The University of California doesn't officially have affirmative action; it was banned by proposition (which they're trying to repeal). They've been trying their best to do it anyway of course.
Yes, it would actually be unfair to the person with a poorer grasp of English to take his money despite him not having the prerequisite skills to succeed at college.
We need tanks in Harvard Yard. This bioleninism has to be stopped.
People who naturally float to the top of meritocracies don't try to protect the system. They have nothing compelling their loyalty to maintain the system, since they achieved greatness on their own and locking out the plebs would be nice.
The problem is As hire As and Bs hire Cs. Once one person gets in that doesn't belong there, they will scramble to cling to their position by producing loyal backers, people who wouldn't get there without being placed. This creates a race to the bottom.
They need to start categorizing people to identify those who will be loyal. Falguini Sheth calls it racialization. Eventually they start openingly selecting for groups they percieve to be worthless. When you see leftists yelling for representation, the groups that they champion are ones that they percieve to be fundamentally worthless, because it will instill loyalty.
So they're not allowed to use standardized tests in admissions? The tests explicitly designed to be a universal benchmark for general knowledge? The tests that exist because grades from different schools with different standards aren't generally comparable?
Well, I guess I can't fault them. At this point, anything that collapses the university system faster has to be a positive thing.
But they did, which is why they're pushing this. No SAT means we can ignore the inconvenient truth that academic excellence is not a "social construct". No SAT means millionaires and celebrities can buy their kids a spot at prestigious Colleges. (That these Colleges won't remain prestigious for long, doesn't seem to matter)
I assume what will happen is that those secondary schools will end up being ranked in order to determine the true gpa. Similarly how a degree from Harvard is worth more than other state schools.
If they wanted "true GPA", they wouldn't have been messing around with the SAT scores by adding "geographic modifiers" depending on income level, crime, etc. I guarantee you that they won't do any kind of ranking. They would face massive backlash for "discrimination of high poverty schools". In fact, they will justify the grade inflation as a marker of relative effort.
GPA is a measure of doing the work, and maybe some extra credit. SAT/ACT is a measure of intelligence and knowledge, related, but distinct measures of capability.
It's because GPA is a poor indicator of somebody's actual degree of education. A 4.0 GPA from a high-end private school is not the same thing as a 4.0 from a poorly funded inner-city school. Homeschooling programs are usually more rigorous and prepare students better in the early years, but due to the expenses involved in high-school curriculum they often wind up not matching up to even shittier public schools. Even those have high variance in performance as they rely on the parents entirely or primarily.
The idea of the standardized test is that every person takes the same test and the college has a more objective standard to look at. In reality, the way the tests are formatted leads to biases that favor/disfavor people based some factors, but it is a better standard than just a high school GPA.
Well they are better than GPA scores, in the US at least. Standardized tests aren't necessarily great though.
There is mounting evidence that our Federal policies since the start of No Child Left Behind have increased cheating on the part of the teachers and administrators running those tests, as their jobs are now tied to the tests.
You should also consider the mechanics of the test. Multiple choice tests are exploitable by certain tactics and an understanding of game theory, something I was explicitly taught in NY public schools years ago. Certain subjects are also difficult to test en masse, so these tests tend to emphasize specific subjects.
You also have to consider that grades can often be handled very subjectively and the vast majority of high-school teachers are left-wing, with a large proportion of them far-left (multiple studies have clearly shown this). Do you think that in the current climate black, gay, transgender or other 'special' cases are going to get a completely fair score or are they likely to get softer assessment and padded grades? In many places, student-teacher relationships (affinity, bias, etc. not sex you smutty devil) can have a major impact on grades received. Even with a teacher that tries to avoid it, this bias can show, and we know far-left teachers will be embracing it.
Also, while it may be hard for a single teacher, or even two or three to boost your GPA dramatically, they can do huge damage to high-performing students they don't like (say, straight white males).
if you are going to judge those test scores by race (affirmative action) then those test scores are already meaningless
The University of California doesn't officially have affirmative action; it was banned by proposition (which they're trying to repeal). They've been trying their best to do it anyway of course.
If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
They've been discriminating by race for decades in the UCs. They just want to repeal the law so they can do it openly.
That's what he just said.
Pretty sure they were successful in that repeal
The election hasn't happened yet.
If the university courses are going to be in English, isn't it reasonable to test how well someone can comprehend English?
Yes, it would actually be unfair to the person with a poorer grasp of English to take his money despite him not having the prerequisite skills to succeed at college.
We need tanks in Harvard Yard. This bioleninism has to be stopped.
People who naturally float to the top of meritocracies don't try to protect the system. They have nothing compelling their loyalty to maintain the system, since they achieved greatness on their own and locking out the plebs would be nice.
The problem is As hire As and Bs hire Cs. Once one person gets in that doesn't belong there, they will scramble to cling to their position by producing loyal backers, people who wouldn't get there without being placed. This creates a race to the bottom.
They need to start categorizing people to identify those who will be loyal. Falguini Sheth calls it racialization. Eventually they start openingly selecting for groups they percieve to be worthless. When you see leftists yelling for representation, the groups that they champion are ones that they percieve to be fundamentally worthless, because it will instill loyalty.
And just like that, at the snap of a finger, an entire generation of Californians are made permanently unemployable.
So they're not allowed to use standardized tests in admissions? The tests explicitly designed to be a universal benchmark for general knowledge? The tests that exist because grades from different schools with different standards aren't generally comparable?
Well, I guess I can't fault them. At this point, anything that collapses the university system faster has to be a positive thing.
GPA is a notoriously poor measure. Studies have shown poorer schools will inflate grades.
https://www.nagc.org/blog/rampant-grade-inflation-harming-vulnerable-high-schoolers
But they did, which is why they're pushing this. No SAT means we can ignore the inconvenient truth that academic excellence is not a "social construct". No SAT means millionaires and celebrities can buy their kids a spot at prestigious Colleges. (That these Colleges won't remain prestigious for long, doesn't seem to matter)
I assume what will happen is that those secondary schools will end up being ranked in order to determine the true gpa. Similarly how a degree from Harvard is worth more than other state schools.
If they wanted "true GPA", they wouldn't have been messing around with the SAT scores by adding "geographic modifiers" depending on income level, crime, etc. I guarantee you that they won't do any kind of ranking. They would face massive backlash for "discrimination of high poverty schools". In fact, they will justify the grade inflation as a marker of relative effort.
GPA is a measure of doing the work, and maybe some extra credit. SAT/ACT is a measure of intelligence and knowledge, related, but distinct measures of capability.
It's because GPA is a poor indicator of somebody's actual degree of education. A 4.0 GPA from a high-end private school is not the same thing as a 4.0 from a poorly funded inner-city school. Homeschooling programs are usually more rigorous and prepare students better in the early years, but due to the expenses involved in high-school curriculum they often wind up not matching up to even shittier public schools. Even those have high variance in performance as they rely on the parents entirely or primarily.
The idea of the standardized test is that every person takes the same test and the college has a more objective standard to look at. In reality, the way the tests are formatted leads to biases that favor/disfavor people based some factors, but it is a better standard than just a high school GPA.
Well they are better than GPA scores, in the US at least. Standardized tests aren't necessarily great though.
There is mounting evidence that our Federal policies since the start of No Child Left Behind have increased cheating on the part of the teachers and administrators running those tests, as their jobs are now tied to the tests.
You should also consider the mechanics of the test. Multiple choice tests are exploitable by certain tactics and an understanding of game theory, something I was explicitly taught in NY public schools years ago. Certain subjects are also difficult to test en masse, so these tests tend to emphasize specific subjects.
You also have to consider that grades can often be handled very subjectively and the vast majority of high-school teachers are left-wing, with a large proportion of them far-left (multiple studies have clearly shown this). Do you think that in the current climate black, gay, transgender or other 'special' cases are going to get a completely fair score or are they likely to get softer assessment and padded grades? In many places, student-teacher relationships (affinity, bias, etc. not sex you smutty devil) can have a major impact on grades received. Even with a teacher that tries to avoid it, this bias can show, and we know far-left teachers will be embracing it.
Also, while it may be hard for a single teacher, or even two or three to boost your GPA dramatically, they can do huge damage to high-performing students they don't like (say, straight white males).