1. Back to the Basics: Saul Geiser University of California, Berkeley Saul Geiser University of California, Berkeley In Defense of Achievement (and Achievement Tests) in College Admissions In Defense of Achievement (and Achievement Tests) in College Admissions

2. “Readiness” for college: Two views Achievement: performance in college- preparatory subjects, mastery of curriculum content Ability: generalized reasoning and problem-solving skills

3. UC findings Admissions criteria that tap student mastery of curriculum content, such as high-school grades and achievement tests, are stronger predictors of success in college and fairer to low-income and minority applicants than tests of general reasoning such as the SAT.

4. Underrepresented minorities as a percent of new UC freshmen, 1995 to 1998

5. Correlation of SAT I, SAT II and HSGPA with socioeconomic factors Family Income Parent’s Education High School Rank SAT I Reasoning.32.40 SAT II Subject Tests.23.29.33 High School GPA.04.06.01

6. % of underrepresented minority applicants by SAT I vs. HSGPA deciles SAT IHSGPA Top decile 4%9% 9 th 6%11% 8 th 7%13% 7 th 9%14% 6 th 12%16% 5 th 15%17% 4 th 18%19% 3 rd 22%20% 2 nd 29%23% Bottom decile 45%28%

7. HSGPASAT ISAT II School RankSES BioScience.35.10.23.05.03 PhysSci/Math.33-.02.25.04.03 SocSci/Hum.31.08.17.04.07 Other.32.05.21.05.07 ALL FIELDS.31.03.21.06 Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting freshman GPA Sample: New UC freshmen in 1996-1999 who completed first year. N = 68,602.

8. HSGPASAT ISAT II School RankSES BioScience.22.06.14.04.00 PhysSci/Math.25-.01.22.07.03 SocSci/Hum.17-.03.07.09 Other.18-.10.10.09 ALL FIELDS.20-.03.12.08.07 Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting 4-year graduation Sample: New UC freshman in 1996-1999. N = 74,618.

9. Minority participation in AP/honors classes among California college-bound seniors # AP/Honors Subjects Taken Underrepresented Minority % None32.3% 1 - 430.5% 5 - 823.7% 9 or more17.3%

10. HSGPASAT ISAT II School RankSES # AP Classes AP Exams BioScience.21.07.14.01.05.01.19 PhysSci/Math.29.03.08-.02.05.06.22 SocSci/Hum.26.08. 09.06.08.02.11 Other.23.07.06.04.09.01.15 ALL FIELDS.24.03.08.03.08.02.15 Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting cumulative UC GPA Sample: New UC freshmen in 2002 who completed two years. N = 14,976.

11. Achievement tests and UC outreach Alignment with K-12 curriculum Diagnostic function Message to students

12. UC policy changes after Prop 209 1998: Increased weight for HSGPA and SAT II, reduced weight for SAT I scores in statewide eligibility index 2001: Introduced Top 4% Plan and Comprehensive Admissions Review 2002: Adopted policy favoring achievement tests over tests of general reasoning or aptitude

13. Underrepresented minorities as a percent of new UC freshmen, 1995 to 2007

14. Restoring the role of high-school record Increase emphasis on high-school grades and class rank over admissions tests Eliminate “bonus point” for Advanced Placement classes except where students take and pass AP exams

15. Limitations of New SAT as an achievement test Less curriculum-based than other achievement tests Remains norm-referenced Limited diagnostic value Prediction is no better than old SAT

16. An expanded role for subject tests Most content-intensive of all nationally available assessments Align with and reinforce classroom instruction Best predictors, after high-school record, of student performance in college

17. Back to the basics Criterion-referenced vs. norm- referenced assessment Accent on achievement and mastery of foundational subjects

19. Additional slides for Q & A

20. Rothstein, J. (2004). “College performance predictions and the SAT." Journal of Econometrics, volume 121, 297-317. “The results here indicate that the exclusion of student background characteristics from prediction models inflates the SAT’s apparent validity, as the SAT score appears to be a more effective measure of the demographic characteristics that predict [college grade-point average] than it is of preparedness conditional on student background. … [A] conservative estimate is that traditional methods and sparse models [i.e., those that do not take into account demographic characteristics] overstate the SAT’s importance to predictive accuracy by 150 percent.”

22. HSGPA SAT I M + V SAT II Writing SAT II Other AP Exams School RankSES Asian.28-.03.13.05.23.03.00 Black.20-.09.05.06.21.13.06 Latino.28.05.13.05.07.08.05 White.32-.04.14.05.17.05.06 Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting freshman GPA by race/ethnicity Sample: New UC freshmen in 1998-2001 who completed first year. N = 57,377.

23. HSGPASAT ISAT II School RankSES Berkeley.31-.05.24.03.09 Davis.35.06.24.09.03 Irvine.28.08.15.03.04 Los Angeles.32.00.20.07.08 Riverside.34.11 -.02.02 San Diego.33.06.19.06.07 Santa Barbara.39.06.18.05.07 Prediction weights for 4 th year GPA by campus Sample: New 1996-1999 UC freshmen completing 4 years. N = 58,539.

27. HSGPASAT ISAT II School RankSES # AP Classes AP Exams 1998 Cohort.28-.04.10.04.07.04.24 1999 Cohort.28-.01.07.08.03.22 2000 Cohort.30.03. 05.08.03.21 ALL YEARS.29.00.07.05.08.03.22 Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting freshman GPA Sample: New UC freshmen who completed first year. N = 41,116.

28. HSGPASAT ISAT II School RankSES BioScience.34.11.23.05.02 Phys/Math.36.02.23.05.02 SocSci/Hum.33.07.20.04.08 Other.34-.03.23.07 ALL FIELDS.33.04.20.05.06 Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting cumulative 4-year UC GPA Sample: New 1996-1999 UC freshmen completing 4 years. N = 58,539.