[JustAnotherFan]

It seems to me that society is shifting in their tolerance for overt and systemic racism, and Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution.

And you know that . . . how?
I find it hard to believe that Stanford has not kept pace with "societal evolution" on anything, but particularly on the race front.

Are you suggesting that Stanford has somehow kept pace, or even led?

---

Standardized tests are used because they work.  They actually help predict college success.  But lets ignore that.

They are actually a worse predictor of college success than high school grades and family wealth. They also have a much higher correlation with family wealth than they do college success. 

UC just did a big faculty led study.  The found that Standardized tests actually meant that more diverse students were admitted and not less.  They were particularly good at identifying students who did well on the test but had poor grades.  They recommended keeping the tests.

This is an overwhelmingly simplistic reading of the UC study.

Who tends to do better on tests than in school? Who is paying for test prep. 

Of course the Regents promptly ignored the work and voted to start moving away from the tests.  Despite the left thinking it is pro-science, it turns out that both sides promptly ignore the science when it doesn't fit their pre-existing beliefs....

The task force did not provide an endorsement of using standardized tests. They didn't "ignore" the work. It was underwhelming, at best. Standardized tests are a poor predictor of success at the college level. UC has enough candidates that they can easily make determinations on who to let in without the tests that won't reinforce race and class disparities without sacrificing academic quality or graduation rates.

Stanford sure as hell doesn't need them.

It looks like you didn't read the report.  Here it is:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.ed...report.pdf

Let me pull out some juicy quotes.  And I am sure that you thought it was "under-whelming" because you don't like the answer.  I am sure you believe the faculty Senate are a bunch of Trump loving racists.

" The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.  For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

"Applicants from less advantaged demographic groups are admitted at higher rates for any given test score as a result of comprehensive review, which is a process that evaluates applicants’ academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them and takes into consideration the capacity each student demonstrates to contribute to the intellectual life of the campus. The point was not what the STTF expected before we commenced our data analysis. Task Force members took note of the average differences in test scores among groups and expected to find that test score differences explain differences in admission rates. That is not what we found. Instead, the STTF found that UC admissions practices compensated well for the observed differences in average test scores among demographic groups."

Facts are stubborn things....

Facts are stubborn things. Especially when you pick and choose facts to support your inaccurate initial claims. 

Ironically, your selective quotes don't even support your position. Underwhelming was indeed the right word to use. For example, "test scores" are "about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation" as high school GPA is. Wow. So yeah, if you care about first-year GPA in college you should totally lean on test scores. Because lord knows that is what is important. Oh wait, it isn't. What is more important than first-year GPA? Right, more important is first-year retention, undergraduate GPA, and graduation rates. Of which the tests that consume high school juniors and seniors does not actually provide meaningful benefit to the university, much less the applicant. And that's what you want to hang your hat on?

Also, there is this hell of a thing called correlation vs causation. Why do you think there is a correlation between test scores within a GPA band and certain outcomes? It couldn't have anything to do with ... family resources, could it? Speaking of correlation, because that's what you seem fixated on, guess what correlates best with the tests? Intellect? No. Work ethic? No. Values? No. Family resources? Yup.

Now if you, or UC, cared about economic and racial diversity, and access, you could promote using a top x percent system like UT does. 

Test scores work ... for families that can pay for test prep, for students who have stable home lives, for schools that want an excuse to keep their URM and low-income population down.

[JustAnotherFan]

It seems to me that society is shifting in their tolerance for overt and systemic racism, and Stanford has not kept pace with societal evolution.

And you know that . . . how?
I find it hard to believe that Stanford has not kept pace with "societal evolution" on anything, but particularly on the race front.

Are you suggesting that Stanford has somehow kept pace, or even led?

---

Standardized tests are used because they work.  They actually help predict college success.  But lets ignore that.

They are actually a worse predictor of college success than high school grades and family wealth. They also have a much higher correlation with family wealth than they do college success. 

UC just did a big faculty led study.  The found that Standardized tests actually meant that more diverse students were admitted and not less.  They were particularly good at identifying students who did well on the test but had poor grades.  They recommended keeping the tests.

This is an overwhelmingly simplistic reading of the UC study.

Who tends to do better on tests than in school? Who is paying for test prep. 

Of course the Regents promptly ignored the work and voted to start moving away from the tests.  Despite the left thinking it is pro-science, it turns out that both sides promptly ignore the science when it doesn't fit their pre-existing beliefs....

The task force did not provide an endorsement of using standardized tests. They didn't "ignore" the work. It was underwhelming, at best. Standardized tests are a poor predictor of success at the college level. UC has enough candidates that they can easily make determinations on who to let in without the tests that won't reinforce race and class disparities without sacrificing academic quality or graduation rates.

Stanford sure as hell doesn't need them.

It looks like you didn't read the report.  Here it is:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.ed...report.pdf

Let me pull out some juicy quotes.  And I am sure that you thought it was "under-whelming" because you don't like the answer.  I am sure you believe the faculty Senate are a bunch of Trump loving racists.

" The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.  For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

"Applicants from less advantaged demographic groups are admitted at higher rates for any given test score as a result of comprehensive review, which is a process that evaluates applicants’ academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them and takes into consideration the capacity each student demonstrates to contribute to the intellectual life of the campus. The point was not what the STTF expected before we commenced our data analysis. Task Force members took note of the average differences in test scores among groups and expected to find that test score differences explain differences in admission rates. That is not what we found. Instead, the STTF found that UC admissions practices compensated well for the observed differences in average test scores among demographic groups."

Facts are stubborn things....

Facts are stubborn things. Especially when you pick and choose facts to support your inaccurate initial claims. 

Ironically, your selective quotes don't even support your position. Underwhelming was indeed the right word to use. For example, "test scores" are "about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation" as high school GPA is. Wow. So yeah, if you care about first-year GPA in college you should totally lean on test scores. Because lord knows that is what is important. Oh wait, it isn't. What is more important than first-year GPA? Right, more important is first-year retention, undergraduate GPA, and graduation rates. Of which the tests that consume high school juniors and seniors does not actually provide meaningful benefit to the university, much less the applicant. And that's what you want to hang your hat on?

Also, there is this hell of a thing called correlation vs causation. Why do you think there is a correlation between test scores within a GPA band and certain outcomes? It couldn't have anything to do with ... family resources, could it? Speaking of correlation, because that's what you seem fixated on, guess what correlates best with the tests? Intellect? No. Work ethic? No. Values? No. Family resources? Yup.

Now if you, or UC, cared about economic and racial diversity, and access, you could promote using a top x percent system like UT does. 

Test scores work ... for families that can pay for test prep, for students who have stable home lives, for schools that want an excuse to keep their URM and low-income population down.