[Snorlax94]

I've seen data showing a correlation between test scores and college achievement, but that correlation largely disappears once you account for high school grades, so I get the desire to eliminate it.  On the other hand, relative to a lot of other things (essays, recommendations, and even grades) it seems like short of outright cheating, it is a bit harder to game test scores.  On the other hand, rich parents can easily provide tutors to help "home"essays; local, powerful people can probably cow teachers and guidance counselors into writing superlative recommendations, and grade inflation in affluent schools makes it so that grades are going to be of limited value.  It's not that I don't think test scores weren't largely a reflection of socioeconomic status; it's just that pretty much every other metric is just as bad or worse.

BC

There was a fascinating article in the Atlantic a little while ago about how super-rich families can demand what they want from schools, and schools, beholden to the wealthy donors, no longer stick up for teachers.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...le/618078/

So, to BC’s point, maybe you can pay someone $50k to take a test for you, but that’s actually hard to do and you may go to jail for it, but it sounds like it’s easier, cheaper, and more effective to control a wealthy child’s GPA. It’s a lot easier to cheat on your essays and homework than it is to cheat on a standardized test.

As to whether this will make things better or worse for the UCs, people who used to play the test score game will just super-focus on the GPA/essays game, which I suspect will lead to an even worse outcome, but who knows? We will see in a few years.

[Snorlax94]

I've seen data showing a correlation between test scores and college achievement, but that correlation largely disappears once you account for high school grades, so I get the desire to eliminate it.  On the other hand, relative to a lot of other things (essays, recommendations, and even grades) it seems like short of outright cheating, it is a bit harder to game test scores.  On the other hand, rich parents can easily provide tutors to help "home"essays; local, powerful people can probably cow teachers and guidance counselors into writing superlative recommendations, and grade inflation in affluent schools makes it so that grades are going to be of limited value.  It's not that I don't think test scores weren't largely a reflection of socioeconomic status; it's just that pretty much every other metric is just as bad or worse.

BC

There was a fascinating article in the Atlantic a little while ago about how super-rich families can demand what they want from schools, and schools, beholden to the wealthy donors, no longer stick up for teachers.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...le/618078/

So, to BC’s point, maybe you can pay someone $50k to take a test for you, but that’s actually hard to do and you may go to jail for it, but it sounds like it’s easier, cheaper, and more effective to control a wealthy child’s GPA. It’s a lot easier to cheat on your essays and homework than it is to cheat on a standardized test.

As to whether this will make things better or worse for the UCs, people who used to play the test score game will just super-focus on the GPA/essays game, which I suspect will lead to an even worse outcome, but who knows? We will see in a few years.