It will be interesting to see how this plays out:

University of California eliminates SAT, ACT exams from admissions process

That's a punch in the gut to ETS and all those test prep companies. But it's also a good decision, in my opinion. Given the outrageous cost of the test itself, and the significant outlay of cold cash to get your kid into one or more test prep programs (costing north of $1K each), the bias against lower income people (and subsequently against people of color) was significant.

Let's make college admissions even more subjective.

Traditionally, that has led to fairness and socially optimal outcomes, right?

I like to point out to people how democratizing the SAT was in its early years.

In the 1950s, before the widespread use of admissions tests, few low-income families ever had aspirations of sending their sons and daughters to "elite" institutions. Those students had no way to "know" that they matched up well with their peers from elite prep schools, peers who got in to Harvard because of the school they went to, the counseling they received, and the fact that they "came from a good family."

The SAT exploded all of that. Middle class kids from Indiana suddenly knew just how good they were, and so did the schools they applied to. Rich kids who were suddenly average found the doors to the Ivy League weren't quite as open (unless, of course, daddy could pony up a million in gifts). The SAT was a game changer.

We know that SAT scores are highly correlated with family income. So are good resumes. Even with its income bias, the SAT remains a good predictor of first year college GPA and retention. Schools that junk it will be throwing out useful information.

A random thought: what you say about being from "a good family" and all that is totally true for private schools, especially the elite ones.

I wonder if this is also a signal that the UC system is now more or less on par (educationally and prestige-wise) with the private liberal arts colleges? Or is this made possible because of the simple fact that it's really difficult to get into a UC school if you're a non-resident, and by law they are required to more or less accept any qualified California resident. In other words, they fit the supply-demand mold that's been in place for most elite schools for decades. They also have the Cal State system as a backstop, enabling them to take the more qualified California students.

Or not. This may just be my COVID-inspired Moscow Mule talking.

I fail to see how the standardized test are achieving anything positive. They are flawed, they suck money out of families, they create a sense of entitlement to those who get high scores, and they can be gamed when there is not outright fraud going on. Do you really think the only people who paid someone to fix their test were the ones that got caught?

Maybe each school should set a minimum GPA. Put all the names into a big drum and have a lottery. Any kid who gets a golden ticket can go to Harvard or sell it to the highest bidder.

Poor kids get money to pay for a different school if they want, and the super rich can buy their way in
. Just like they do now.

Lottery for those meeting minimum standard would be an excellent system.

I think P*D makes a good point about the democratizing force of standardized testing. Just that after a while, people figure out how to game the system. Then society tries to come up with a different system. Here’s hoping the schools that decide to junk the SAT finds a better system.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Lottery for those meeting minimum standard would be an excellent system.

A) Who sets the minimum standard? Would Stanford's minimum be different from East Carolina's?

B) What's the basis for the minimum? GPA? GPA adjusted for "quality of high school," whatever that is? Talk about a system that can be gamed ...

C) Why would any school risk doing this? Yes, it simplifies selection and you could fire a few relatively low paid admissions officers, but you risk imbalances in the incoming class based on family income, geographical distribution, racial and ethnic diversity, yada yada. I'm sure schools believe they do a better job than randomness. They're probably right.

Nobody thinks universities would be interested in it. They obviously prefer freedom to choose whomever they want for whatever reason and sufficient opacity that they can’t be held accountable for their decisions.

That benefit won’t go unnoticed - in a post-standardized test world, it’s a lot harder to prove you’re discriminating against Asians.

Add grade inflation in there, too. Have the UC systems included AP tests in their ban as well?

If not, there's the back door. Go to a school that has a strong AP program (hint: they're found more frequently in affluent areas), spend beaucoup bucks on not just the tests themselves but the test prep, inflate your GPA by taking AP classes in school (which have the benefit of not just preparing you for the tests, but also adding up to a point to your GPA, so an A = 5 points on a 4 point scale).

Voila! Problem solved!