[Mick]

Over 1,400 University of California STEM professors (including 7 of the 9 Mathematics department chairs) and 120 humanities and social sciences faculty have mandated the return of SAT and ACT test scores.

UC humanities and social science faculty join STEM push to restore the SAT

UC will consider restoring SAT and ACT after faculty warn of worsening math skills

UC to consider reinstating SAT, ACT tests after faculty say students are deficient in math

UC faces broad faculty push to reinstate SAT, ACT tests

Here's the open letter signed, with faculty identified:

ucstudentsuccess.org

[Mick]

Over 1,400 University of California STEM professors (including 7 of the 9 Mathematics department chairs) and 120 humanities and social sciences faculty have mandated the return of SAT and ACT test scores.

UC humanities and social science faculty join STEM push to restore the SAT

UC will consider restoring SAT and ACT after faculty warn of worsening math skills

UC to consider reinstating SAT, ACT tests after faculty say students are deficient in math

UC faces broad faculty push to reinstate SAT, ACT tests

Here's the open letter signed, with faculty identified:

ucstudentsuccess.org

[Canalejas]

Only 8 UCs have math departments? Which one of the 9 is the odd man out?

[Canalejas]

Only 8 UCs have math departments? Which one of the 9 is the odd man out?

[Mick]

Only 8 UCs have math departments? Which one of the 9 is the odd man out?

Typo, fixed. 7 of 9. All but UCSF have Mathematics departments

[Mick]

Only 8 UCs have math departments? Which one of the 9 is the odd man out?

Typo, fixed. 7 of 9. All but UCSF have Mathematics departments

[BostonCard]

1781612721[/url]']

1781582645[/url]']
Only 8 UCs have math departments? Which one of the 9 is the odd man out?

Typo, fixed. 7 of 9. All but UCSF have Mathematics departments

I would have guessed that UC Hastings is the other.

BC

[BostonCard]

1781612721[/url]']

1781582645[/url]']
Only 8 UCs have math departments? Which one of the 9 is the odd man out?

Typo, fixed. 7 of 9. All but UCSF have Mathematics departments

I would have guessed that UC Hastings is the other.

BC

[Canalejas]

Fun fact: the artist formerly known as UC Hastings now goes by University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. Or UC Law SF for short.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University..._Francisco  

Second fun fact: despite their name they are not one of the ten campuses (9 comprehensive campuses plus UCSF) directly governed by the Regents of the University of California.

[Canalejas]

Fun fact: the artist formerly known as UC Hastings now goes by University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. Or UC Law SF for short.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University..._Francisco  

Second fun fact: despite their name they are not one of the ten campuses (9 comprehensive campuses plus UCSF) directly governed by the Regents of the University of California.

[paloalto]

I don't see how anyone can be against this.  An extremely poor score in SAT math might be a warning the potential student is not ready for STEM college classes and needs more preparation or should start out at a community college.

Taking students not prepared for college work in their intended major is not good for anyone, particularly the student.

Admissions officers can always overlook the test scores if there are other overriding factors.

[paloalto]

I don't see how anyone can be against this.  An extremely poor score in SAT math might be a warning the potential student is not ready for STEM college classes and needs more preparation or should start out at a community college.

Taking students not prepared for college work in their intended major is not good for anyone, particularly the student.

Admissions officers can always overlook the test scores if there are other overriding factors.

[Giants]

1781612721[/url]']

1781582645[/url]']
Only 8 UCs have math departments? Which one of the 9 is the odd man out?

Typo, fixed. 7 of 9. All but UCSF have Mathematics departments

There are ten UC campuses, including UCSF.

Also, UC Merced does not have a Dept. Of Mathematics.  They have a Dept. Of Applied Mathematics.

[Giants]

1781612721[/url]']

1781582645[/url]']
Only 8 UCs have math departments? Which one of the 9 is the odd man out?

Typo, fixed. 7 of 9. All but UCSF have Mathematics departments

There are ten UC campuses, including UCSF.

Also, UC Merced does not have a Dept. Of Mathematics.  They have a Dept. Of Applied Mathematics.

[Leftcoast]

In case you were wondering ... Stanford requires either ACT or SAT for all first year and transfer students. 

I was pretty sure this the test requirement was reinstated in 2024 but verified at the admission website before posting ...

https://admission.stanford.edu/apply/fir...sting.html

[Leftcoast]

In case you were wondering ... Stanford requires either ACT or SAT for all first year and transfer students. 

I was pretty sure this the test requirement was reinstated in 2024 but verified at the admission website before posting ...

https://admission.stanford.edu/apply/fir...sting.html

[82lsju]

In case you were wondering ... Stanford requires either ACT or SAT for all first year and transfer students. 

I was pretty sure this the test requirement was reinstated in 2024 but verified at the admission website before posting ...

https://admission.stanford.edu/apply/fir...sting.html

it was starting with Fall 2025 applications

Stanford will resume requiring either the SAT or the ACT for undergraduate admission, beginning with students applying in fall 2025 for admission to the Class of 2030. Stanford will remain test-optional for students applying in fall 2024 for admission to the Class of 2029.
...
Stanford paused its testing requirement in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, beginning with students applying to the Class of 2025. Since then, undergraduate applicants to Stanford have been welcome to submit test scores but have not been required to do so.

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/0...equirement

[82lsju]

In case you were wondering ... Stanford requires either ACT or SAT for all first year and transfer students. 

I was pretty sure this the test requirement was reinstated in 2024 but verified at the admission website before posting ...

https://admission.stanford.edu/apply/fir...sting.html

it was starting with Fall 2025 applications

Stanford will resume requiring either the SAT or the ACT for undergraduate admission, beginning with students applying in fall 2025 for admission to the Class of 2030. Stanford will remain test-optional for students applying in fall 2024 for admission to the Class of 2029.
...
Stanford paused its testing requirement in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, beginning with students applying to the Class of 2025. Since then, undergraduate applicants to Stanford have been welcome to submit test scores but have not been required to do so.

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/0...equirement

[dabigv13]

Stanford dropped the requirement in 2020 and reinstated it in 2024 for the 2025 admissions cycle. 

I hope the UC system does reinstate it, though I doubt it will happen anytime soon. It's really the only universal objective measurement. Essays and extracurriculars can be BS'd. Grading standards vary widely across high schools.

[dabigv13]

Stanford dropped the requirement in 2020 and reinstated it in 2024 for the 2025 admissions cycle. 

I hope the UC system does reinstate it, though I doubt it will happen anytime soon. It's really the only universal objective measurement. Essays and extracurriculars can be BS'd. Grading standards vary widely across high schools.

[Goose]

 It's really the only universal objective measurement.

Except it isn't clear exactly what it measures. I am "old" and remember back in 1966 the general belief was that the test was "objective" and that you couldn't study for it, so why bother? Subsequent experience demonstrates clearly that at a minimum taking lots of "practice" SAT test improves scores. Those individuals haven't suddenly become smarter or better educated. They have however learned to take SAT tests better than their peers. This practice often involves some significant financial commitment. This unfortunate fact has been used as a reason to abandon the test entirely. It is also undoubtedly true that some people are by nature better SAT test-takers than others who are in all other respects similar. That is a naturally occurring advantage that creates a bias in favor of people with that particular skill. The test result is therefore not actually measuring academic ability alone, but rather a combination of factors, one of which is test-taking ability.
 
That said, the SAT test is demonstratively predictive of college "success". One reason for that is that skilled test takers do better on tests than less skilled individuals. College involves taking lots of tests. However, there are undoubtedly some significant "objective" measures of other things that are predictive of college success present in the test as well. I think these tests should be required. I also think it is extremely important to realize that they have significant limitations.

[Goose]

 It's really the only universal objective measurement.

Except it isn't clear exactly what it measures. I am "old" and remember back in 1966 the general belief was that the test was "objective" and that you couldn't study for it, so why bother? Subsequent experience demonstrates clearly that at a minimum taking lots of "practice" SAT test improves scores. Those individuals haven't suddenly become smarter or better educated. They have however learned to take SAT tests better than their peers. This practice often involves some significant financial commitment. This unfortunate fact has been used as a reason to abandon the test entirely. It is also undoubtedly true that some people are by nature better SAT test-takers than others who are in all other respects similar. That is a naturally occurring advantage that creates a bias in favor of people with that particular skill. The test result is therefore not actually measuring academic ability alone, but rather a combination of factors, one of which is test-taking ability.
 
That said, the SAT test is demonstratively predictive of college "success". One reason for that is that skilled test takers do better on tests than less skilled individuals. College involves taking lots of tests. However, there are undoubtedly some significant "objective" measures of other things that are predictive of college success present in the test as well. I think these tests should be required. I also think it is extremely important to realize that they have significant limitations.

[82lsju]

 It's really the only universal objective measurement.

Except it isn't clear exactly what it measures. I am "old" and remember back in 1966 the general belief was that the test was "objective" and that you couldn't study for it, so why bother? Subsequent experience demonstrates clearly that at a minimum taking lots of "practice" SAT test improves scores. Those individuals haven't suddenly become smarter or better educated. They have however learned to take SAT tests better than their peers. This practice often involves some significant financial commitment. This unfortunate fact has been used as a reason to abandon the test entirely. It is also undoubtedly true that some people are by nature better SAT test-takers than others who are in all other respects similar. That is a naturally occurring advantage that creates a bias in favor of people with that particular skill. The test result is therefore not actually measuring academic ability alone, but rather a combination of factors, one of which is test-taking ability.
 
That said, the SAT test is demonstratively predictive of college "success". One reason for that is that skilled test takers do better on tests than less skilled individuals. College involves taking lots of tests. However, there are undoubtedly some significant "objective" measures of other things that are predictive of college success present in the test as well. I think these tests should be required. I also think it is extremely important to realize that they have significant limitations.

I'm not quite as "mature and experienced" as you but way back when (for me 1977) taking the SAT involved (at least for my peer group) buying the 'test book" which had sample questions and doing some of them to see what the test was like.  As I vaguely recall it was not all that different from the PSAT we took the previous year (does the PSAT still exist?).  No one I knew took the SAT more than once, we also all took the ACT since back them some schools took one or the other (some schools took both).  And yes the SAT is an indicator of potential success in college, given the current environment and inclination to have objective measures for who gets admitted to colleges I can see it becoming more important than it was back in the day.

[82lsju]

 It's really the only universal objective measurement.

Except it isn't clear exactly what it measures. I am "old" and remember back in 1966 the general belief was that the test was "objective" and that you couldn't study for it, so why bother? Subsequent experience demonstrates clearly that at a minimum taking lots of "practice" SAT test improves scores. Those individuals haven't suddenly become smarter or better educated. They have however learned to take SAT tests better than their peers. This practice often involves some significant financial commitment. This unfortunate fact has been used as a reason to abandon the test entirely. It is also undoubtedly true that some people are by nature better SAT test-takers than others who are in all other respects similar. That is a naturally occurring advantage that creates a bias in favor of people with that particular skill. The test result is therefore not actually measuring academic ability alone, but rather a combination of factors, one of which is test-taking ability.
 
That said, the SAT test is demonstratively predictive of college "success". One reason for that is that skilled test takers do better on tests than less skilled individuals. College involves taking lots of tests. However, there are undoubtedly some significant "objective" measures of other things that are predictive of college success present in the test as well. I think these tests should be required. I also think it is extremely important to realize that they have significant limitations.

I'm not quite as "mature and experienced" as you but way back when (for me 1977) taking the SAT involved (at least for my peer group) buying the 'test book" which had sample questions and doing some of them to see what the test was like.  As I vaguely recall it was not all that different from the PSAT we took the previous year (does the PSAT still exist?).  No one I knew took the SAT more than once, we also all took the ACT since back them some schools took one or the other (some schools took both).  And yes the SAT is an indicator of potential success in college, given the current environment and inclination to have objective measures for who gets admitted to colleges I can see it becoming more important than it was back in the day.

[dabigv13]

From my recollection, standardized test results, combined with GPA, is the best predictor of college success. Particularly as a flagship public school system, UC's should aim to admit the students who are best equipped to handle the workload, graduate, and go on to be productive Californians.

When I was in HS in CA 20+ years ago, you could have a good sense of where your SAT and GPA was likely to get you in at the UC's. For Stanford and the Ivies, sure you may need the right mix of extracurriculars, essays, and luck, but at least if you were smart and worked hard you'd know you'd get into UCLA, UCB, UCSD.

Now my understanding from hearing of colleague's kids going through the process, there is much less of that certainty.

[dabigv13]

From my recollection, standardized test results, combined with GPA, is the best predictor of college success. Particularly as a flagship public school system, UC's should aim to admit the students who are best equipped to handle the workload, graduate, and go on to be productive Californians.

When I was in HS in CA 20+ years ago, you could have a good sense of where your SAT and GPA was likely to get you in at the UC's. For Stanford and the Ivies, sure you may need the right mix of extracurriculars, essays, and luck, but at least if you were smart and worked hard you'd know you'd get into UCLA, UCB, UCSD.

Now my understanding from hearing of colleague's kids going through the process, there is much less of that certainty.

[Canalejas]

Yeah, there were very few surprises in my hs class, also now over 20 years ago.  But things changed some time around 2015. Kids from my old high school, who in my day would have certainly gotten into UCLA, were getting rejected from UC Davis. Though I hear many of them found their way to Berkeley and Westwood after a year in community college.

[Canalejas]

Yeah, there were very few surprises in my hs class, also now over 20 years ago.  But things changed some time around 2015. Kids from my old high school, who in my day would have certainly gotten into UCLA, were getting rejected from UC Davis. Though I hear many of them found their way to Berkeley and Westwood after a year in community college.

[Goose]

And yes the SAT is an indicator of potential success in college, given the current environment and inclination to have objective measures for who gets admitted to colleges I can see it becoming more important than it was back in the day.

Things definitely changed in those eleven years. They have changed even more subsequently, where actual paid tutors and classes are commonplace for those that can afford them and have parents that are willing/eager/able to have students take them. This extra tutelage does make a difference empirically.
 
I am interested in the idea that these test scores will be come "more important". My experience was that they were controlling back in the mid to late 60s. The high school councilors had a book listing each institution of higher learning and its requirements. There was an SAT range and/or a ACT range. If you were not in that range, you didn't bother to apply. No point in it. It was a hard and fast rule. Had that changed by 1977?
 

From my recollection, standardized test results, combined with GPA, is the best predictor of college success. Particularly as a flagship public school system, UC's should aim to admit the students who are best equipped to handle the workload, graduate, and go on to be productive Californians.

When I was in HS in CA 20+ years ago, you could have a good sense of where your SAT and GPA was likely to get you in at the UC's. For Stanford and the Ivies, sure you may need the right mix of extracurriculars, essays, and luck, but at least if you were smart and worked hard you'd know you'd get into UCLA, UCB, UCSD.

Now my understanding from hearing of colleague's kids going through the process, there is much less of that certainty.

My recollection from the late 60's was very similar. There were tiers by SAT/ACT score for all schools. If you were "in the zone" for a given school, not just UC schools, you probably would get in. In the UC system you would get in "somewhere". There were overlaps such that you may not get your preferred school even if the numbers said you "were qualified". I don't remember if back then you had to apply to each UC school separately, but I am pretty sure that was the case.
 
If you had a real high GPA but didn't "test well", you still had a chance to get in to many schools if you had great recommendations. If your GPA wasn't all that great but your test scores were, the GPA tended to be deprecated. Some people I knew got in to places that greatly surprised me. They just did better on the SAT than anybody expected, including themselves :-)
 
I suspect that grade inflation and "teaching to the test" has made the admission process less predictable. The range of possible GPAs and test scores get compressed so they differentiate students less. IMO the quality of high school education has also become much more uncertain. This further complicates the admissions process in that some students just haven't been taught well and/or exposed to material that other students have. That was always to some extent the case, but IMO it is much more common today.

The admissions process has always been imperfect. GPA and SAT scores are obviously not the whole story of what kind of a student a given person will be. There is something in the human psyche that rejects the notion that two numbers can define a persons educational opportunities. The institutions have attempted to incorporate a broader set of criteria. Unfortunately this effort has the side effect of reducing predictability. There are unobservable system state variables  that affect the outputs. While well intentioned I do not think in general this attempt has produced a "better" result. As the UC professors letters indicate it may have produced a significantly worse one.

[Goose]

And yes the SAT is an indicator of potential success in college, given the current environment and inclination to have objective measures for who gets admitted to colleges I can see it becoming more important than it was back in the day.

Things definitely changed in those eleven years. They have changed even more subsequently, where actual paid tutors and classes are commonplace for those that can afford them and have parents that are willing/eager/able to have students take them. This extra tutelage does make a difference empirically.
 
I am interested in the idea that these test scores will be come "more important". My experience was that they were controlling back in the mid to late 60s. The high school councilors had a book listing each institution of higher learning and its requirements. There was an SAT range and/or a ACT range. If you were not in that range, you didn't bother to apply. No point in it. It was a hard and fast rule. Had that changed by 1977?
 

From my recollection, standardized test results, combined with GPA, is the best predictor of college success. Particularly as a flagship public school system, UC's should aim to admit the students who are best equipped to handle the workload, graduate, and go on to be productive Californians.

When I was in HS in CA 20+ years ago, you could have a good sense of where your SAT and GPA was likely to get you in at the UC's. For Stanford and the Ivies, sure you may need the right mix of extracurriculars, essays, and luck, but at least if you were smart and worked hard you'd know you'd get into UCLA, UCB, UCSD.

Now my understanding from hearing of colleague's kids going through the process, there is much less of that certainty.

My recollection from the late 60's was very similar. There were tiers by SAT/ACT score for all schools. If you were "in the zone" for a given school, not just UC schools, you probably would get in. In the UC system you would get in "somewhere". There were overlaps such that you may not get your preferred school even if the numbers said you "were qualified". I don't remember if back then you had to apply to each UC school separately, but I am pretty sure that was the case.
 
If you had a real high GPA but didn't "test well", you still had a chance to get in to many schools if you had great recommendations. If your GPA wasn't all that great but your test scores were, the GPA tended to be deprecated. Some people I knew got in to places that greatly surprised me. They just did better on the SAT than anybody expected, including themselves :-)
 
I suspect that grade inflation and "teaching to the test" has made the admission process less predictable. The range of possible GPAs and test scores get compressed so they differentiate students less. IMO the quality of high school education has also become much more uncertain. This further complicates the admissions process in that some students just haven't been taught well and/or exposed to material that other students have. That was always to some extent the case, but IMO it is much more common today.

The admissions process has always been imperfect. GPA and SAT scores are obviously not the whole story of what kind of a student a given person will be. There is something in the human psyche that rejects the notion that two numbers can define a persons educational opportunities. The institutions have attempted to incorporate a broader set of criteria. Unfortunately this effort has the side effect of reducing predictability. There are unobservable system state variables  that affect the outputs. While well intentioned I do not think in general this attempt has produced a "better" result. As the UC professors letters indicate it may have produced a significantly worse one.

[Mick]

 It's really the only universal objective measurement.

Except it isn't clear exactly what it measures. I am "old" and remember back in 1966 the general belief was that the test was "objective" and that you couldn't study for it, so why bother? Subsequent experience demonstrates clearly that at a minimum taking lots of "practice" SAT test improves scores. Those individuals haven't suddenly become smarter or better educated. They have however learned to take SAT tests better than their peers. This practice often involves some significant financial commitment. This unfortunate fact has been used as a reason to abandon the test entirely. It is also undoubtedly true that some people are by nature better SAT test-takers than others who are in all other respects similar. That is a naturally occurring advantage that creates a bias in favor of people with that particular skill. The test result is therefore not actually measuring academic ability alone, but rather a combination of factors, one of which is test-taking ability.
 
That said, the SAT test is demonstratively predictive of college "success". One reason for that is that skilled test takers do better on tests than less skilled individuals. College involves taking lots of tests. However, there are undoubtedly some significant "objective" measures of other things that are predictive of college success present in the test as well. I think these tests should be required. I also think it is extremely important to realize that they have significant limitations.

I'm not quite as "mature and experienced" as you but way back when (for me 1977) taking the SAT involved (at least for my peer group) buying the 'test book" which had sample questions and doing some of them to see what the test was like.  As I vaguely recall it was not all that different from the PSAT we took the previous year (does the PSAT still exist?).  No one I knew took the SAT more than once, we also all took the ACT since back them some schools took one or the other (some schools took both).  And yes the SAT is an indicator of potential success in college, given the current environment and inclination to have objective measures for who gets admitted to colleges I can see it becoming more important than it was back in the day.

I took mine two years later, in 1979. I had such a mediocre score, I took it a second time and scored 210 points higher. I'd taken practice tests, but nothing prepares you more than taking the actual test.

---

Yeah, there were very few surprises in my hs class, also now over 20 years ago.  But things changed some time around 2015. Kids from my old high school, who in my day would have certainly gotten into UCLA, were getting rejected from UC Davis. Though I hear many of them found their way to Berkeley and Westwood after a year in community college.

It happened in a big way between 2008 and 2009. At my son's high school, something like 1/5th of the graduates had to matriculate at their safety schools, because the acceptance rates at so many schools dropped so precipitously. I remember specifically that UC-Santa Cruz dropped from 86% acceptance to 68% acceptance (it was 65.8% in the 2024/5 school year).

[Mick]

 It's really the only universal objective measurement.

Except it isn't clear exactly what it measures. I am "old" and remember back in 1966 the general belief was that the test was "objective" and that you couldn't study for it, so why bother? Subsequent experience demonstrates clearly that at a minimum taking lots of "practice" SAT test improves scores. Those individuals haven't suddenly become smarter or better educated. They have however learned to take SAT tests better than their peers. This practice often involves some significant financial commitment. This unfortunate fact has been used as a reason to abandon the test entirely. It is also undoubtedly true that some people are by nature better SAT test-takers than others who are in all other respects similar. That is a naturally occurring advantage that creates a bias in favor of people with that particular skill. The test result is therefore not actually measuring academic ability alone, but rather a combination of factors, one of which is test-taking ability.
 
That said, the SAT test is demonstratively predictive of college "success". One reason for that is that skilled test takers do better on tests than less skilled individuals. College involves taking lots of tests. However, there are undoubtedly some significant "objective" measures of other things that are predictive of college success present in the test as well. I think these tests should be required. I also think it is extremely important to realize that they have significant limitations.

I'm not quite as "mature and experienced" as you but way back when (for me 1977) taking the SAT involved (at least for my peer group) buying the 'test book" which had sample questions and doing some of them to see what the test was like.  As I vaguely recall it was not all that different from the PSAT we took the previous year (does the PSAT still exist?).  No one I knew took the SAT more than once, we also all took the ACT since back them some schools took one or the other (some schools took both).  And yes the SAT is an indicator of potential success in college, given the current environment and inclination to have objective measures for who gets admitted to colleges I can see it becoming more important than it was back in the day.

I took mine two years later, in 1979. I had such a mediocre score, I took it a second time and scored 210 points higher. I'd taken practice tests, but nothing prepares you more than taking the actual test.

---

Yeah, there were very few surprises in my hs class, also now over 20 years ago.  But things changed some time around 2015. Kids from my old high school, who in my day would have certainly gotten into UCLA, were getting rejected from UC Davis. Though I hear many of them found their way to Berkeley and Westwood after a year in community college.

It happened in a big way between 2008 and 2009. At my son's high school, something like 1/5th of the graduates had to matriculate at their safety schools, because the acceptance rates at so many schools dropped so precipitously. I remember specifically that UC-Santa Cruz dropped from 86% acceptance to 68% acceptance (it was 65.8% in the 2024/5 school year).

[cctop]

When I was in HS in CA 20+ years ago ... if you were smart and worked hard you'd know you'd get into UCLA, UCB, UCSD.

Now my understanding from hearing of colleague's kids going through the process, there is much less of that certainty.

I just went through the college application process with two kids this year, one graduating high school and the other from community college.

A 4.0 GPA and a 1550 SAT score is not a guarantee of getting into UCB, UCLA, or UCSD any more.

My kid who will be attending Stanford was rejected from UC Irvine.  He thinks it's because Irvine is being conscious of their yield rate and knew he wouldn't enroll there.

UCLA nowadays is completely a dart board.  They get more applications than any other school in the country (about 150,000), and among my kid's friends there is no rhyme or reason as to who got accepted.

I was happy to see that Stanford took a transfer student from my kid's community college (CCSF).

[cctop]

When I was in HS in CA 20+ years ago ... if you were smart and worked hard you'd know you'd get into UCLA, UCB, UCSD.

Now my understanding from hearing of colleague's kids going through the process, there is much less of that certainty.

I just went through the college application process with two kids this year, one graduating high school and the other from community college.

A 4.0 GPA and a 1550 SAT score is not a guarantee of getting into UCB, UCLA, or UCSD any more.

My kid who will be attending Stanford was rejected from UC Irvine.  He thinks it's because Irvine is being conscious of their yield rate and knew he wouldn't enroll there.

UCLA nowadays is completely a dart board.  They get more applications than any other school in the country (about 150,000), and among my kid's friends there is no rhyme or reason as to who got accepted.

I was happy to see that Stanford took a transfer student from my kid's community college (CCSF).

[TonyLima]

Fun fact: iIn 1965 I graduated from a midwest high school. When I told my hs counselor I was applying to MIT, he scoffed. Next time I saw him he had my SAT scores and was amazed. The SAT plus my grades plus a few really good recommendation letters got me admitted. Without the SAT, i’d be a U.Michigan alum. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

[TonyLima]

Fun fact: iIn 1965 I graduated from a midwest high school. When I told my hs counselor I was applying to MIT, he scoffed. Next time I saw him he had my SAT scores and was amazed. The SAT plus my grades plus a few really good recommendation letters got me admitted. Without the SAT, i’d be a U.Michigan alum. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

[82lsju]

Fun fact: iIn 1965 I graduated from a midwest high school. When I told my hs counselor I was applying to MIT, he scoffed. Next time I saw him he had my SAT scores and was amazed. The SAT plus my grades plus a few really good recommendation letters got me admitted. Without the SAT, i’d be a U.Michigan alum. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

I'm impressed that you had a HS counselor that involved with applying to college,  I graduated from high school in 1978 and don't recall any conversations like this (a medium sized public high school in the suburbs of Cincinnati).  I applied to Stanford and was rejected, one of my classmates was accepted, he did well enough that when I applied to transfer the next year I was accepted (although not until late Aug or early Sept).

[82lsju]

Fun fact: iIn 1965 I graduated from a midwest high school. When I told my hs counselor I was applying to MIT, he scoffed. Next time I saw him he had my SAT scores and was amazed. The SAT plus my grades plus a few really good recommendation letters got me admitted. Without the SAT, i’d be a U.Michigan alum. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

I'm impressed that you had a HS counselor that involved with applying to college,  I graduated from high school in 1978 and don't recall any conversations like this (a medium sized public high school in the suburbs of Cincinnati).  I applied to Stanford and was rejected, one of my classmates was accepted, he did well enough that when I applied to transfer the next year I was accepted (although not until late Aug or early Sept).

[TonyLima]

Fun fact: iIn 1965 I graduated from a midwest high school. When I told my hs counselor I was applying to MIT, he scoffed. Next time I saw him he had my SAT scores and was amazed. The SAT plus my grades plus a few really good recommendation letters got me admitted. Without the SAT, i’d be a U.Michigan alum. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

I'm impressed that you had a HS counselor that involved with applying to college,  I graduated from high school in 1978 and don't recall any conversations like this (a medium sized public high school in the suburbs of Cincinnati).  I applied to Stanford and was rejected, one of my classmates was accepted, he did well enough that when I applied to transfer the next year I was accepted (although not until late Aug or early Sept).

That 13 year difference may explain your observation. Perhaps they figured out that counselors were not worth their pay.

[TonyLima]

Fun fact: iIn 1965 I graduated from a midwest high school. When I told my hs counselor I was applying to MIT, he scoffed. Next time I saw him he had my SAT scores and was amazed. The SAT plus my grades plus a few really good recommendation letters got me admitted. Without the SAT, i’d be a U.Michigan alum. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

I'm impressed that you had a HS counselor that involved with applying to college,  I graduated from high school in 1978 and don't recall any conversations like this (a medium sized public high school in the suburbs of Cincinnati).  I applied to Stanford and was rejected, one of my classmates was accepted, he did well enough that when I applied to transfer the next year I was accepted (although not until late Aug or early Sept).

That 13 year difference may explain your observation. Perhaps they figured out that counselors were not worth their pay.