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. Rothstein, J.M.Jesse M., 2004. "College performance predictions and the SAT," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 121(1-2), pages 297-317.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. Bulman, George, 2017. "Weighting recent performance to improve college and labor market outcomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 97-108.
    2. 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.
    3. Bertrand, Marianne, 2011. "New Perspectives on Gender," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 17, pages 1543-1590, Elsevier.
    4. de Roux, Nicolás & Riehl, Evan, 2022. "Do college students benefit from placement into higher-achieving classes?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Attali, Yigal & Neeman, Zvika & Schlosser, Analia, 2011. "Rise to the Challenge or Not Give a Damn: Differential Performance in High vs. Low Stakes Tests," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275743, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    9. Corinne Bendersky & Neha Parikh Shah, 2012. "The Cost of Status Enhancement: Performance Effects of Individuals' Status Mobility in Task Groups," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 308-322, April.
    10. Milan Ranđelović & Aleksandar Aleksić & Radovan Radovanović & Vladica Stojanović & Milan Čabarkapa & Dragan Ranđelović, 2022. "One Aggregated Approach in Multidisciplinary Based Modeling to Predict Further Students’ Education," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-23, July.
    11. repec:pri:cepsud:123rothstein is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. Silva, Pedro Luís, 2022. "Specialists or All-Rounders: How Best to Select University Students?," IZA Discussion Papers 15271, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. 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.
    15. Poldin, Oleg, 2011. "Predicting success in college on the basis of the results of unified national exam," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 21(1), pages 56-69.
    16. Jason Fletcher & Marta Tienda, 2010. "Race and Ethnic Differences in College Achievement: Does High School Attended Matter?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 627(1), pages 144-166, January.
    17. 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.
    18. Peresetsky, Anatoly & Davtian, Misak, 2011. "Russian USE and olympiads as instruments for university admission selection," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 23(3), pages 41-56.
    19. Jesse Rothstein & Albert Yoon, 2006. "Mismatch in Law School," Working Papers 29, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Education Research Section..
    20. 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.
    21. Peter Arcidiacono & Cory Koedel, 2014. "Race and College Success: Evidence from Missouri," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 20-57, July.

    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.