IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/cshedu/qt0x09n63m.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Not So Fast! A Second Opinion on a University of California Proposal to Endorse the New SAT

Author

Listed:
  • Geiser, Saul

Abstract

A University of California faculty committee, the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS), has recommended eliminating achievement tests and requiring only the “New SAT” for admission to the UC system. The proposal to endorse the New SAT has thus far drawn relatively little notice, as it is part of a broader and more controversial set of proposed changes in how UC identifies the top 12.5 percent of California high school graduates who are eligible for admission. Yet the testing proposal deserves much more attention in its own right since, if approved by the Regents, it would reverse a decade of UC research and policy development. In 2002 UC was among the first universities to adopt a formal policy on admissions testing. That policy strongly favored achievement tests, which measure students’ knowledge of college-preparatory subjects, over tests of general reasoning such as the SAT. UC research showed that achievement tests predicted student performance in college at least as well as reasoning tests, while having a less adverse impact on low-income and minority applicants. In response to UC, the College Board introduced several changes in the SAT in 2005, including the addition of a writing exam, intended to position the New SAT as more of an achievement test. The UC Regents provisionally approved use of the New SAT on the understanding that BOARS would conduct a careful evaluation of the extent to which the test conformed to UC’s 2002 testing policy before the New SAT was adopted on a permanent basis. That evaluation has never been completed. Moreover, a closer look at BOARS’ proposal reveals that it is based on questionable and often misleading evidence. Like the old SAT, the New SAT remains a relatively weak predictor of student success at UC and a strong deterrent to admission of low-income and underrepresented minority applicants. Achievement tests remain the better standard for UC admissions.

Suggested Citation

  • Geiser, Saul, 2008. "Not So Fast! A Second Opinion on a University of California Proposal to Endorse the New SAT," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt0x09n63m, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:cshedu:qt0x09n63m
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/0x09n63m.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geiser, Saul, 2008. "Back to the Basics: In Defense of Achievement (and Achievement Tests) in College Admissions," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt8kd4q096, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    2. Geiser, Saul & Maria Veronica Santelices, 2007. "Validity Of High-School Grades In Predicting Student Success Beyond The Freshman Year: High-School Record vs. Standardized Tests as Indicators of Four-Year College Outcomes," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt7306z0zf, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    3. Rothstein, J.M.Jesse M., 2004. "College performance predictions and the SAT," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 121(1-2), pages 297-317.
    4. Rothstein, Jesse M, 2004. "College performance predictions and the SAT," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt59s4j4m4, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard C. Atkinson and Saul Geiser, 2009. "Reflections on a Century of College Admissions Tests," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt49z7127p, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    2. Bulman, George, 2017. "Weighting recent performance to improve college and labor market outcomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 97-108.
    3. Peter Bergman, 2020. "Nudging Technology Use: Descriptive and Experimental Evidence from School Information Systems," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 15(4), pages 623-647, Fall.
    4. Rajeev Darolia & Cory Koedel, 2018. "High Schools And Students' Initial Colleges And Majors," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(4), pages 692-710, October.
    5. Peter Leopold S. Bergman & Elizabeth Kopko & Julio Rodriguez, 2021. "Using Predictive Analytics to Track Students: Evidence from a Seven-College Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 9157, CESifo.
    6. Verbetsky, Alexey D. (Вербецкий, Алексей) & Friedman, Alla A. (Фридман, Алла), 2016. "Universities’ Admission Policy and Student Competition [Политика Приема В Вузы И Конкуренция Абитуриентов]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 5, pages 68-91, October.
    7. Jesse Rothstein & Albert Yoon, 2006. "Mismatch in Law School," Working Papers 29, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Education Research Section..
    8. Schlosser, Analia & Neeman, Zvika & Attali, Yigal, 2018. "Differential Performance in High vs. Low Stakes Tests: Evidence from the GRE Test," CEPR Discussion Papers 13360, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Debopam Bhattacharya & Shin Kanaya & Margaret Stevens, 2017. "Are University Admissions Academically Fair?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 449-464, July.
    10. Guyonne Kalb & Sholeh A. Maani, 2007. "The Importance of Observing Early School Leaving and Usually Unobserved Background and Peer Characteristics in Analysing Academic Performance," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2007n05, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    11. Beattie, Graham & Laliberté, Jean-William P. & Oreopoulos, Philip, 2018. "Thrivers and divers: Using non-academic measures to predict college success and failure," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 170-182.
    12. Gandil, Mikkel & Leuven, Edwin, 2022. "College admission as a screening and sorting device," Memorandum 2/2022, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    13. Michelle Rendall & Andrew Rendall, 2013. "Math Matters: Student Ability, College Majors, and Wage Inequality," 2013 Meeting Papers 1196, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    14. A. Abigail Payne & Justin Smith, 2020. "Big Fish, Small Pond: The Effect of Rank at Entry on Postsecondary Outcomes," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(4), pages 1475-1509, April.
    15. Sezgin Polat & Jean-Jacques Paul, 2016. "How to predict university performance: a case study from a prestigious Turkish university?," Investigaciones de Economía de la Educación volume 11, in: José Manuel Cordero Ferrera & Rosa Simancas Rodríguez (ed.), Investigaciones de Economía de la Educación 11, edition 1, volume 11, chapter 22, pages 423-434, Asociación de Economía de la Educación.
    16. Evgeniya Popova & Marina Sheina, 2017. "Does Studying in a Strong School Guarantee Good College Performance?," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 128-157.
    17. Jesse Rothstein, 2019. "Inequality of Educational Opportunity? Schools as Mediators of the Intergenerational Transmission of Income," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(S1), pages 85-123.
    18. Mario I. Suárez & Alan R Dabney & Hersh C Waxman & Timothy P Scott & Adrienne O Bentz, 2021. "Exploring Factors that Predict STEM Persistence at a Large, Public Research University," International Journal of Higher Education, Sciedu Press, vol. 10(4), pages 161-161, August.
    19. Dur, Robert & Glazer, Amihai, 2008. "Subsidizing Enjoyable Education," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 1023-1039, October.
    20. Palomino, Frédéric & Peyrache, Eloïc & ÖRS, Evren, 2008. "Performance Gender-Gap: Does Competition Matter?," CEPR Discussion Papers 6891, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:cshedu:qt0x09n63m. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://escholarship.org/uc/cshe/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.