>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?