Re: U.C. President Calls for Dropping SAT-I Requirement

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@EARTHLINK.NET>]

  I agree, Karen. There's a lot of politics to deal with before any part
of Atkinson's proposal becomes official UC policy. And, I have
criticized the (continuing) SAT-II requirement in almost all of the two
dozen media interviews I've done so far on this topic. But the media has
focussed on the bigger picture.
  In fact, the SAT-II (or other subject area test) requirement will have
less harmful impact if the second major theme in Atkinson's
recommendations is adopted "all campuses move away from admissions
procedures that use narrowly defined quantitative formulas and instead
adopt procedures that look at applicants in a comprehensive, holistic
way . . . it would also help ensure that standardized tests do not have
an undue influence but rather are used to illuminate the student's total
record.
  Listen/look for more stories today on ABC Radio and CBS Nightly News
and on Sunday in the Chicago Tribune, among other outlets.

Bob Schaeffer, Public Education Director
FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing




Karen Canty wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I think what Atkinson is trying to do is get support for dropping the SAT I
> and I believe that if he was advocating dropping every test, his idea would
> die before it even got off the ground.  Remember he has to convince a
> political body -the Board of Regents appointed by the governor - that this
> would be a good thing to do.  I think that most of the regents still serving
> were appointed by Republican governors and tend to be more "test-oriented"
> than we might like.  Ward Connerly, who started the "anti-affirmative
> action" movement at the UC which has now become state law, is still on the
> Board of Regents.  I was pleased to see, however, in the SF Chronicle story
> which I posted, that he is at least willing to listen to the faculty.  This
> is also CA. where we have all of our wonderful API's and HSEE here and
> coming..Plus, as I think can be gleaned from the comments of the President
> of the College Board, there is going to be tremendous pressure on the
> regents NOT to get rid of the SAT I because if the College Board "loses" the
> UC system, there would probably - and maybe not even probably - but
> certainly be a domino effect.
>
> So I admire Atkinson for continuing to push to get rid of the SAT I but I
> also believe we have to understand the political realities he is dealing
> with and not condemn him for not doing "everything" at one time - or
> immediately.
>
> Karen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List
> [mailto:ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU]On Behalf Of Bob Schaeffer
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 4:01 AM
> To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU
> Subject: Re: U.C. President Calls for Dropping SAT-I Requirement
>
>     Susan's analysis if right on (as always!). There is no need for the
> SAT-II or any other "standardized test" in the college admissions
> process. In some ways the SAT-II ("Achievement Tests" to those of us
> over 35) is worse than the SAT-I -- the notion that any subject can be
> adequately measured by a one hour multiple choice test is inherently
> bizarre (the SAT-II writing test has a twenty minute "essay" and forty
> minutes of m.c. proof-reading items -- all the rest are entirely m.c.).
>     Many of the SAT-II exams are extremely narrow. The president of the
> National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts (a University of California
> biology professor) has written in the journal Daedalus (fall, 1995) " .
> . . the SAT II: Biology Test, what was formerly the achievement test in
> biology, is an extreme example of a test that forces the wrong kind of
> teaching. When we started at the Academy, we went to somebody who was
> the head of the SAT II at the Educational Testing Service to explain the
> situation. None of those people seemed to believe or know that their
> test was destructive of the curriculum. There is a real dissonance, and
> it is difficult to overcome it."
>     As I understand it, the reason for the 2003 target implementation is
> the need to process Atkinson's _proposal_ through the elaborate U.C.
> "governance" process. Applications for the class admitted for fall 2001
> are already in, so this is at most a one year delay.
>     Most important in Susan's posting from FairTest's perspective as the
> leader of the test score "optional" movement is the call to her alma
> mater to advocate for a change in its admissions policy. We urge all of
> you to call or write college presidents, alumni/ae associations, etc.
> There are lots of resources available on our website at
> http://www.fairtest.org/optional.htm.
>    You can contact me or Christina Perez, a super new staffer at
> FairTest's Cambridge headquarters for assistance or more information.
>
> Bob Schaeffer, Public Education Director
> FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing
>
> Susan Harman wrote:
> >
> > But he calls for "standardized tests" of high school college prep
> > courses. Isnt that what grades are for?
> > And he says he cant implement it till 2003. Why so long?
> > Speaking of which, I had a long talk with my old alma mater's admissions
> > officer. Theyll still use the SAT, but she was glad I called. Yeah,
> > right. However, I think each of us could call our colleges. Cant hurt.
> > Susan
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.