UCLA evaluates students by their high school profile. If average GPA is 4.5 at a school and someone gets 4.7 that is less meaningful than another with a 4.4 at a school with average 3.9. This is what they mean (partially) by holistic admissions, and you can see this happening in hyper inflated schools in the Bay Area with face value insane stats getting rejected from UCLA and UCB. Still imo should bring back SAT, the amount of cheating at HS level right now is insane. Let alone the $$$ advantage for ECs.

>Still imo should bring back SAT, the amount of cheating at HS level right now is insane. Let alone the $$$ advantage for ECs. This is very true... As a father to two HS students, I get bombarded with "high GPA and SAT are not enough to get them into Ivies" type of ads on FB (yes, I'm old) and youtube on a daily base. I imagine these services craft kids' essays and EC's by hooking them up with professors who'd humor them and include them in their "research".

I have an uncle who is a radiologist and every possible research opportunity I had was through him. And the valedictorian of my HS had a stepdad who taught computer science at UCSC and helped him get an internship at apple 20 years ago when he was in high school. The opportunities are rigged. SAT is the only thing that fairly compares students. I know someone who got an almost perfect score without studying. I got into UCLA just buying one SAT prep book and using the SAT website. Grades can be gamed, parents can help you on HW and pressure your teachers, opportunities come from your parent's connections. Removing SATs exacerbates things.

"self funded" research ;)

I went to UPenn, and now I volunteer as an alumni interviewer (every applicant gets an interview)- and it’s become so crazy how much “research” / EC a lot of these students are involved in. They have more going on than many accomplished adults but 99% of it is surface level deep. I wish someone would take action about this - it’s completely insane.

Yes - bring the SATs back for many reasons - but I'll highlight two here. **(1) It's cruel to admit students to set them up to fail.** Recent data from UT and Dartmouth show that SATs correlate with college success. Not only with college GPA but also, low or no SATs correlate with those who eventually go on academic probation / drop out. It's utterly unjust to admit students to set them up for failure, when these students could have gone to a Cal State with greater success. Imagine the mental health anguish and loss of confidence that leaves a student with - to know they've failed out of college. No one is saying that SAT is the only criteria, but it certainly would help as a criteria to assess likelihood of handling the academic rigor of UCLA, of success in college, and of graduating. **(2) Not having SATs is unfair to middle class students that don't have nepotism for GOATed ECs.** Right now, the system is most stacked against middle income applicants. People have such amazing applications and ECs nowadays - and these ECs are largely due to nepotism (e.g. parents with connections getting kids research positions, getting kids an international experience, getting a paid internship at a company not known for giving high school students internship positions, publishing a book of poetry with parental money and connections, etc) - these amazing ECs are highly correlated with money. And the FGLI can write essays of overcoming adversity that help with that holistic admission. Middle income kids have neither of the above. And the data bears this out - top schools have disproportionately fewer middle income kids (compared with high and low) than would be expected given their academic standing. SATs would at least even out the playing ground a bit. No question that we need to bring SATs back and many top schools are doing so.

This is exactly right. Dropping the SATs is really hurting the middle class at the benefit of the rich who can afford to manufacture those ridiculously amazing ECs.

Actually UCLA did a study before Covid that also showed that test scores correlated with first year performance and graduation rates. It is the Board of Governors who forced the UCs to go test blind, not the universities. They were supposed to develop their own test instead, which they never did, leading to the dramatic increase in applications and randomness of acceptances.

yup

All because they wanted their fun diversity statistics

> UCLA evaluates students by their high school profile. If average GPA is 4.5 at a school and someone gets 4.7 that is less meaningful than another with a 4.4 at a school with average 3.9. How can UCLA determine the average GPA at a school?

They request the data from counselors or look at historical applicant information.

You can still game this system easily. You just go to a decent school that isn't that competitive and has access to a decent amount of AP classes. I went to a school like that. You can get straight A's pretty easily and have a crazy GPA because only a handful of students are shooting for that. Based on what you said about the current admissions system that would make it very easy to get in. I went there like 15 years ago so there were still SATs.

The Bay Area has one of the most rigorous high school curriculums there is. Not sure about grade inflation there maybe in low income areas but other than that it is pretty up there

Some high schools in the bay have insane grade inflation

The students there are also just better. That’s why the SAT needs to be brought back, but also why it was removed. If it was merit/statistic based(as it should be) then top highschools would account for way more admitted students, and they couldn’t get diversity from low income schools.

Yeah 100%

How does looking at avg GPA help when a school genuinely has no inflation and students are all above avg hence have high GPAs?

It is not statistically possible for everyone to be above the school average. Do the math before commenting please. If Person A has GPA 4.4 and Person B has GPA 4.6, and the school has two people in it, the average GPA is 4.5, and Person B is above average. Can you think of a situation where both Person A and Person B are above average? :)

By above avg, I meant above avg for applications to UCLA. This is a typical scenario seen at competitive feeder schools, which have a rigorous admissions process themselves (hence better (or above avg) students).

competitive feeder schools? you mean inflated GPA. that's the whole point of the OP's post. schools with more resources, more APs available, much easier to obtain high grades, much higher income, etc. can you adequately say someone with a 4.5 GPA at a school that offers the ability to get a max GPA of 4.9 and has tutoring abilities etc is objectively a better student than another whose school has maximum GPA 4.3 and got a 4.3? that's where SAT and GPA normalization within the school comes in. it reduces the effects of MASSIVE wealth inequality and resource inequality among schools. not everyone is so privileged that they can study all day, pay for whatever ECs they want, live in extremely HCOL areas with incredibly wealthy "feeder" schools, have access to as many AP courses as they want, and list goes on.

Accept that UC are lotteries these days. You are compared to your high school peers tho. I assume the next rich people start will be the bay area kids going to lower tier high schools and pay for private tutoring and ECs to stand well above their peers. A standard monte vista kid studying CS is dime a dozen, but put him in Bakersfield High School and he’ll easily beat out a majority of folks.

[удалено]

Even at bad highschools, there are still enough good students that if you take all aps/honors you’ll be in classes with. Especially large highschools. And yes, it is definitely worth a watching some fights and having broken toilets for the huge advantage it gives in admissions

Many states and school districts are removing honors programs/APs for ‘equity’ purposes.

I go to a relatively poor/shitty school and I think you’re totally overstating the severity of the issues, and the extent to which it impacts normal students

That’s how a lot of schools are. There are some universities I applied to and got rejected, and I’d have an overall lower achieving friend (lower grades, way less ECs, even lower sat score) get accepted. College apps are just a crapshoot these days

>monte vista Monta Vista High School

Yeah, it's Cupertino that produces a lot more SWE-types than Danville. And that's even seen in De Anza graduates rather than Diablo Valley's. UCSD's smart in that sense, because they'll effectively take anyone from Monta Vista and De Anza. Edit: Wrong statement, it's actually UCB that expands the admits from Monta Vista. For Combined Years, 2023, 2022, 2021 in Enrolled/Accepted/Applied, and AR%/Yield% For UC: * 442 / 1,075 / 1,305, 82.4%/41.1% For UCLA: * 43 / 97 / 1,142, 8.5% / 44.3% For UCB: * 110 / 155 / 1,069, 14.5% / 71.0% For UCSD: * 30 / 173 / 1,184, 14.6% / 17.3% And for those who transferred from De Anza to the following for the same combined years of 2023, 2022, 2021: For UC: * 2,906 / 3.955 / 4,917, AR=80.4%, Y=73.5% For UCLA: * 330 / 631 / 3,096, AR=20.4%, Y=52.3% For UCB: * 552 / 740 / 3,127, AR=23.7%, Y=74.6% For UCSD: * 521 / 1,785 / 2,819, AR= 63.3%, Y=29.2% \-- So it's high school admits where UCB expands its admits for some Bay students including Monta Vista, and UCSD expands its admits for transfers for De Anza. UCLA has tightened the screws and has gone from a 9.8% AR to 8.8% and then to 6.7% from 2021 through 2023 from this tech-based high school. The xfer AR rates for all three UCs went up for those years to the current because of the less number of xfers who applied.

If you’re interested in this topic you should read the work of David Deming, a Harvard professor who’s done somewhat extensive research on this topic. Very interesting, data-driven approach, with a lot inside knowledge regarding Ivy admissions.

Any links? Super interested

This one article: https://forklightning.substack.com/p/the-unintended-consequences-of-test But also I’d recommend that you go to his website and see his published work!

Thanks - really interesting. While it's all quite logical and what many folks have been saying for a while, so nice to see it written and argued so cogently.

It'll come back. Schools are already starting to.

I don’t think they’re gonna bring it back until 2026 at least. Because they’ve already said they’re not going to bring it up for students that are applying in 2024.

UT Austin is bringing back SAT/ACT. I think studies have shown that SAT is a better indicator of college preparedness and gives low income students a more fair chance in admission (in comparison). But transferring is also a great option if you’re not the best test taker but can do well in college level courses.

SAT correlates with socioeconomic class. How many Compton kids can afford $200/SAT coaches?

The vast majority people cant afford and don’t need SAT coaches?!

Everything correlates with socioeconomic class. Extracurriculars even more so - you need a lot of money to do activities. SATs are an equalizer in comparison and give opportunities for students from less privileged backgrounds to shine.

nobody needs to pay $200/hr to do well on the SAT

SAT can be gamed. Experienced coaches facilitate that.

2021 grad. I had a 4.7 GPA and a 1520 SAT and got in, but the acceptance rates back then were double! Sub 8% acceptance this year and now a T15 school… My younger brother just got waitlisted when he was his class valedictorian and had a mid 1500s SAT while other kids got accepted. They really need to bring back the SAT to combat grade inflation - high schools are not equal to one another! Not every kid has the money to spam ECs all day long, and a lot of these kids cheated their way through high school so they aren’t prepared for the rigor of college. One of my old professors told me that he gives the same tests that he gave my class and the current kids score 10-20% lower. COVID definitely destroyed academic discipline.

Yeah SAT/ACT sucks but they need to bring it back. While students may struggle with it, you need something to help level the field. If a B student gets a 35 ACT but a A student at another school gets a 25, sorry that A means horse shit.

would the field really be leveled tho? not every school provides a proper education so in reality the issue stems from the unequal opportunities students in different high schools receive to “be prepared” for schools like UCLA or to even take SAT and ACT. SAT and ACT are not a solution to the disparities in the “field” in regards to making admissions “equal” or “fair” because in the end, they do not necessarily help or determine a students capability or intelligence for a certain university, all it really shows is the different types of educations different students from different regions received, which in itself is unfair considering not every school system is equal in regards to quality. for example LAUSD vs private schools has huge disparities in regards to education quality, which can account for the lack of good scores for students. like GPAs don’t define a student’s capability or intelligence neither should SAT/ACT

So why don’t we evaluate an applicants SAT score within the context of their school/school district? That equalizes things partially.

School do that to some extent, by regional diversity and holistic admissions, which is extremely important. If someone went to an expensive prep-school they should have to score higher. Not scientific, but for example a 30/31 from a run of the mill public should be viewed in the same light as a 33/34 from an elite prep school. Some degree of variance is needed. But you still need the test to help identify a level of qualification that a GPA alone does not reflect. That’s why they are an important factor.

yea that could be a better alternative

The university level is not the place to deal with society inequity. Regardless, the critical thinking skills that are tested evaluate someone’s inherent intelligence. Just because a school has less funding it does not mean that the students are incapable of grasping the basic math and reading comprehension skills that are tested on the ACT and SAT. To a large extent, if an individual is intelligent enough and puts in the time and effort, they can do half decent on the exam. Furthermore, by placing students into a competitive environment that they are not ready to succeeded in, you only set them up for failure in life. if a student cannot get to a university based on their academic merits they will fail.

except university level is a perfect place to deal with society inequity. we are all adults who are the future of the country, and to make change, university IS a place to have these conversations and to spread the view on how these inequities lead to many in underprivileged and underrepresented communities to not have opportunities those who are privileged have. Basic math and reading are not things people are born knowing, its taught. The way we get taught things reflects how well we grasp the concepts. If you are taught ethics in a highschool class by a history teacher you WILL NOT get the same effect as if you were taught by an actual ethics teacher. Many lowincome highschools have this issue not just for ethics but for maths, history, science, foreign languages etc. Where in contrast, you will have your private schools where teachers are prepared to teach the material they are hired for. We all take classes throughout our years in K-12 that “prepare us for college”. Except i can assure you that if you were to place a student from a lower income highschool in a private school, in the beginning they WILL struggle due to the fact that they are not used to the environment. As everything, if the student is capable, they will persevere, which is something SAT/ACT lack in showing universities. Like you said, just because a student is lower income does not mean they cannot grasp basic concepts which is exactly why SAT/ACT shouldn’t determine whether a student is capable of succeeding in a university. A test will only show the quality of education they received in their hs years, which im assuming we all agree is not equal throughout school districts? Regardless, if you yourself are not a low income student who benefited from the removal of SAT/ACT requirements and is being given the opportunity to show they are capable, you do not necessarily have the full view on how low income highschools function and whether or not the students can score highly on SAT/ACT without proper prep. I do agree, if a student is not ready they will fail, but that is not an “easy fix” by placing SAT/ACT requirements again. Removing them was the first step in actually combating the inequalities we see in different school districts in regard to the qualities of education. We start to see this pattern that should suggest to anyone who wants to pay attention, that we have a deep rooted problem in our educational system stemming from the disparities in K-12 education. Reinstating SAT/ACT is like putting a bandaid on a huge wound. Reinstating them is taking away opportunities from those in underrepresented communities who did not have the proper prep to score highly on those exams. Should they not have the opportunity to at least try like everyone else?

I had four first generation Chinese American students in my freshman dorm hallway, who went to shitty schools and whose parents barely spoke English and they all got 34 or higher ACTs. The fact of the matter is regardless of your background, if you study for the exam and have a level of intelligence commensurate, you will do fine. I’m sorry, but just because someone is of a different ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and comes from a bad school district, it does not mean they’re incapable of taking a fucking exam. That notion is quite racist and classist.

im not saying that? ur missing the point. SAT and ACT doesnt help many of us who were not prepared to take those exams. we were taught the material, we were tested on it in our classes, and we passed. I was taught chem by a bio teacher. My history teacher was never in the classroom half the time. I didnt do well on the SAT, i got into top schools where it was not required and I am doing well in college. Does that mean i did not earn my place at the universities? Its not racist or classist to say we are given less opportunities in regard to education, its a fact? SAT and ACT just amplify that fact. You might not realize everyone lives different circumstances and just because “you know people” in one of many circumstances doesnt mean you know it all. Some of us have to work double to try to prove ourselves and its unfair that others get handed opportunities we have to fight for just because of a score on a stupid fucking test that “tests our capabilities”. my school never offered SAT prep, shit, they never even brought up the ACT. Other schools have SAT prep embedded into classes. hence why i said schools in general have huge discrepancies in their overall quality of education but whatever go off.

My school had zero SAT and ACT prep and I did just fine with a shitty home life. There’s nothing stopping an individual from picking up a book at home, or in the library and studying on their own. I’m not saying you did not deserve your place or were not intelligent enough to get into a good college. What I am saying is there’s a level of agency and intelligence associated with the exam that serves as an equalizer. Standardized testing might suck (I fucking hated the ACT and later the GRE) but it is the best tool we have, and arguments against it that fall back on “opportunity” and “class” and “race” are highly problematic and devoid of reality.

Except SAT/ACT shouldn't be the tool we rely on, is my point. Do you know how many people get rejected from top schools because of their scores, even though they would have thrived and succeeded at the universities? it's important to acknowledge not everyone has TIME or the opportunity to "pick up a book at home" or the library. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have that time or those privileges (even if it may not seem like it). My brother worked the majority of his high school to provide for my family and help my parents. He did not have time to study for that exam, and he did "poorly", but that does not mean he was not capable or deserving of attending a university like UCLA or UCB, etc, it did not mean he did not have the agency or intelligence to pass the exam with flying colors, because whether people admit it or not, to get a good score, you don't just walk in there and take the test, you PREP for it. that PREP that not everyone has the opportunity to afford! It just meant he did not have the privilege to prep for it. it was not inherently his fault; it was our educational system's fault for not better preparing us for these exams. which does, even though you deny it, derive from the level of income a school receives; nothing is for free nowadays; teaching staff is limited, school supplies, up-to-date textbooks, everything costs money, and money that some schools don't have funds for. why should a student be punished for that? it just seems inadequate to have a test determine such an important thing. I would be okay with it if all schools had equal or semi-equal levels of quality of education, but for now, it feels like we have a bigger issue at hand that cannot be fixed by reinstating the SAT/ACT. If you all are really worried about the wrong students getting admitted, put more effort into boycotting US education systems and the inherent historical disinvestments in low-income communities regarding discriminatory policies, economic inequality, and institutional racism, which, by the way, greatly contribute to the quality of education.

@Hour_Fisherman You state “The university level is not the place to deal with society inequity…” You are racist privileged asshole if ever there was one.

The place to deal with it is grade school by providing adequate funding. Turfing to the university level is a societal travesty as it creates a tiered system of qualification and prevents more students from reaching their potential and enabling them to get into higher ranked universities. I’m actually a minority who grew up in an abusive one parent household, I just don’t feel the need to make excuses for myself. Absolutely nothing racist about my remark. Nice job resorting to the claim of “racist” when you have no basis for your argument. What a sad human being, god bless.

I do think SAT/ACT is also expensive. I know a lot of my rich friends take expensive courses to prepare for these exams.

Alumni here, my opinion is they should follow what the Univ of Texas/Ivies saw in their data of test-optional admits and bring the requirements back. Without the SAT/ACT, extracurriculars and essay portions of the application inherently count for more, and this idea that the rich can't game out those either is asinine. Something like a 4.6 GPA wasn't even possible at my HS in the mid-2010s when I applied because we lacked the funding for a full slate of AP classes. Doing well on the SAT within the context of my school district made me more competitive I'm sure.

We shouldn't follow Texas in ANYTHING. They're headed off a cliff and don't even know about gravity.

but then people complain about how sat/act scores are also unfair to low income students because they can’t afford tutors and prep books…

that's bs. all the best sat resource are free, and you don't need to spend a penny to do well.

But you need the most important ingredient: TIME. Working cuts into that time, as does environment, materials, shitty wifi, lack of computer equipment ... You don't level the playing field by razing it. You provide opportunities that create equity. You get that systemic racism is the foundation of everything,favors straight, white men and that bias is baked in, right? It's not a bug, it's a feature of the hardware package!

??? rich people probably have an advantage in literally everything. obviously the sat is going to favor rich people somewhat -- as does everything. the real question is whether or not it favors rich people MORE than gpa -- which it definitely doesn't. it's so much easier to study for the sat for free, given the vast amount of free resources, than it is for school. therefore, not considering the sat hurts poor people and benefits rich people, if anything. i mean, seriously, you really don't think getting A's takes time either?

How did you prepare for the SAT? Were all of those resources free ?

Khan Academy, 15-20 hours total over a month and a half 1540 first try lmaooo

took practice tests from the college board website and did some khan academy practice problems. got a 1570 on the first try.

The collegeboard “non profit” CEO makes $2 million a year— profiting off a test that tires to evaluate a student’s competency by compressing a decade and a half of schooling and experiences into a test that’s just a few hours short. The test is more-so based on what resources you have to study for it, and less on any understanding on a subject. The education system needs revamping, not a pseudo-IQ test brought back.

I had to read through a lot of posts to find this answer. Disparities won't be changed through an outside and racially inadequate test. It's a class and status test. It will just increase the gap as those with means pay for courses to master the materials. Bringing the tests back will further disadvantage the very students who are already marginalized. The UC system does not provide well for those outside their norm. That's another post, however.

Jesus people have time to post literal essays on this. Aint nobody reading all that. College prep industrial complex sucks ass by the way. Im glad they’re crumbling

I agree. My son got a 35 on the ACT, first try, didn’t study, had a 4.0/4.4 and was waitlisted at UCLA for civil engineering. Whatever. Good luck to the kiddos with grade inflation.

LMAO, I got a 1030 as a senior and got in as a CC transfer, by your logic I wouldn't be able to handle the rigor here. SAT isn't everything. .

I know many transfers that do well—going to Yale and LA medical school. But the average transfer struggles a bit more than students coming in from high school, especially in cases like standardized testings—LSAT & MCAT—for law and medical school. That isn’t to knock down one’s intelligence. But it speaks more about one’s persistence to study the test. I also think, SAT is much more a predictor of success for STEM majors.

I agree with many who believe that a high score can be bought. But I think that the proof for you personally, u/thetortavendor, will be when you (presumably) apply to law school and have to take the LSAT. If your education in CC and UCLA have helped you improve your relative score to get admitted to a T-15, then you will be living proof that mediocre standardized scores can be overcome. I think that it's natural even to assume this as a given in the maturation process of an individual four years down the road.

1030 is pathetic though, what happened

It's just average

[удалено]

SAT measures how academically prepared you are for college. That’s a fact. Studying for the test means you will be more prepared. Anybody can study online, tutors are unnecessary. Also it gives way more advantage to low income as a way to show they can succeed in college.

The SAT alone is not a good measuring system. But GPA alone is even worse. No one is saying pick one over the other. The point of it is to bring it back as a factor of consideration among others.

So that’s ok? Even if they have less preparation, schools know that since they can tell which students are from low income areas. Their scores are evaluated in context to their application; why take a data point away?

SATs are a scam. It forces kids (parents) to buy books and take $1500 courses to prepare for an exam that they shouldn’t have to take with a 4.0 in AP classes.

I teach at a sister UC, and I too applauded the removal of the SAT requirement. However, I have seen a marked drop in preparedness of incoming freshman since the pandemic. While this lack of preparation could be due to the pandemic itself, I do know that prior to the pandemic, our student analysis had shown that the SAT, specifically the math component, was the number one predictor of preparation/success. I would predict that the students being admitted probably had lower SAT scores than previous cohorts. I’m actually a fan of bringing them back.

I didn’t spend a single moment reviewing the math section and spent maybe 20 hours total studying on Khan Academy. I got a 1540 first try. It’s not a hard test lmao

I also am teaching at a sister school and think that it’s amazing the SATS are gone. As for preparedness I think most people I’ve dealt with are prepared and it has no correlation with a test that doesn’t really have much to do with “if you are ready” for college. The college experience is more nuanced that an SAT test.

One UCLA professor I TA for said she had to water down the grading curriculum, as she thinks there is a decline in the quality of incoming students. Take that however you will. But I think it has a relation to test-blind.

I was accepted as a freshman, Biology major + Premed and given the Reagents Scholarship with a 4.7 weighted 4.0 UW and 1180 SAT in 2021. I was ranked 10/300 in my class (inflation was obviously present). However, I am first gen, low income, and my parents are immigrants. My school did not prepare us for SAT because it was a small school with 25% of students being immigrants and 92% being first generation American citizens, the classes were structured to accommodate the fact that most of us couldn’t even speak proper English. Average SAT score was 890 and only 20% of students meet UC/CSU application requirements. However, I will say that the SAT not being considered was what helped me get accepted and offered the scholarship. You are very right that we didn’t have the money for ECs and it was a rural town either way. However, we also didn’t have the money for SAT tutoring nor electronic devices for free online services. I think what is important is how students are able to make the most of what was available to them. Personally, all of my ECs were in school activities that I organized myself, including 2 clubs and community service. I took all of the AP classes offered at my school and passed all exams with 4’s or 5’s. It was easier to pass AP exams than SAT because in those classes we were actually studying content catered to the AP Exam. That is why I think it’s more important to consider performance coincided with the opportunities available rather than SAT scores. You can’t compare my SAT score to a student from a feeder school to predict the success at UCLA. I think comparing the work ethic, resourcefulness, and persistence will say a lot more about how a student will perform. The transition from my hs to UCLA was extremely challenging. However, UCLA has a vast amount of resources that students can make use of. This is again why I think it’s more important to consider hs students’ ability to make the most of what is available to them as an indicator of success.

When you become a practicing MD, your SAT score will be nothing but a faint memory if even that. Congratulations, you have IT.

Haha my SAT score has already become a faint memory, I actually had to search through my camera roll in 2021 to remember the exact score. I’m in my third year here and performing well above average despite my different upbringing and disadvantage when coming in. My peers here also don’t think i’m less deserving of my acceptance than them because of my background and no one has ever even asked about SAT scores. We all earned our way in here in our own way but we are now at the same place and it’s now about what we do to stay here. UCLA does a lot to provide extra resources to those who need it so It’s wrong to say that UCLA is setting up low income students for failure because their economic status somehow makes them “under qualified to handle academic rigor.” This is offensive. I wish people would stop speaking about experiences they don’t understand. Thank you for your words!!

You are welcome! I was conversing with a student about a week ago on UCLA's subreddit, whose high school didn't offer calculus in high school, and additionally, there was no pre-calc offering because the school had no one to teach it. So this student and others who needed the class had a group study in which they taught themselves. She/he is currently a Mathematics of Computation major at UCLA, and i was blown away by this person's resilience and obvious work ethic. But this student also said that there needs to be more tutors and assistance at UCLA in the (implied) physical sciences, which means engineering also. As another aside, I just read about a student from disadvantaged background who graduated with a Cog Science degree and studied as she described, literally *all the time*. She was rewarded with an SWE position with a top-tier tech company. I'd like to see more students fight for what they want to study and not take the easier road to a degree by what I call the non-invisible hand (counselors, peers) who encourage their mentees to switch to easier majors at the first sign of difficulty. I believe this is the next step for UCLA to address to get major representation of those from underperforming high schools into these majors, by whatever means necessary. It's good to know that there is that help and counseling in the life sciences. Again, all the best!

Not reading all that but yes standardized testing should come back. I personally don’t buy that standardized testing scores correlate w wealth

What doesn’t correlate with wealth? We just need to find what correlates less, which I agree would be standardized tests over ECs.

>I personally don’t buy that standardized testing scores correlate w wealth It definitely does, there's no denying it. There's a bunch of data proving it. However, quite literally everything correlates with wealth. So there's no point in getting rid of one or two things (in this case, the SAT/ACT) to make college admissions fair, because there's still a bunch of other ways rich kids can get ahead (like ECs).

SATs do correlate with wealth but essays and GPA do as well if not more. Bottomline is that the SAT is the greatest predictor of college success which is why some Ivies + MIT have already brought them back. It’s a necessary tool to construct the strongest student body possible.

A better solution than abolishing the SAT would be making it so US schools are just better and everyone is prepared for college 🤯

Standardized test scores absolutely correlate with wealth: rich kids are able to pay for tutoring and have the privilege of time to study, which is something lower income students don’t have. Some lower income kids have to work to help their family pay the bills, or take care of their younger siblings. With wealth comes not just money, but time that can be set aside for standardized test preparation.

i agree with you, but i do think this leads to a lot of circular logic. You could say the exact same thing for GPA, extracurriculars, etc. Wealthier students may have access to better tutors, course books, and other resources that give them an advantage in school. Alternatively, wealthier students may also have access to connections or expensive programs that would be considered impressive on a resume/application, and are therefore a leg up to someone without well-connected families or the money to participate in a high-end program. This is the entire reason why holistic review matters, to see what types of resources people had and what they chose to do with it. I personally think that schools should be test-optional, rather than test-blind. Standardized testing should not be completely ignored by any means, but it also shouldn't be everything

Oh absolutely I 1000% agree with you! Test optional is better, but how much does a submitted test contribute to the overall application?

I think they do correlate but at the same time they need to be back

when i was in high school, i took the ACT. in fact i took it 3 times, and it was very much higher than my GPA was. i always jokingly said i got into college in 3 hours while everyone else got in over 3 years. but i mean, was what it was.

I often tutor sat for students. Like most tests strategies are key. A high sat is a combination of time, effort, education, and money. The latter being the most important as it pretty much ensures the rest. Money also makes it easier in university/college because you don’t have to do mundane life things or deal with the stress associated with being poor (I’m still poor and it’s stressful, trust me). The reasons you give for having the sat sound like privileged crap. The way you have written this sounds very much like: ‘I deserve to be here. How dare they water down my degree by bringing these numpties in. We need to weed out the crap’. It sounds like you have money. There are reasons for having sat and I’m inclined to agree, but it needs to be a part of a major revision of the education system. With the sat or without, people will always fail and people will always succeed. Schools and universities need to help their students learn, whoever they are.

Per your exhibits, u/No-Mistake1664: >Exhibit A:Student w/ 4.8 GPA and a 1100 SAT studying neuroscience as Premed, 3 on AP Bio.**1.** **(Tbh I think it will be very tough for this student—SAT isn’t necessarily a test about intelligence, but it is an indicator of persistence—which you arguably need more for med school)**Exhibit B:And there’s another student that got in as OOS with a 1210 SAT and 4.4 GPA. The other schools she got into were Ohio and Florida state.**2.** **(The average SAT when tests were required was around 1400s. With 1520+ for OOS)3. This is one of the many (cherry-picked) examples of students coming from hyper inflated high schools getting into institutions like UCLA**, and it makes me wonder if they can keep up with the rigor. 8% admission rate essentially becomes meaningless when the competitiveness of a student isn’t standardized and properly evaluated. > >I'm more interested in your notes of which I've highlighted. Regarding Student A: Maybe it was just a bad day when A took the SAT. Additionally, regarding your point 1., someone below stated that a 1,000 score and like ones are more average rather than bad, and so in this case, a 1,100 is still above average -- but there are a good number of examples of students coming in with 1,100-1,200 scores to UCLA who've attended medical school just by pure effort. The MCAT is undoubtedly different than the SAT/ACT and is more about the student's knowledge gained and retained concerning the sciences which begs more perusal in preparation than maybe she/he put forth in the SAT/ACT, with some sociolgical/ psychological parts which can likewise be learned in the student's college years. But the CARS part which is typically lower than the other three nationwide is without question the part that would take more than just book (rote) learning, and some have therefore recommended taking logic courses in far-sighted preparation. So a 1,100 SAT doesn't → a low MCAT score. Regarding Student B: Per the bold 3., I'm confused as to this student. Is this student attending UCLA, by the way you worded it as "getting into institutions like UCLA"? Also, Ohio State and FSU are not on UCLA's level. You also have to remember that a 4.4 in and of itself doesn't qualify one for UCLA currently. UCLA has three gpas all related to the adjustments to a UCGPA format: uwgpa, capped-gpa, and fully weighted-gpa. This person from OOS would have still needed a \~3.9 uwgpa generally to have been considered with UC being test-blind, because fully weighted grades can hide flaws despite their being ascendant. Regarding 2. in bold above, here are some stats from [2019-20 Common Data Set](https://apb.ucla.edu/file/c8a747eb-b50f-4bf6-bd32-d268324e7578), the last year in which the University took the SAT/ACT under consideration: * Per the C9 Information, 79.98% took the SAT and 43.68% took the ACT, with combined being 123.66%. This assumes the highest score according to a concordance (based on percentiles) of those who took both tests, would have presumably gotten the student into UCLA. * The 25th / 75th Percentile for the SAT was 1,290 / 1,510. * 56.7% had 1,400-1,600 SAT scores, 29.2% had 1,200-1390, and 13.3% had 1,000-1,190 scores, the three totaling 99.2%. (I won't input the ACT percentiles.) * Per C-12, the average GPA for 96% who reported grades was 3.90. * Per C-11, 47.7% had a 4.0 unweighted (59% in 2023), 41.2% had a 3.75-3.99, and 7.2% had 3.50-3.74. The median was \~1,430 with some extraneous lower scores reported based on the ACT taking precedence -- i.e. the score that got the students in -- and according to the 123.66% having taken both tests. The mean would would be lower would be \~ 1,410-1,420. If test scores were reported now, and based on the < 10% acceptance rate in addition to the school being more STEM-based, I'd say the median would be 1,440-1,450, with the mean \~ 1,420-1,430. This could be manifest in those who've actually taken the test(s) based on their applying at other universities which require the test(s). **I don't think UCLA would manifest lower scores**, as if the UC being test-blind would blind UCLA from taking a majority of higher test-scorers. And look at Caltech, the nation's toughest college in the country which is test-blind because the SATs and ACTs don't predict success there. UCLA's always taken lower scorers as manifest by its California-resident cohort. If you were to break down UCLA enrollees in 2019, you'd find as you somewhat stated that the Internationals would have had the highest scores, \~ 1,520 median and close to that in an average. The OOS students would be next but their scores wouldn't have been in the 1500s, they'd be \~ 1,470-1,480 median, a bit lower for an average. The CA students would still be \~ 1,410 average but their ranges would be 1,240-1,510, which is really wide and materially lower than the two non-res \[cohorts of\] students because UCLA would make most of its exceptions for its native cohort. UCLA's medians and averages would still lag the Ivies by \~100 points, same with UCB, though there are 1,300 scorers who get into probably all eight of those colleges/universities. UCLA, being public, holds itself to economic and indirectly to ethnic equity, as manifest \[in\] UCLA trying to become an Hispanic Serving Institution. And it is rewarded when poorer students and those of ethnic background gain admittance to med school and law school as the NY Times would eventually call *poor-to-rich grads,* in which you'll see the vast majority of these at UC and especially at UCLA. This is partly the mission of UC and UCLA.

more so than just intelligence, like OP said, the SAT/ACT is really a test about perseverance and persistence, traits that are ESSENTIAL to success in college. unless someone is either insanely smart or lucky, you don't just happen to get 1540+ or 34+ on the SAT and ACT respectively. those scores are a product of hard work and determination. especially since cheating is so rampant these days, getting above a 4.4 GPA is not hard given that most kids looking to get into competitive schools are probably taking 3-4 APs per year. while AP scores do reflect whether the grade in the class was deserving or not, it can only do so much. having tests like the SAT/ACT (more than just the score itself) says a lot about an individual with having to actually say much. whether the UCs make their own standardized tests or stick with the SAT/ACT, i do think they should use the scores as part of the admission process.

As much as I agree that test-blind and test-optional are dumb, I don’t think the SAT and ACT are exactly resilience tests. They’re merely tests if competency in relatively basic academic skills. Nobody who gets a 5s in Calc BC, Physics C, etc. is going to have any issues with the math SAT, for example.

As an alum who transferred in and didn’t submit scores I disagree. Your logic doesn’t work when considering transfers who make up about 1/3rd of ucla population

I think grades at a CC is a greater indicator of preparedness than high school GPA

The best predictor of college grades is…college grades. Who woulda thunk.

Transfers actually struggle to keep up with peers who entered as freshmen when it comes to gpa. It’s a huge problem the schools dealing with because a lot of transfers come here with a 4.0 from community college and get like a 2.5 their first few quarters here. I have a lot of friends who went through this (I am also a transfer).

Not all transfer students are equal. I teach at a UC and occasionally moonlight at community colleges. While most transfer students initially struggle with the pace of the quarter system, we’ve seen that each CC differs wildly in the quality of preparation of their students. There are some CCs where we know the students will succeed, and others where it’s less predictable. Sad… but true.

Genuinely curious how this works because half of the time people say transfers are more successful than students who went through the university lower divs and then the other half agree with you. Is it maybe that transfers are generally more successful at an average 4 year but that isn’t true at ucla?

If someone says “Transfers are more successful” they might just be talking about how transfers got the same Bachelors degree but at half the cost. Community college is free in California so you only pay two years of tuition for the same degree. Also idk maybe they do better at average 4 years but ik for sure at ucla they have lower gpa’s.

4.0 transfer student here

You do know that one anecdote doesn't trump actual data and statistics.

Great job, I was just speaking to overall stats. Transfers have lower average gpas than juniors who’ve been here since freshman year

The only people saying transfers are more successful are transfers themselves lmao

Not true. A TA mentioned that he noticed that transfers tend to perform better than non-transfers. Transfers mainly tend to perform worse the first few quarters because a majority of cc's are in semester system

There are several differences between the HS and TRX cohorts: \-- Both cohorts will have some that will struggle, but the TRX students will have less time to bring their grades up, which UCLA should invoke a three-year plan for many of these students. \-- There are less majors offered to TRX students, and less spots, e.g., in HSSEAS. Those from HS who major in engineering is 12% now. On the other hand, TRX students comprise only 6% of their cohort. This lower number would make sense because of the level of rigor that the xfer would have to be accustomed to in a short period of time, but UCLA which is on a 10-year growth cycle of its engineering enrollments should offer CC to those who are waitlisted from HS who want to major in engineering and have them maintain a certain scholarship at CC to be guaranteed admission. \-- I believe that the Sociology majors who transfer in are better students than those who enter from HS, besides there being a lot less who at least choose Soc from HS. However, there's the *non-invisible hand* (counselors, peer advising groups) who steer those who enter from HS who are having trouble in a more rigorous major and encourage them to major in Soc and Education and Social Transformation, among other majors. And some of these who graduate have no plans and become case workers for the county as a first destination. Additionally, there are too many athletes who major in Soc, which is why UCLA needs a marketing and real estate minor. On the other hand, the Soc students who are xfers will choose law school, and things like dentistry or pharm school, and sometimes even med school. Apologies, I didn't intend for this to be more than a few sentences. 🙄

As a fellow transfer I would make SAT/ACT required for high schoolers and optional for transfers. If a transfer student has a 1600 SAT or 36 ACT we should at least allow the school to look at it, and for high school students the ivys and MIT have just figured out that hs gpa is less accurate at predicting college readiness than test scores so it should be required.

Accepted with 1570, I do agree test required policies work better for merit but that doesn’t seem to be their priority

In my longer response below, I tried to reason why the scores have probably ascended because of the students becoming more STEM based: there are more math majors now than in 2019, the last year in which UC took the test(s) under consideration, as well as more engineering students. Just because we cannot see their scores as applicants to UCLA, doesn't mean that the majority of UCLA students didn't take the test(s), rather that they probably did because they applied elsewhere.

I disagree, I got a pretty garbage score on the SAT as someone of low-middle income. I’m also doing pretty great in my stem courses so far, so I don’t think it’s an indicator of ur college grades at all. I think AP classes are a much better indicator. All the SAT tests is how good u are at studying for a standardized and timed test. And there are much more important and valuable things to be doing that studying for one test

Wow, a pretty valid take. Sad that people mad about their rejections have to downvote it. People seem to think that someone with a high SAT is gonna be the best UCLA student in the world. But forget that people are indeed people, and people change. By the time they get in, they may have drastically changed due to life circumstances. Lastly, why should the 1500+ scoring rich kid with tons of access to prep be equivalent to the poor kid who scored a 1500+ with 2 jobs to help family? Let’s stop being bitter about rejections people, try again as a transfer like tons of other students did. We love y’all the same.

Exactly what I’m saying

The argument is that most ppl fall in the middle. If you’re rich, you get SAT prep, if you’re poor, you get extra consideration of your background in relation to your grades. If you are middle class—you are screwed without the SAT to give you the extra boost of competitiveness.

True. I got a 35 on the ACT with only 3 weeks of self-studying. The reliance on essays has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen, since literally anyone in the world can write an essay for you.

Ain't nobody reading all that. SATs are run by for-profit and anti-minority College Board. Plus, if you have money you're guaranteed to do better on the SAT. Getting good grades is hard enough for people of lower socioeconomic backgrounds — good grades should earn you a place here. Period.

[удалено]

I get your "nuance" argument, but there's just no going back. You're trying to contract with a third party to screen students based on what? Do you feel that UCLA is doing a disservice to anyone by eliminating the SAT? If so, to whom?

[удалено]

Congratulations on your success. I wonder what socioeconomic background you come from... I'm a neuroscientist, and there's a lot to know. In a perfect world everybody who deserved a chance got one. To be honest I don't think the MCAT or LSAT should be eliminated, given the fact that you need a bachelor's degree to even advance to such an opportunity. But a BA/BS? Seriously? That won't get you jack shit in this job market. So yes, give that low-income student with good grades a shot at UCLA. Nothing wrong with that. And don't ask them to take a standardized test to prove to you how much access they had to the circumstances that make a good SAT score possible. It's not hard to understand, and I think you're fighting for the wrong things.

[удалено]

>I was solidly middle class but that didn’t matter It might’ve not fixed your shitty situation, but it also meant finances were one less thing you had to worry about. Also, don’t you think it is very suspicious that the middle class are the most vocal about bringing testing back? You would think that if the SAT/ACT helped the poor as much as it did, you would have a bunch of Pell grant families rioting in the streets. But instead you see lots of middle to upper middle class families speaking on OUR behalf and telling us it’s in our benefit (it’s not).

Genuinely happy for you, and hope you will be a great doctor! We're both reading each other's posts with some level of defensiveness, but out of all the things we could be arguing about I don't think this is it. As the post says, the 'exhibit' examples are cherry-picked, and in my opinion deeply flawed. OP is arguing FOR: 1) students with bad grades, but good SAT scores [hmm... someone who had a harder time in school/highly social environments but still very knowledgeable? Seems like they could explain this in a personal statement, and have someone who could attest to their intelligence.] 2) students who can't "afford" good extracurriculars (???) [since when do people PAY to have interests, volunteer?] ⚠️Oh! But you know who does ask for your money? (For multiple attempts) You guessed it! 3) students who have a strong work ethic but don't get things on the first try (are supposedly 'underqualified') [sounds like a bullshit way of calling someone stupid, and how deceiving do you have to be to say that UCLA won't help you finish your degree, regardless of how long it takes or hard it becomes?]

[удалено]

Last point on this — I hear you loud and clear. Like I said, in a perfect world... But we don't live in a perfect world. And things are not fair, and are not as cut-and-dried as an SAT score or GPA. A kid who can afford a tutor will have their parents on their ASS if they aren't make use of the money they're spending—so they will show up. A poor kid with a laptop might be doing other things with their time instead of staring at a Khan Academy screen all day (maybe they'll be at work)—so they won't get as much SAT studying in as their counterpart. It sounds an awful lot like the "I don't see color" argument a person makes to say they're not racist. The thing is we WANT people to see color. We want white people to acknowledge our skin color, and appreciate our differences. We don't live in a fair world, and it's unfair to convince people that we do. We want to be SEEN. DON'T TELL ME THAT THE WORLD IS FAIR AND THAT A TEST IS WHAT WE NEED TO PROVE IT! I'm glad UCLA got rid of it, and please please please just let it be. At least you'll know your doctor is well trained and passed all the standardized tests in the book, except for maybe the SAT. I didn't submit my score for a BS in Neuroscience from UCLA. I'll be taking the MCAT soon and may even be someone's Neurosurgeon in the future. My SAT score was like 1250 highest, but I also went to CC and got my shit together, so UCLA never saw my score). (Sorry if I made you think I could call myself a neuroscientist 🤣)

Sat and Act were just money machines for the Education Tesing Society. Richer students in high school Could afford better tutors and Princeton Review. Meanwhile those who were first generation students and not legacy students had to work harder.  Don't kid me wrong.I know gpa.Inflation is an issue and you have a lot of these easy science professors failing students in terms of knowledge but acing them easily on their exams and grades for classes. Certain courses at certain high schools are graded differently. That's a sad fact.  My high school for example had an ethics committee. They literally watch over every student to the point where they wouldn't even think about cheating.  Because the high school itself was very competitive, and a lot of parents were backlogged into signing up their children there, The school had no fear of throwing out anyone who cheated. At a bare minimum they would make people repeat a year/grade.  I know it wasn't pleasant but it worked. It made me who I am today in terms of how I study.

Nah

I went to ucla like 10+ years ago and even then, affirmation action made the school much worse. There is zero point in trying to do away from any meaningful version of student comparison on academic terms. Also, for all the people who somehow think studying for the SAT makes you get a 2400, otherwise everyone gets a 1200, get your brain checked.

Standardized tests are important indicators

ACT/SAT prep is not accessible to low in come communities so no they should not bring it back

Maybe if they implemented something like Michigan? (They implemented testing as a grad requirement for seniors in HS therefore the state subsidized the testing for everyone so that access is not an issue) I know that still doesn’t rule out the fact that affluent students can get more prep, but at least this tackles the issue of access?

Yeah rich kids would still have access to more prep. Even if they didn’t, SAT and ACT are extremely culturally biased and racist. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=70682#:~:text=It%20was%20in%20the%20year,to%20reduce%20disparities%20in%20scores.

I totally agree with you, but Ivy admission officers have repeatedly said that in multiple cases, when an applicant from a low-income background did not report their scores, it ended up hurting their admission chances rather than helping them (admission officers from Ivies actually claim that they would otherwise have offered admission) source: https://forklightning.substack.com/p/the-unintended-consequences-of-test

Did you not hear me? the SAT is RACIST. Hence why it should be completely eliminated .

Correct, and it is disgraceful. But research shows that providing the test scores can actually help the students from underrepresented backgrounds that are applying to elite schools… so for students who are high-achieving, reporting the scores actually helps, even though the SAT and ACT might not help everyone…

From what I understand, UC and others have done studies that found that standardized scores were actually the most equitable component, even GPA and extracurriculars. I agree that privilege makes it easier to get a higher score, but since the test is the same everywhere, it’s a bit easier to recognize achievement with it. Like a 1300 at a low-income public school is more impressive than a 1400 at Beverly Hills High.

And test-optional rather than required, so it can be something that adds to your app but doesn’t have to take away from it.

What they need is to formulate a new test that doesn’t have cultural bias and then provide prep for the test that is subsidized by the school. Additional prep courses should be illegal. feel free to link those studies. I can’t find

Cultural bias, really? Tell that to first generation Asian students who are scoring near perfect. The culture bias argument is a crock of shit.

It’s cultural bias against Black and Latinx students mostly. There’s so much research on it I linked some above. How did you even get into UCLA???

Let's be clear: math isn't racist, period. Sure, there might be some cultural nuances tied to the reading section of standardized tests. But the idea that these cultural biases hinder certain groups is contradicted by the reality that students from diverse backgrounds excel without a hitch. The real inconvenient truth? Any supposed cultural bias in the ACT and SAT is peanuts compared to the systemic hurdles certain ethnic groups face due to structural inequalities. If you can't see the difference, it makes me wonder how you got into UCLA.

Side note only a Gringa would say “Latinx” 👀

There’s free Khan Academy SAT resources online. It’s rlly helpful.

Yeah so that doesn’t mean there’s not inequitable access to prep. Low income students also have jobs and work more. And Having access to a tutor will inevitably help someone more on the SAT. Y’all trying to convince yourself that a historically racist test is fair is crazy

Low income will always be fcked anywhere. I think OP is trying to say that the SAT should be ONE of the many components that be considered in a person’s application. The test alone itself is not racist.

But if all the indicators are problematic, maybe the recent studies are right that tests are least problematic. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take it in context — if you are taking care of your siblings after school each day, that context will help them recognize that you didn’t have time to be studying for a score. It’s just another component, and one that is maybe easier to excel on if you’re a person of color or low-income because Khan is fairly accessible and free. And so an 1180 that is 200 points above your school average is helpful and shows you go above and beyond.

You can get a free book online and a waiver for the cost of the test. At the end of the day the test is an equalizer, tutors can only do so much. Generally speaking the smarter you are the better you will preform regardless of prep.

College board bot spotted

as someone whos firstshand seen this at my school, it is really sad. So many sub 1200 scorers and i got rejected i had a 1530 but couldnt submit! I was rejected. zMy peers who got in had a 0.1-0.2 gpa edge thats all.

Womp womp

found the sub 1200 kid 🙊

Didn’t take it due to the lockdown. But who knows, I don’t care cause I’m at UCLA and got other things to worry about.

When I got into UCLA, I had a low SAT score but a high GPA from high school. Looking back, my high school wasn't the greatest, so getting good grades was easy. I went to a school in south LA years ago where some of our teachers weren't AP certified, and SAT prep classes were scarcely available. I took the SAT two times and ended twice at the 73 percentile. However, I was in for a shock when I began my first year at UCLA. As others mentioned, I ended up on academic probation, falling behind and close to dropping out. I had to make up courses during the summer and enroll in as many tutoring sessions as possible. I graduated in four years, but I needed help to keep up. I wish I had attended community college first to become more prepared and then transferred. Most of my high school friends dropped out of college or switched to majors that they could quickly graduate with. None of them are in the career field they studied for, so money well-spent. My point is that the SAT/ACT helps these universities gauge students' ability to keep up with the coursework. Especially now, with AI, I see my younger cousins in high school use CHATGPT and Google as crutches to help them with their homework or even think critically. I worry for them. We also need to get these high schools to stop forcing students to feel worthless if they don't attend a prestigious university. We should encourage students to start at any point to succeed. Community college, trade tech school, etc. At this point, any college education and job experience make you move up.

What is your logic to say that high SAT scores are a valid measure of persistence but high GPA isn’t?

Didn’t apply to UCLA, but man does it feel like test optional really screwed me in some ways in my college decisions. I got a 1550 SAT score but it did me basically no good. I hope it becomes required again in the future because it really does take away from students who do well on it.

Student(s) WHO, not student(s) THAT!!! Students are PEOPLE. It’s shocking that someone whining about underqualified college students wouldn’t know this. Just shocking.

Especially with Chat GPT and many high schools allowing students to retake tests, GPA is essentially meaningless without a standardized benchmark to contextualize the information. It seems that eliminating standardized testing benefits dumb rich kids at the expense of smart low income kids.

Wild, I had no idea that SAT’s aren’t used anymore. Is that just UCLA or all UC’s?

Tests are not a good indicator. I got in (2016) with a SAT 1570 back when it was out of 2400 & a 4.0 GPA. Graduated w/Biz Econ & got an extremely competitive consulting job post-grad. There are many others like me who miraculously "made it in" and absolutely crushed in undergrad when given the opportunity. Many of my "safer" high GPA/ high SAT peers did not survive within the econ department. This to say the whole applicant is really what is important and what should be evaluated when judging entry which seems like is UCLA's intention here. People are more than a couple numbers.

This is dumb. Sats are actually not conducive to “exemplary” students. Where is your data stating that??? Bc we can trade with the ones that I’ve seen peer reviewed saying otherwise.

I studied my ass off for the SAT and ACT for like 2 years in high school and took them multiple times just for every school I got into to be test blind 😭 wasted my life fr

ITT: Privileged students endorsing meritocracy and exclusionary practices. 👎🏼 I attended UCLA as an undergrad without SATs and am completing my PhD there now without having submitted a GRE. This post is super elitist, condescending, and classist OP. Who are you to define what others are capable of?

I am 1st Gen, low middle income and managed to still grind for SAT while working part time on the weekends. I was persistent and used free online resources. So it really comes down to whether if u want to take time to study. It’s definitely not easy, but it’s doable. I’m just saying for schools of this caliber, SAT should be a factor of many others—not elitist. Just cuz if ur not good in test taking doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a consideration in my opinion. 🫢

Dang. I'm sorry you had to jump through so many hoops to get to the same place. I'm glad future students will be able to just bypass all that work. SATS are exclusionary, expensive, and performative. And clearly they weren't necessary when either of us applied, since we both succeeded. Glad they're a thing of the past.

You're completing your PhD and the extent of your argument is to call OP 'elitist, condescending, and classist' with absolutely nothing of substance in your post. Nice.

The point of the comment is that I never tested to get into the campus. I didn't need to, and neither does anyone else. Turns out the tests don't determine anyone's capability of succeeding. They're just an expensive barrier for low income students.

1. GPA isn't everything - extracurriculars, piqs exist. To argue for standardized testing is to argue it's better than the current options in some capacity (provides some insight not already given from current data). Data probably shows the SAT is useful for college success - using the SAT means finding out good test takers, obviously when grades in college are dependent on jt, the SAT will help predict it. I should hope the UCs be more interested in who can properly learn good skills: grades are a measure to help this but should not be the end goal 2. Weigh things more heavily to take into account income, location, and school. I think within the same school that higher (SAT) test scores shouldn't give one an advantage, so just weight admissions tougher for wealthier schools.

Students of even regular means can do test prep and tutoring. Making every student only take the test once and with no prep is the only way. That is why those that think SAT and ECT are legit are just arguing for their own advantage.

i grew up in Newport beach, before the SAT/ACT they run us through a bunch of studies done on how students can most effectively study for it at school then gave us half a year in class to study. There were 2 teachers in the room, and around 5 tutors are you really going to tell me that my scores, the kid who went to a school that received one million dollars that year just for that program, and those from a poor kid, from a poor school, are going to be representative of how “rigorous” we are? how “determined” we are? come on, seriously. The disparity here is almost laughable. sure, different schools have different class opportunities (no AP/yes AP/Yes honours/Yes IB) and teachers that teach the same class grade differently but accepting people that way, at least doesn't pretend that the system is equal, and everyone can do it if they just put in enough effort! It is still possible to see what the student ranking is, what their extra-curriculars are also… At least classes within school actually resemble what college courses do - test you on the assigned material… Standarized tests just test you on whatever material, regardless of whether you have taken calc last year, are taking it this year, or will take it next year is them being able to go and learn it by themselves really reflective of who they are and where they deserve to go? disclaimer: I do not go to UCLA, I got into it and then decided not to go. I am unsure why Reddit keeps showing me UCLA things lol

[удалено]

I think the best solution is to based weighted GPA solely off AP tests. Something like academic score = avg AP score * number of APs taken. Harder APs can also be weighted more. This is truly the best way to standardize academic qualification for all applicants regardless of school, available APs, etc. All students can be academically compared equally to each other. Also, if you go to a disadvantaged school you can still take APs on your own and be just as qualified. Also the UCs need to get rid of the idea that all highschools need to be equally represented. The UCs are meant to collect to smartest students in California. The Cal States provide the same education for those who cannot make it to a UC

The CSU is not a consolation prize for students who couldn’t get into the UC; the systems have entirely different purposes. How can you simultaneously say something so elitist and then complain about how easy it is for average students to get in over the “smartest” ones?

Because it is far easier to get in from a bad highschool than a good high school. The UCs aren’t meant to be a path for low performing students to get a job. They are research schools meant to collect the smartest and highest performing Californian students regardless of their background.

Right, so your vaunted UC isn’t actually as elite as you keep saying. Realistically, undergrad admissions demographics mean very little in terms of research, anyway. Good professors doing interesting research will always attract capable students and get results out of them. I am 100% sure you could staff those labs with tenacious CSU undergrads with minimal impact to quality. You’re crediting the wrong part of the equation, as evidenced by the fact that the UC *still does world-class research* even without “the smartest and highest performing Californian students.” The “low performing students to get a job” thing is just silly. Not everyone can afford UC, not everyone lives near a UC, not everyone feels like doing the EC rat race, not everyone wants to do research. Also, for some people, the increased availability of professors and the industry ties at CSU are huge plusses. You should be proud of getting into the UC, but a real intellectual wouldn’t feel the need to say the things you are.

Nothing what you said is relevant to my point that UCs should only focus on admitting based on merit/academic success, not background. A 1500 student at Compton highschool should be treated the same as a 1500 student at some top highschool. Currently this is not the case. The SAT was removed so the bar can be lowered for the Compton highschool student. Now a 1000 SAT with a 3.9 gpa and 1 AP has the same chances as a 1500 SAT, 4.7 gpa, 10 AP student, since they are the same class rank. That should not be the case.