> Likewise, a faculty committee at the University of California system — led by Dr. Henry Sánchez, a pathologist, and Eddie Comeaux, a professor of education — concluded in 2020 that test scores were better than high school grades at predicting student success in the system’s nine colleges, where more than 230,000 undergraduates are enrolled. The relative advantage of test scores has grown over time, the committee found.
Interesting, given the UC system is not merely test-optional, but refuses to consider test scores at all. I wonder if that will change, if even their faculty committees are recognizing the superior predictive value of tests over GPA.
My guess is that they might create their own test, but that it would not have a purely academic score. It would have the “adversity score” of the SAT built in, and impossible to separate out.
Of course, making a second test for students to take would disproportionately affect kids with fewer resources in terms of test prep, which would be counterproductive to the UC’s stated goals regarding equity.
IIRC the SAT added this several years ago. It gave students more points based on zip code, and perhaps some other factors. They got some blowback at first, but modified it and I believe it still exists. But it's separate from your "regular" SAT score, which is what everyone talks about. My theory is that the UC system might create a test where the adversity score is baked in, and you have no way to disaggregate it.
How do you imagine they could do that? SAT are multiple choices tests, with answers are objectively wright or wrong. The scores are simply summed up. Where is the place to put in adversity score or any “adjustment” scores?
Easy: they just don't break out the different parts of your score. You just get one score, which is a composite of your math, verbal, and adversity tallies.
They can of course accomplish the same effect (since the UC itself would be the only institution using these scores) by aggregating the academic scores with the adversity scores and never letting reviewers know what the individual components were.
If it results in in a better predictor of outcomes than the unadjusted SAT, it would be hard to justify the latter but not the former. I have no idea whether this is actually the case.
They apparently considered creating their own test, but realized they couldn't do it fast enough to replace the SAT/ACT. [1] But from their new status quo (no test), they could take all the time they need to create a new test. I'm not sure CA voters will countenance the new admissions policy, which forces many top students to apply to expensive out-of-state schools because the UC system is so difficult to get into via traditional means (grades and test scores).
Interesting, given the UC system is not merely test-optional, but refuses to consider test scores at all. I wonder if that will change, if even their faculty committees are recognizing the superior predictive value of tests over GPA.
My guess is that they might create their own test, but that it would not have a purely academic score. It would have the “adversity score” of the SAT built in, and impossible to separate out.
Of course, making a second test for students to take would disproportionately affect kids with fewer resources in terms of test prep, which would be counterproductive to the UC’s stated goals regarding equity.