article, the UC system organized a multi-disciplinary task force for the mammoth task of making recommendations on improving the admissions process. The UC Board of Regents ignored the findings of this study and eliminated the examination outright.  Much of this study included the analysis of SAT and ACT on UC admissions and outcomes. There was a "Hail Mary" pipeline of 22,000 students, half of them black or hispanic, who were initially filtered out by GPA, but tested high enough on SAT to get accepted. Now this pathway for underrepresented students is gone. Here is some of what the task force wrote about - emphasis mine

Quote

The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.3 For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.

Source: sttf-report.pdf (universityofcalifornia.edu)

And here's one from John McWhorter: RACIST ANTIRACISM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IS BACK - by John McWhorter - It Bears Mentioning (substack.com)

Quote

When I taught at UC Berkeley in the 1990s, it was an open secret that there was a two-tier undergraduate student body. Namely, black and Latino students tended to be considerably less prepared for the workload than white and Asian students.

No one talked about it openly, but plenty attested to it when they were sure the wall didn’t have ears, and to notice it was not racist – it was simple fact. Of course there were weak white and Asian students; of course there were excellent black and Latino students. But a tendency was unmistakable. It was painfully obvious that brown students were admitted according to very different standards than white and Asian ones.
...
It is also reasonable to predict that brown students will tend to have a harder time coping with what is expected of them regardless of how spunky they are. Get ready, UC: the same administrators feeling so good about being “antiracist” right now will be assailed by the benficiaries of this “antiracism” for giving them inadequate “support” – although few will explain just what additional support could be offered – and hot on the heels of that will be plangent cries that Berkeley and UCLA are “racist” hellholes.

And let’s not even mention that white and Asian kids will see that a suspicious many of the brown kids around them are not performing on the level that they are. Even if they resist acknowledging the pattern, in line with the antiracist training they will receive in today’s context, they will not be able to help internalizing the reality of what they see.

As someone who's been in academia for a long time, I can't help but see this decision to cut out the SAT as a mistake. From an admissions standpoint, the SAT/ACT is the only 1:1 comparison you'll get in an application pool. The goal of it appears to be to make the demographics of acceptances match the demographics of the population. It's going to hurt qualified students of Asian descent (this is the systemic racism part) as they're actually the only overrepresented demographic in the UC system. This "solution" does nothing to solve or improve the root issue of poor education standards in low income areas. This is the liberal equivalent of the GOPe lecturing people on respect for life, restricting abortion, and then giving zero resources to these mothers with unwanted babies. 

[MLD Woody]

Did they keep the ACT?

[Westside Steve]

First of all it's a little bit facetious to pretend that unwanted pregnancies are due to the lack of availability of abortion. And zero resources is completely incorrect.

Also lummping whites and Asians into a single category and blacks and Latinos into another category is pretty silly Imo. All four of those groups would have different reasons for performing better or worse.

But of course lowering standards for people of color, or anyone for that matter, doesn't make them smarter or more capable.

But that's not really the goal is it?

WSS

 

[VaporTrail]

On 7/25/2021 at 11:27 PM, MLD Woody said:

Did they keep the ACT?

No. All standardized testing is out. Source: University of California Board of Regents unanimously approved changes to standardized testing requirement for undergraduates | University of California

On 7/26/2021 at 7:11 AM, Westside Steve said:

First of all it's a little bit facetious to pretend that unwanted pregnancies are due to the lack of availability of abortion. And zero resources is completely incorrect.

Also lummping whites and Asians into a single category and blacks and Latinos into another category is pretty silly Imo. All four of those groups would have different reasons for performing better or worse.

WSS

 

I never said that was the reason there were unwanted pregnancies - there's obviously personal responsibility involved. I'm more concerned the GOPe has celebrated the efforts they've made in restricting abortions without any regard for the downstream effects, which is exactly what the UC board of regents is doing in this case. I'll concede that "zero resources" is an exaggeration. 

Quote

But of course lowering standards for people of color, or anyone for that matter, doesn't make them smarter or more capable.

But that's not really the goal is it?

Bingo

[calfoxwc]

and.... getting rid of standardized testing lends itself to subjective appraisal. Meaning, if you are "woke/liberal" you get an "A".

if you are not, you get weeded out.

   back in my early pre-Air Force days, I was in college, and wrote a pretty nice paper. I wrote it from a conservative point of view - obviously.

   and got a "D-". Not happy, I went to the Dean, and whited out the grade, and he read it and graded it.

He said it was an excellent paper, and even if he was trying to be a bastard and screw with me - it was at worst a "B-" paper.

but, he said all he could do was let me retake the class for free  - because of...academic freedom.

  and, he knew which prof it was right away - he told me who it was. He said don't be surprised - he's a prominent leftwing anti-war professor who is actively engaged with protests on campus.

   So, with getting rid of the standardized tests - they can actively select those leftwing oriented students into a college, etc etc.

too bad - it's a "look at me I hate" culture - courtesy of the msm these days.