>The Smarter Balanced test only provided “modest incremental value” beyond high school grades in predicting a student’s first-year UC performance while “reflecting and reproducing inequality” in educational opportunities for underserved students, committee co-chair Mary Gauvain, a UC Riverside professor, told regents on Thursday. Using the state exam in admissions decisions could benefit some underrepresented students who test well but have lower grades, the committee report found, but would disproportionately favor Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and could reduce admission rates of Black, Latino and low-income applicants.
Every study I've ever seen has shown that high school grades by themselves are a good predictor of 1st year college success; high school grades + standardized test scores are an even better predictor. As noted, the use of standardized tests further benefits some underrepresented students who may have had challenges in high school. So what is the problem here? The only issue listed is that it might benefit Asian applicants more than Black and Latino applicants. Is this really where we are?
If grade inflation was already a pernicious problem, once any semblance of an objective test is removed, the pressure on HS teachers to grade everyone at A+++++++ will increase even further. We are stunting generations of kids by not offering them any feedback on the quality of their effort.
"Nearly half of American high school students – 47% in the class of 2016 – are graduating with grades ranging from A-plus to A-minus. According to the Department of Education, the average high school grade point average was 2.68 in 1990. By 2016, it had risen to 3.38, with the biggest inflation occurring in private independent schools."
I understand exactly how easy it is to game standardized tests.
However, I find that I do not know how easy it is to game grades. Perhaps that is equally easy, or significantly easier. For example, can one "game" high school grades by moving to a different neighborhood with a "better" school?
Standardized tests might be gamed. But still I would argue that gaming them is least worst option. Anything else is either not properly standardized like grades or entirely gamed like extracurriculars, interviews, written works.
>The Smarter Balanced test only provided “modest incremental value” beyond high school grades in predicting a student’s first-year UC performance while “reflecting and reproducing inequality” in educational opportunities for underserved students, committee co-chair Mary Gauvain, a UC Riverside professor, told regents on Thursday. Using the state exam in admissions decisions could benefit some underrepresented students who test well but have lower grades, the committee report found, but would disproportionately favor Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and could reduce admission rates of Black, Latino and low-income applicants.
Every study I've ever seen has shown that high school grades by themselves are a good predictor of 1st year college success; high school grades + standardized test scores are an even better predictor. As noted, the use of standardized tests further benefits some underrepresented students who may have had challenges in high school. So what is the problem here? The only issue listed is that it might benefit Asian applicants more than Black and Latino applicants. Is this really where we are?