Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's great if your only requirement is to train software developers to write CRUD apps - you can learn to do that by watching youtube videos, reading self-study materials, and taking MOOC classes - but if you want mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical engineers, and be a leader in materials science or chip manufacturing, then you still need universities. So the price of this "equity" movement is goin…
I don’t believe objective measures of intelligence tell you all that much about someone. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who for various reasons accomplish nothing and plenty of dropouts bringing enormous value to the world.
UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative
81–90 of 235 posts
Re: UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative
#82But I did extremely well on the SAT, and PSAT, which got me several scholarships and college admission.
Without the SAT to accurately gauge my potential, I wouldn't have succeeded.
This is a disgusting new policy, and will harm people.
Re: UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many Cal Poly SLO grads at Stripe (or choose any stratospheric make-you-rich company you like) compared to Stanford grads?
Show me how many GED students who had to fight certificate bias with get hired out of sheer skill.
Re: UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative
#84Aren’t standardized tests a poor indicator of thinking and capability? Don’t they favor those who can memorize over abstract thinking?
No. But if your vocabulary is limited, you'll do poorly on the verbals.
I never did any prep for the SATs, and nobody I knew did. Of course, this was back in the 70s.
Re: UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative
#85In China there is 1 exam, the Gaokao. This exam in no small part decides your future. In the past, you had one attempt, and if you failed, tough luck. Now they let kids retake it a couple times. One exam. One billion people. One standardized metric to determine who goes where. There are flaws to this of course. The rich, with better access to tutoring and such, naturally have an advantage over the poor. But herein li…
It has been my impression from people who lived in China that guanxi (connections) is far more important than the Gaokao and the main difference between the have and the have-nots is whether you and or your parents have a permit to live in a city. When I bring the point of the standard exam as a great equalizer they immediately laughed and told me that the US is a egalitarian paradise compared to what goes on there.
Re: UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative
#86I found what is funny / pathetic about this is that there are tons of psychology / education / especially educational measurement top experts in the UC system, and they know how wrong it is, while they just keep mouth shut. The whole anti-standard-testing movement is pushed by ideology leftists and corrupted bureaucrats, but the supposed experts just quietly watch the world burn. Lol. Update: I found experts in the U…
Eventually they had to put a minimum because there was too much low score students draining the professors and tutors time both in and outside class.
When Computer Science became mainstream and synonymous with making lots of money then they began to limit places and the problematic students went away.
Re: UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative
#87UC schools have already become dubious - the entitlement of grads, the actual LACK of skills, not remotely "hungry" enough to have any grit or motivation, etc. My father (an engineering manager) always said: "If you want GOOD employees, you never want to hire from UCB, Stanford, Cal Tech, etc. The best engineers in California come from Cal Poly SLO and Cal Poly Pomona. They are actually trained as engineers". This is…
> They are actually trained as engineers Caltech's engineering program doesn't actually train you to design machines, or how to operate a milling machine, or how to assemble an internal combustion engine. You can certainly get an engineering degree without ever getting grease under your fingernails. What it does do is teach you math. Every class is a math class. Statics, dynamics, newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics,…
1. "math vs no-math". All engineers learn math. Some are afraid of it. At elite unis, it's fair to say those afraid are weeded out. That does not mean that most who attend mid-tier schools are afraid of math, or don't know math -- that's wildly false.
2. "engineering versus operating". Elite unis prepare you better to go into research, which is not engineering. Yet you are pretending that research is engineering and that what other schools do is teach you how to "operate a milling machine", which is again wildly inaccurate and condescending. Other schools teach you to build stuff and have less emphasis on theory. At elite unis there is more emphasis on theory and less on building stuff.
3. "I've known many engineers who were competent mechanics, but were terrified of math" Yes, as a mathematician I know a lot of engineers who think they know math because they like to throw around words like SDEs, or think they are math heroes for studying a bit of functional analysis or linear programming. But their knowledge is pretty shallow, which is fine. What's not fine is it often comes at the expense of knowing how to build or design things well. That is a real risk with the more theoretically educated engineer, just as not knowing theory well is a real risk for the more practically educated engineer. Also a lot of theoretically trained engineers tend to be quite condescending and arrogant, not realizing how poor their math knowledge actually is.
Fortunately elite and regular engineering schools today do produce good students. The main advantage of the elite school is sorting - smarter students attend these schools, which means on average they are better at their area of study. Caltech is notable for resisting the "equity" tide and still requiring standardized scores, so I'd hire from them if I needed someone to assist in more theoretical areas, or someone looking for a career change into a more practical area. I would be much more circumspect when it comes to UC schools. I would also hire from lower-tiered schools but would require more screening.
Re: UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative
#88In China there is 1 exam, the Gaokao. This exam in no small part decides your future. In the past, you had one attempt, and if you failed, tough luck. Now they let kids retake it a couple times. One exam. One billion people. One standardized metric to determine who goes where. There are flaws to this of course. The rich, with better access to tutoring and such, naturally have an advantage over the poor. But herein li…
Re: UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's great if your only requirement is to train software developers to write CRUD apps - you can learn to do that by watching youtube videos, reading self-study materials, and taking MOOC classes - but if you want mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical engineers, and be a leader in materials science or chip manufacturing, then you still need universities. So the price of this "equity" movement is goin…
I don’t believe objective measures of intelligence tell you all that much about someone. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who for various reasons accomplish nothing and plenty of dropouts bringing enormous value to the world.
Re: UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative
#90I was on the UC Berkeley campus on Tuesday. So many more black and latino students than when I was on campus. It was nice. I had many black friends in high school and none when I went to Berkeley in 2005-2010. I can say the SAT, ACT, etc. are biased against anyone who doesn't have the money to get the prep for them.
I genuinely don’t understand when people say the SAT is so biased, because it seemed quite fair to me compared to alternative metrics. Unless asking someone to spend a lot of time studying is too much to ask.