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. repec:cdl:cshedu:qt7306z0zf is not listed on IDEAS
    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. repec:cdl:econwp:qt59s4j4m4 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Jake Anders, 2014. "Does an aptitude test affect socioeconomic and gender gaps in attendance at an elite university?," DoQSS Working Papers 14-07, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
    2. 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.
    3. Sandra E. Black & Jeffrey T. Denning & Jesse Rothstein, 2023. "Winners and Losers? The Effect of Gaining and Losing Access to Selective Colleges on Education and Labor Market Outcomes," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 26-67, January.
    4. Jesse Rothstein & Albert Yoon, 2006. "Mismatch in Law School," Working Papers 29, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Education Research Section..
    5. Tatiana Khavenson & Anna Solovyova, 2014. "Studying the Relation between the Unified State Exam Points and Higher Education Performance," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 176-199.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Juan ESteban Saavedra & Carlos Medina, 2012. "Formación para el Trabajo en Colombia," Borradores de Economia 740, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    10. Michelle Rendall & Andrew Rendall, 2013. "Math Matters: Student Ability, College Majors, and Wage Inequality," 2013 Meeting Papers 1196, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    11. Christoffel Reumer and Marijk van der Wende, 2010. "EXCELLENCE AND DIVERSITY: The Emergence of Selective Admission Policies in Dutch Higher Education - A Case Study on Amsterdam University College," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt4502w5pj, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    12. Joseph H. Paris & Catherine Pressimone Beckowski & Sara Fiorot, 2023. "Predicting Success: An Examination of the Predictive Validity of a Measure of Motivational-Developmental Dimensions in College Admissions," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(8), pages 1191-1216, December.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. repec:cdl:indrel:qt02t2c4nn is not listed on IDEAS
    16. 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.
    17. Dur, Robert & Glazer, Amihai, 2008. "Subsidizing Enjoyable Education," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 1023-1039, October.
    18. repec:cdl:cshedu:qt66n4x6g4 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. 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.
    20. Gandil, Mikkel Høst & Leuven, Edwin, 2022. "College Admission as a Screening and Sorting Device," IZA Discussion Papers 15557, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    21. Raj Chetty & John N. Friedman & Emmanuel Saez & Nicholas Turner & Danny Yagan, 2020. "The Determinants of Income Segregation and Intergenerational Mobility: Using Test Scores to Measure Undermatching," NBER Working Papers 26748, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Conlin, Michael & Dickert-Conlin, Stacy & Chapman, Gabrielle, 2013. "Voluntary disclosure and the strategic behavior of colleges," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 48-64.

    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.