or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › New California Policies Cutting Qualified Students from CA Schools
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New California Policies Cutting Qualified Students from CA Schools - Page 3

post #37 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

BTW, your NFL football analogy is pretty much right on target. Less college students will be recruited, because some high school students are being recruited. It's a simple fact.

But do you think that the NFL GM's would choose a LESS QUALIFIED high school graduate over a more qualified college player?

post #38 of 71

I have been looking for real numbers on what this has done, but I've yet to come across anything. It looks like it was supposed to go into effect in late 2012, and if that was the case I'd imagine it'd be too soon to make sense of the numbers yet.

 

Again, policies such as this are really meant to increase the number of underrepresented minorities at UC's, without explicitly making race a factor. This is a good thing. This doesn't mean that they'll let just anyone in. A 4.5 GPA is going to get you into a UC regardless of race. But more than likely the intent is to open up the pool of candidates and allow those with solid, but not spectacular academics feel as though they have a chance because of other factors along with their good grades.

 

The UC admissions policy can be intimidating, and I never applied despite carrying a 4.0 GPA, playing varsity baseball and football, being a saxophone player in the music department, AND being Mexican-American. I can't imagine how daunting it can be for those who were not middle-class like myself. So if this is able to get a few more kids to apply with already strong credentials, and bring up the numbers of underrepresented minorities at the expense of other similarly qualified applicants, awesome. But again, I think that 4.5 GPA is still going to fly.

 

It's important to realize that no one wants a free pass in--I feel like this is an outdated but still prevalent stance on stuff like this. If someone is let in to a UC who is in over their head, that is good for no one. I am a huge fan of the Community College system in California, and as a TA/graduate student at a UC currently, I see the effect of small class sizes and close contact with professors has on those kids when they transfer. I went to a CSU and experienced the same environment there. There are other ways of increasing diversity that make sure people are ready for the college-experience. I do feel for the most part that applicants let in to UCs because of policy change will still absolutely be qualified.

post #39 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

The bottom line is that the purpose of this new policy is designed to reduce the population of 4.5 GPA types with more "well rounded" ones. Taking race completely out of the equation.

I don't think that's accurate. I think they're designed to reduce the population of poorly-rounded 4.0 students to let in more 3.5ish students with more extra-curriculars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

Believe it or not, many Asians with 4.5 GPA are doing many extra-curricular activities. They do things like Art, Music, Golf. . .to a pretty high level. Every thing is competitive. "You need to get to level 8 or 10 in piano", or violin, or "become a scratch player". Whatever has a metric for achievement, and the parents will help them make their goal. Anything you can measure, the highest level is their goal. However, not wanting to stir up any racial comments, but there are just not that many Asians capable of playing a defensive line. So, it's really unlikely that most Asians will focus on football.

Then they should have absolutely no problem getting into any school. If you've got a 4.5, no one's going to deny you, even if all you do is study. The university will take that cultural hit if you help their statistics that much.

Similarly, if you've got a 4.0 with art, music, golf, etc., few schools are going to say no.

It's students with a 4.0 who just have a 4.0 that might see a drop off.
post #40 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

In general, I agree with what you stated. This is probably why the UC system is doing this to reduce the number of Asians and replace the student population with a more well rounded one.

That's not what he said.  Nobody except you has said this.

 

It seems to me, that they are doing this to simply allow for more applicants, some who very well may be "more rounded" and less adept at simply test prep.

 

Are there Asian kids out there who don't take all the test prep courses but who are still intelligent?  Are there non-Asians out there who do take all of the test prep courses but have very little other skills?

 

(The last two questions needn't be answered.  They are rhetorical.  The answers to both is certainly yes. :-P)

 

Rhetorical or not, I'm answering them.

 

Yes, my kids don't take the test prep/tutoring courses, but they know the ones who do. We do "threaten" them with these prep course if they don't at least spend a couple hours a night studying. Somehow, they still get A grades.

 

We sent them to a prep/tutoring center in the summer instead of child care, and they seemed to enjoy it. My daughter scored 70's and 80's at the tutoring center, and is currently one of the top student in her class carrying higher than 100% scores. The kids who practically "live" in the prep/tutoring center are even better and smarter than her (at least according to her), and they go to Arcadia public and are just mid level students. You could put any of these kids in a high pressure situation, and they can still think through the best answer. That seems to be what the tutoring/prep centers are training.

post #41 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

Who knows? It might actually be better for the school, but the fact remains that some Asian families will suffer the consequences.

 

You're confusing facts with your opinions, @Lihu.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

BTW, your NFL football analogy is pretty much right on target. Less college students will be recruited, because some high school students are being recruited. It's a simple fact.

 

I think you misunderstood his example.

 

I'll make it more obvious.

 

Let's suppose the NFL allows teams to draft anyone who is five years old or older. How many of the college football players are going to "lose out" to a third-grader just because they're "allowing more applications"?

 

OT, but I hate deleting stuff once I've typed it and someone may have seen it. But it's OT, so let's leave it alone if possible. (Click to show)

P.S. 1510 (twice, back when it was out of 1600), 33 average ACT (once), 4.3 GPA (wasn't valedictorian because I took a ninth class three years which only had a possible value of 4.0, so even though I got As it lowered what we called our QPA), and accepted at every school to which I applied, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. Didn't ever intend to go to any of them. :)

 

All before the August before my senior year.

 

I studied about six hours. Per month.

post #42 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

Who knows? It might actually be better for the school, but the fact remains that some Asian families will suffer the consequences.

 

You're confusing facts with your opinions, @Lihu.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

BTW, your NFL football analogy is pretty much right on target. Less college students will be recruited, because some high school students are being recruited. It's a simple fact.

 

I think you misunderstood his example.

 

I'll make it more obvious.

 

Let's suppose the NFL allows teams to draft anyone who is five years old or older. How many of the college football players are going to "lose out" to a third-grader just because they're "allowing more applications"?

 

OT, but I hate deleting stuff once I've typed it and someone may have seen it. But it's OT, so let's leave it alone if possible. (Click to show)

P.S. 1510 (twice, back when it was out of 1600), 33 average ACT (once), 4.3 GPA (wasn't valedictorian because I took a ninth class three years which only had a possible value of 4.0, so even though I got As it lowered what we called our QPA), and accepted at every school to which I applied, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. Didn't ever intend to go to any of them. :)

 

All before the August before my senior year.

 

I studied about six hours. Per month.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

BTW, your NFL football analogy is pretty much right on target. Less college students will be recruited, because some high school students are being recruited. It's a simple fact.

But do you think that the NFL GM's would choose a LESS QUALIFIED high school graduate over a more qualified college player?


No, of course not.

 

However, you were stating that if the NFL wanted to open up options for some "Golden Nuggets" in the high school. This implies somehow that the high school kids in this category are somehow better than some the college students and could be chosen in their place.

 

I would not say that they are targeting college candidates, but there will be less of them IF they recruit high school "golden nuggets" instead.

post #43 of 71

The elimination of race as a factor in admissions is not a new policy.  That was implemented in the UC/CSU system a while ago (maybe late 90s, early 00s, can't remember).  There was some blowback at the time because the percentage of white and Asian students increased while the percentage of black and latino students declined.

 

A slight aside, I TAed at UCLA during my PhD.  It's not like we're talking about replacing future Nobel laureates with kids who coasted in one of the many embarrassingly bad public schools in CA.  Whatever requirements are currently in place are not ensuring that students have even basic english and arithmetic and algebra skills, and UCLA's supposed to be the other premier UC campus a half step behind Berkeley.  I can't tell you how many (non-athlete, American citizen, native English speakers) kids I taught who could barely put together an English sentence.  Imagine the worst writing you've ever seen on this site from some of the excited high schoolers.  Now imagine grading homework written that poorly.  I saw that all the time.  I also taught many kids who struggled even with fractions, much less basic algebra.  This included white, Asian, black, and latino kids.  

 

My point is just that these are things that theoretically should be measured by even the basic SAT, something that will still be required.  If you believe in public universities with some sort of equitable admission standards that don't exclude everyone who went to a crappy high school so guarantee admission to the top 10% or 12.5% or whatever of each high school class, then a lot of people are going to gain admission who went to one of our many crap schools and are wildly underprepared.  So there are already many students at the margins who finished ranked in the 15th percentile of a good school who lose out to students much less prepared with worse test scores who ranked in the top 5% of a much worse school.  I don't see how massaging around the edges of what exactly is required makes all that much difference.

 

And the athletics thing is a red herring.  There's ~30k undergraduates at UCLA.  How many athletes are there?  I can't find numbers, but it can't be more than 1-2k, and those students are already being preferentially admitted.

post #44 of 71

There's intelligent and there's educated. I've seen a number of people that are both, but I've seen many more that are one but not the other.

post #45 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

However, you were stating that if the NFL wanted to open up options for some "Golden Nuggets" in the high school. This implies somehow that the high school kids in this category are somehow better than some the college students and could be chosen in their place.

 

I would not say that they are targeting college candidates, but there will be less of them IF they recruit high school "golden nuggets" instead.

 

And I would say that the 0.3 high school students who are drafted, on average, each year deserve to be in the NFL more than the last player drafted out of college (because that's who they'd bump, they wouldn't bump out the top draft choices).

 

So… which is "fairer"? A wider range of options, or a narrower range of options?

 

Just because Asians have been "teaching the test" (kind of - you've said they stress academics and have "played up to the system", and to me that feels like they may not be developing well-rounded human beings), doesn't mean they're necessarily the best qualified students, especially when you have no evidence that they'll be negatively affected. You could just as easily make the case that this will benefit Asian students.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonious View Post
 

There's intelligent and there's educated. I've seen a number of people that are both, but I've seen many more that are one but not the other.

 

Yep. I use the words "smart" and "intelligent" differently. Loosely put, "smart" people "know" a lot of stuff. "Intelligent" people can "figure out" a lot of stuff.

post #46 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdl View Post
 

The elimination of race as a factor in admissions is not a new policy.  That was implemented in the UC/CSU system a while ago (maybe late 90s, early 00s, can't remember).  There was some blowback at the time because the percentage of white and Asian students increased while the percentage of black and latino students declined.

 

A slight aside, I TAed at UCLA during my PhD.  It's not like we're talking about replacing future Nobel laureates with kids who coasted in one of the many embarrassingly bad public schools in CA.  Whatever requirements are currently in place are not ensuring that students have even basic english and arithmetic and algebra skills, and UCLA's supposed to be the other premier UC campus a half step behind Berkeley.  I can't tell you how many (non-athlete, American citizen, native English speakers) kids I taught who could barely put together an English sentence.  Imagine the worst writing you've ever seen on this site from some of the excited high schoolers.  Now imagine grading homework written that poorly.  I saw that all the time.  I also taught many kids who struggled even with fractions, much less basic algebra.  This included white, Asian, black, and latino kids.  

 

My point is just that these are things that theoretically should be measured by even the basic SAT, something that will still be required.  If you believe in public universities with some sort of equitable admission standards that don't exclude everyone who went to a crappy high school so guarantee admission to the top 10% or 12.5% or whatever of each high school class, then a lot of people are going to gain admission who went to one of our many crap schools and are wildly underprepared.  So there are already many students at the margins who finished ranked in the 15th percentile of a good school who lose out to students much less prepared with worse test scores who ranked in the top 5% of a much worse school.  I don't see how massaging around the edges of what exactly is required makes all that much difference.

 

And the athletics thing is a red herring.  There's ~30k undergraduates at UCLA.  How many athletes are there?  I can't find numbers, but it can't be more than 1-2k, and those students are already being preferentially admitted.

 

I remember what happened in the 90's. The reaction? Good students needed to take 15 AP classes and get 2300's on the SAT.

 

What you are stating is true, but if the schools based their acceptance in this manner it would make acceptance even less equitable for those who go to poor schools. There are always the students who, if they were given a chance to go to the UC schools would do quite well, eventually. Even if they were not prepared out of high school, they might catch up and graduate.

 

So, what I am wondering is if this policy is intended to allow more students from tougher schools to get admitted? The scrapping of the SAT requirements seems counter to that goal.

 

No matter what, it sounds unfair.

 

If not to the Asian students, then to other minorities who don't happen to play football or basketball.

post #47 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

No matter what, it sounds unfair.

Why?  They are adding to the pool of possible applicants by including (INCLUDING!!!) more people ... how in the world (without making assumptions or presumptions) could it be argued that that is unfair to anybody?

 

What if they went a step further (similar to Erik's expansion of my football analogy) and said that there are now NO requirements AT ALL to apply to a UC.  You don't have to take the SAT, you don't have to take the ACT, hell, I don't care ... you don't even have to graduate from High School.  However, there are still admissions officers considering all of the applications.

 

Would that worry me?  Of course not!  You know why?  Because the admissions officers are not going to accept a kid who flunks out of high school and deals drugs (unless they're corrupt, but that's a whole other argument in the conspiracy theory category) over a straight A student who is also the student body president.

 

Maybe they'll accept a kid who gets two B's during his high school days, and thus only has a 3.8 GPA, and got 1450 on his SAT, but didn't take any ACT's because they conflicted with baseball practice, or his band competition, or his French classes trip to Paris over a kid who got A+'s in all of his classes and didn't participate in band, baseball, or any other extra-curricular activities because they conflicted with the ACT prep classes that his parents made him take every other weekend.

 

If you would consider that "unfair" then I guess you're right ... but I think you'd be in the minority.

post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

 

So, what I am wondering is if this policy is intended to allow more students from tougher schools to get admitted? The scrapping of the SAT requirements seems counter to that goal.

 

From what @Golfingdad quoted it looks like they're not scrapping the SATs, just the subject tests.  To me that seems only a good thing.  At least the AP tests are built to test knowledge of a curriculum that is something like an intro undergraduate course.  The SAT subject tests have never built up that kind of ecosystem around them and are just more ways for more advantaged kids to show off their advantages.

 

I feel like your point is much more limited than you think it is.  Like I said, the SAT's have been shown many times not to measure anything related to success at college, so while it is intuitively nice to have some sort of universal measure that isn't so dependent on how good your high school is (like GPA), we already know that whatever the SAT is measuring it's not related to success at college.   So disregarding SAT subject tests is only unfair if you define fair not as measuring applicants by how well you think they will do at college but instead by how well they've gamed the current system of measurement.  That seems a very limited definition of fairness.  If you want to talk about fairness then it would be fairer to ignore the SAT entirely (both subject tests and the standard) when assessing whether you think an applicant will succeed at college.

post #49 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

No matter what, it sounds unfair.

 

. . .

 

If you would consider that "unfair" then I guess you're right ... but I think you'd be in the minority.

 

It would be unfair to the hypothetical person I wrote about in my previous post, who went to a poorer school and graduated in the top 10%. This person, although unprepared for UC, could catch up. Arguably, this person might be better off starting at a Community College instead.

 

The main thing I am concerned about is the scrapping of the SAT/ACT scores. I am not sure this is a service to the school. The only thing I could muster up is athletes who don't score well on standardized tests.

 

So far, I have gotten quite a few theories from all of you who posted. It's really difficult to know what the intentions of the UC system are by changing their policy.

 

Change always upsets someone, and given many of the theories I don't know who should be upset or even if anyone should.

 

Maybe they got it right? Maybe not.

post #50 of 71

I'm also very unclear as to why you keep mentioning athletes??

 

As I understand it, except for Ivy League schools and Stanford and Duke and a handful of others, athletes are already subject to MUCH less stringent admission requirements than the rest of the school population.  And these new policies aren't changing that.

 

So what do they have to do with anything?

post #51 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdl View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

 

So, what I am wondering is if this policy is intended to allow more students from tougher schools to get admitted? The scrapping of the SAT requirements seems counter to that goal.

 

From what @Golfingdad quoted it looks like they're not scrapping the SATs, just the subject tests.  To me that seems only a good thing.  At least the AP tests are built to test knowledge of a curriculum that is something like an intro undergraduate course.  The SAT subject tests have never built up that kind of ecosystem around them and are just more ways for more advantaged kids to show off their advantages.

 

I feel like your point is much more limited than you think it is.  Like I said, the SAT's have been shown many times not to measure anything related to success at college, so while it is intuitively nice to have some sort of universal measure that isn't so dependent on how good your high school is (like GPA), we already know that whatever the SAT is measuring it's not related to success at college.   So disregarding SAT subject tests is only unfair if you define fair not as measuring applicants by how well you think they will do at college but instead by how well they've gamed the current system of measurement.  That seems a very limited definition of fairness.  If you want to talk about fairness then it would be fairer to ignore the SAT entirely (both subject tests and the standard) when assessing whether you think an applicant will succeed at college.

 

I agree with this. I have argued with my wife and family that kids should not study for these standardized tests, because it could possibly skew the image they give to anybody looking at their records. Your image or snapshot is shown by these scores and your GPA. They have no other way of getting to know you until you get to the interview stage. This could push you into a field that you might not be naturally suited.

 

There's still not enough compelling reason to say that the new policies are biased or not, but I can see the reason why it affects many Asian families. A lot has been invested to "game" the system, and it is a heavy toll on those that can barely afford it. This is where the feeling of unfairness comes from.

post #52 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

I'm also very unclear as to why you keep mentioning athletes??

 

As I understand it, except for Ivy League schools and Stanford and Duke and a handful of others, athletes are already subject to MUCH less stringent admission requirements than the rest of the school population.  And these new policies aren't changing that.

 

So what do they have to do with anything?


Sorry about that. Rephrase that to "people with other talents and skills". There could be artists, musicians and other exceptional capabilities. No offense was intended.

post #53 of 71
Thread Starter 

BTW, thanks everyone for their input.

 

This is a very hot topic in my town.

post #54 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

I agree with this. I have argued with my wife and family that kids should not study for these standardized tests, because it could possibly skew the image they give to anybody looking at their records. Your image or snapshot is shown by these scores and your GPA. They have no other way of getting to know you until you get to the interview stage. This could push you into a field that you might not be naturally suited.

 

There's still not enough compelling reason to say that the new policies are biased or not, but I can see the reason why it affects many Asian families. A lot has been invested to "game" the system, and it is a heavy toll on those that can barely afford it. This is where the feeling of unfairness comes from.

 

 

So basically, some people have been spending a lot of money to make their child look better than they really are (essentially cheating) and are now unhappy that they will no longer have that advantage....

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › New California Policies Cutting Qualified Students from CA Schools