Standardized tests pose issues but inequalities go deeper, say students, faculty

Eliminating standardized testing from the college admissions process may not make the process more fair for students from historically underrepresented socioeconomic classes, UCLA students and faculty said.

Beyond the Score, a student organization, held a town hall Feb. 20 to discuss the drawbacks of using standardized testing in college admissions. Members of the organization are campaigning to remove standardized testing as an admissions factor because they believe it selects against certain groups of applicants based on their socioeconomic status.

Patricia Gandara, a professor in the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies and co-director of The Civil Rights Project, said standardized test scores are strongly and positively correlated with the test-takers’ socioeconomic status.

“If you come from a high-income family, you have a much greater chance of scoring well on these than you do if you come from a low-income family,” Gandara said. “And that is socially unjust.”

However, Gandara said she thinks people should directly address the issue of socioeconomic inequality, and simply eliminating standardized testing will not resolve the deeper roots of the issue.

“We are a very unequal society and are becoming more unequal every day,” Gandara said. “We need to make society more equal so that we don’t have to rely on measures that simply highlight the inequalities that exist.”

Janet Song, external president of Bruin Initiative and a fourth-year biochemistry student, said she thinks standardized testing is a complex issue and removing it from the admissions process entirely may not solve the problem. Bruin Initiative is a volunteer organization that aims to help students from underrepresented backgrounds pursue higher education.

“If you remove standardized testing, it creates a whole other set of issues,” Song said. “So I don’t know if the solution is necessarily to completely get rid of it.”

However, Gandara said many colleges are going test-optional because of the established correlation between standardized testing and socioeconomic status, as well as research that shows standardized testing does not strongly predict students’ ability to succeed in higher education.

“There are some colleges for whom this is a real social justice issue,” Gandara said. “I think admissions officers at most colleges tend to be the ones who worry the most about the social justice aspect.”

Gandara said making standardized tests optional can increase the number of applicants a school receives, which can improve the school’s overall ranking.

“If you get more applicants, you have a higher rejection rate,” Gandara said. “And a higher rejection rate helps you in your U.S. News & World Report ranking.”

Standardized testing was originally created to facilitate a fairer, merit-based admissions process, she said.

“Without any test, kids who were getting accepted were oftentimes kids who came from families who could contribute to the school or were legacy,” Gandara said. “There was actually an impulse to be more socially just.”

Programs such as Bruin Initiative and the Law Fellows Program have made test preparatory materials more available to students to reduce the achievement gap created by socioeconomic factors.

Rob Schwartz, assistant dean of admissions in the UCLA School of Law, said in an email statement the Law Fellows Program aims to provide historically underserved and underrepresented students with additional resources for testing.

“UCLA Law’s award-winning Law Fellows Program, a pipeline program for underrepresented students interested in law school, offers participants free LSAT prep courses,” Schwartz said.

Song said Bruin Initiative works to provide underserved but high-achieving high school students with free SAT tutoring and college essay review.

“By doing so, we are trying to ensure that getting a good SAT score is accessible to everybody, rather than to just those who can afford the expensive tutoring,” Song said.

Electric bicycles roll into Westwood, giving students new transportation option

Students can now get around Westwood with electric bicycles.

Wheels electric bicycles allow users to access and ride the vehicles using a mobile application, similar to Lime and Bird electric scooters. The bikes come with a foam seat, 14-inch wheels, integrated Bluetooth speakers and swappable replacement parts, according to the Wheels website.

Wheels does not require users to have a valid driver’s license to operate its vehicles, unlike electric scooter companies, which are dictated by California law to require users to have valid licenses or learner’s permits.

UCPD Lt. Kevin Kilgore said the bikes are considered electric vehicles and must be used on the far right of the street in order to keep traffic flowing, similarly to electric scooters.

As of Jan. 1, Californians over the age of 18 are no longer required to wear helmets while riding electric scooters due to a law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last year.

Kilgore said Wheels bikes cannot be used on Bruin Walk, dismount zones or wherever pedestrians walk on campus.

He added UCPD will manage the Wheels bikes and enforce traffic laws like they do with other electric vehicles.

“The rules of the road apply to everyone,” Kilgore said.

The design of the Wheels bikes makes them safer than other electric vehicles, according to the Wheels’ website.

However, Kilgore said he does not think Wheels bikes are necessarily a safer option than scooters.

“I don’t think that one (vehicle) is more dangerous than another,” Kilgore said. “It is going to be a concerted effort by people who are operating them to ensure rules, regulations and laws are followed to mitigate dangerous encounters.”

Wheels did not respond to request for comment.

Kilgore added he thinks students get into accidents with electric vehicles due to many reasons, but do so most often because of improper use.

“I think it’s a variety of things. Sometimes it’s the cause of other vehicles don’t see riders, operators who utilize bikes incorrectly, it could be a pedestrian who didn’t see an operator using bikes illegally and then stepped out right in front of it,” Kilgore said. “There’s a whole array of matters that could play into the reason for these accidents.”

Head injuries are the most common injuries that result from electric scooter accidents, comprising 40 percent of all injuries, according to a UCLA study. Following head injuries, fractures comprise 32 percent of injuries, and cuts, sprains or bruises comprise 28 percent.

Oliver Hou, a transportation engineering associate for the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, said LADOT plans to manage the bikes with mobility data specification, a system in which mobility providers are required to share real-time data, such as the location of bikes, with LADOT.

Some students said they were curious to try the new electric bikes.

Jenny Chung, a first-year mathematics/economics student, sprained her ankle in a electric scooter accident in February. Chung said she is unlikely to ride an electric scooter again, but was open to the idea of using Wheels bikes.

“It seems safer – bikes in general are just safer and have more control than scooters in my experience,” Chung said.

Patrick Gardner, a fourth-year psychology student, said he uses Jump, Uber’s electric scooter, often and was interested in trying Wheels bikes as another option.

“It’s a weird, interesting market and I’d like to try all of them, especially the ones that seem more unique, to get a firsthand glimpse at new transportation technology,” Gardner said.

Gardner added he was not sure if the bikes were more safe, but was interested in trying them.

“I don’t know, I’d have to try them,” Gardner said. “I know they have Bluetooth speakers so they’ll be more lit.”

North Westwood Neighborhood Council recap – March 4

The North Westwood Neighborhood Council is the official neighborhood council representing Westwood Village and UCLA to the Los Angeles City Council. Council meetings are open to the public and held monthly. The next meeting will be held on April 3 in Weyburn Commons Village View Room from 7-10 p.m.

Comments from public officials

  • Erin Schneider, a field deputy for LA County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, said the Board of Supervisors voted to reassess the county’s approach to the incarceration of women. The board voted to hire expert consultants on gender-responsive programming for current women’s correctional facilities. The board also voted to ban the use of pepper spray at all juvenile detention facilities.

  • Aneesa Andrabi, a project coordinator for Great Streets, a city initiative to transform street infrastructure projects, presented the 2019 Great Street Challenge, which is a program to remodel main road corridors across Los Angeles. Applicants can earn up to $28,000 in grants for community outreach and $500,000 for infrastructure if they are selected as one of the final four recipients.

  • Andrew Thomas, the executive director of the Westwood Village Improvement Association, said the association will submit an application to Great Streets to remodel the Westwood Boulevard corridor between Wilshire Boulevard and Le Conte Avenue. Thomas added the corridor causes challenges for pedestrians, bike and scooter parking, and buses.

Reports

  • The Planning and Land Use committee discussed the process to create a “People’s Plan,” which would determine what types of projects and developments stakeholders want in Westwood.

  • The Transportation and Safety committee said they plan to count the number of bikes and scooters in Westwood to determine where to create new bicycle racks, which would replace parking spots on the street and add rings to attach bikes to parking meters.

  • The Elections committee created and disseminated pamphlets to advertise for the NWWNC election May 16.

  • The Community Activities and Projects committee pushed back a Next Friday event originally scheduled for March 8 to April 12. Next Friday is an event series that aims to spotlight local businesses, musicians and artists. The event April 12 will feature Broxton Brewery. The committee is also planning a Westwood Block Party for May 4, and another Next Friday event May 10.

  • The Ad Hoc Homelessness committee discussed Bridge Housing, a program to provide temporary housing for individuals, and potential donation drives for Westwood Connect Day, a resource fair to connect people impacted by homelessness to different services. Westwood Connect Day will be held April 24 at the Westwood Recreation Center. The committee met with the Westwood Neighborhood Council, Westwood Community Council and Paul Koretz, the LA city council member for District 5 who represents Westwood and UCLA, to discuss Westwood Connect Day preparation.

  • The NWWNC was voted into the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils by a vote of five to four. The four opposing votes were due to bylaw and procedure concerns.

Motions

  • The council voted in support of protected bike lanes on Gayley Avenue from Wilshire Boulevard to Strathmore Drive. The proposed bike lane would impact traffic because it requires reducing the number of road lanes. The bike lane would be situated next to parked cars and have a divider to protect bicyclists from traffic.

  • The council approved allocating $174 for election advertisements on three bus stops.

  • The council voted to support and partner with WVIA in its efforts to apply for the Great Street Challenge. The council would help provide a list of challenges on Westwood Boulevard to the city and plan for more stakeholder engagement on the street through the Transportation and Safety committee.

Student groups band together for weeklong fair on homelessness

Campus organizations hosted a club fair on Bruin Plaza to raise awareness of homelessness and kick off the fifth annual Homelessness Awareness Week on Monday.

The Mobile Clinic Project, Swipe Out Hunger, Hunger Project, Bruin Shelter and CalFresh Initiative hosted the Homelessness Awareness Fair to promote dialogue about the overarching issue of homelessness in the greater Los Angeles area and inform students about the different organizations’ goals.

The event was part of Homelessness Awareness Week, which aims to rally community support for and engagement with the homeless population, said Kaylie Heyer, a fourth-year psychology student and a member of the Mobile Clinic Project internal relations team.

“A lot of times people have a very big but very misguided heart in that they don’t know how they can help,” Heyer said. “I think it’s important that we are giving people who care about this issue or people who don’t know a lot about it an avenue or a path for them to help.”

Heyer said the Mobile Clinic Project works with medical students from the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and graduate students from the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health to provide medical, social and legal services to the local homeless population in West Hollywood every Wednesday.

Heyer said before joining MCP, she would sometimes hear offensive comments about the homeless population, which she did not know how to address in a respectful manner.

“When my friends would say things like ‘I’m dressed like a hobo.’ When they would pick something up from the trash and say ‘I feel like a rat,’” Heyer said. “I would hear these comments being made and it wouldn’t press me.”

After joining MCP, Heyer said she learned how to address these comments more mindfully and initiate conversations about homelessness.

Heyer added there is a common stereotype that people who are affected by homelessness all come from the same background.

“Homelessness does not have one face or one struggle or one story,” Heyer said. “It can affect any of us.”

Andrew Afyouni, a fourth-year neuroscience student and co-chair of the MCP database committee, said last year MCP was able to help a struggling individual, who later joined another organization that provided services to the homeless population in order to give back.

Other organizations at the fair aimed to address the lack of access to basic needs and resources that many UCLA students face. For example, Swipe Out Hunger aims to mitigate food insecurity for students, said Kelsey Holmes, a third-year political science student and director for Swipe Out Hunger’s external programming.

Holmes added that some students do not have consistent access to healthy and nutritious food.

“Forty-two percent of UC students have recorded at one point to have experienced food insecurity,” Holmes said.

To address food insecurity within UCLA, Swipe Out Hunger offers various programs that students can attend to receive food resources without judgment, Holmes said. For example, Bruin Dine, a collaborative project between Swipe Out Hunger, Bruin Shelter and Hunger Project, gathers and redistributes leftover food from De Neve dining hall to students looking for a free warm meal every Thursday night, Holmes said.

She added the leftover food is always still in good condition and would have been thrown out at the end of the dining period.

The purpose of a club fair is to allow multiple organizations with the same cause to collaborate and build off each other’s successes, Afyouni said.

“A group is stronger than the sum of its parts,” he added.

Organizations can promote discussion about homelessness more effectively and create a bigger impact if they advocate for their causes together, Afyouni said.

“Every single person has the right to be treated as a human being,” Afyouni said. “Every organization here embodies that statement.”

Clara Nguyen, MCP outreach chair and a third-year Asian American studies and human biology and society student, said Homelessness Awareness Week will end Friday with a final recap of the week and an opportunity for students to call local policymakers about issues relating to homelessness.

Vote to create additional programming fee at University Apartments North fails

A referendum to increase housing costs for more programming in north university apartments failed Feb. 27.

The referendum, which was created by UCLA Residential Life, would have increased student fees for University Apartments North residents by $38.76 per year. UCLA spokesperson Katherine Alvarado said the referendum was open to all University Apartments North residents, but declined to comment on what percentage of students voted. Ninety-one percent of voters voted against the referendum and 13 percent voted in favor, according to UAN’s Facebook page.

Advertisement for the referendum began on Facebook on Feb. 25, and the vote was conducted from Feb. 26 to Feb. 27.

Alvarado said in an email statement the referendum was intended to implement an activities fee for programs and services in the UAN. She added the UAN were the only university residential buildings that did not charge an activities fee.

“Activities fees for the hill and grad apartments fund (programs and) services – so we wanted to make sure the UA North apartments had that as well,” she said in the statement.

Many residents said they were unaware the referendum was taking place.

Jomi Williams, an apartment resident assistant for Westwood Chateau and a fourth-year economics student, said he did not think the referendum had been well publicized.

“It was an initiative that kind of came across to us last quarter and I didn’t hear anything about it until like this week, when we pushed it out again,” Williams said.

Rasmus Eriksson, an exchange student at the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television, said he thought the proposal had not been specific enough in what the money would be used for.

“I actually didn’t know exactly what it was for,” he said. “If it had been more specific about what the money was actually going to be going for, then maybe I would have voted for it.”

Williams also said he thought university apartment residents did not particularly care about programming events.

“People in university apartments, they don’t really care as much (about programming) as people on the Hill,” he said.

Tommy Ervin, a fourth-year mechanical engineering student, said he thought the referendum failed because many students would move out of university housing before the proposal could benefit them.

“Since some people only live here once, they don’t … take into account people who live here after them,” Ervin said. “They just say, ‘eh,’ which … is kind of like a selfish thing in a way.”

Alvarado said in the statement ResLife currently does not have concrete plans for future referendums or apartment programming.

Standardized test scores are a necessary assessment to equalize UC admissions

Each year, tens of thousands of students from thousands of schools across the globe vie for the chance to call themselves Bruins. One of the few things unifying that massively varied applicant pool: sitting at a desk and taking the SAT – or the ACT, if that’s your cup of tea.

Standardized test scores are one of 14 factors the University of California uses to comprehensively review admissions applications and assess a student’s readiness for college. But many students have complained about the effectiveness of standardized test scores in determining college success.

Recently, Beyond the Score, a student organization that seeks to challenge the use of standardized tests in University admissions, hosted a town hall to raise awareness about the drawbacks of requiring that applicants take the SAT or ACT. Members of the organization called the tests inherently racist, claiming the structure of standardized tests disadvantages minorities, people of color and students from lower-income families who can’t afford preparatory courses.

However, standardized tests also have a number of advantages. Test scores allow universities to put applicants from various backgrounds with different academic and grading systems on a level playing field. This gives students with inflated or deflated high school GPAs a fair opportunity to demonstrate their skill sets and knowledge of core concepts expected of university admits.

The UC Academic Senate is in the process of reviewing the role of standardized testing in the admissions process, at the request of UC President Janet Napolitano. Specifically, the academic task force is working toward determining the validity and usefulness of standardized test scores and high school GPAs in the admissions process.

But it’s crucial standardized tests stay in place. Tests such as the SAT and ACT act as equalizers for applicants, making things fairer, especially for international students who come from various backgrounds and academic systems.

Ricardo Vazquez, a UCLA spokesperson, said standardized tests provide a uniform reference point independent of individual high schools’ grading systems or rigor, contributing to the fairness of the UC admissions process.

He’s right: Standardized testing puts applicants on an even playing field. Students around the world are exposed to questions that test their knowledge of the same English and math concepts and are expected to finish the test in a set time limit. Additionally, all tests are graded on the same scale and generally have a consistent level of difficulty, making them a fair avenue for students to demonstrate their skills and readiness for college.

Test scores also act as a counterweight to the variability of applicants’ high school GPAs.

“My high school precalculus class was extremely easy when compared to those offered by other local public schools,” said Olivia Schulist, a third-year society and genetics student. “It would not have been fair to base a decision regarding my admission solely on my high school GPA.”

Standardized tests are even more important when comparing the academic competence of international students.

The UC admissions pool is comprised of students from all over the world, and countries across the globe follow different academic programs and grading scales. Many of these programs tend to be more challenging, time-consuming or simply different from those followed by American high schools. It’s important to have at least one common standard to cut across the diverse applicant pool.

Standardized tests offer just that.

Priscilla To, a third-year business economics student, said in her hometown of Hong Kong alone, schools follow myriad academic systems, such as the local Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education, the International Baccalaureate, the American Advanced Placement and the British General Certificate of Education.

“These different academic systems vary in difficulty and emphasize different skills,” To said. “Standardized testing enables universities to understand a student’s performance.”

Additionally, standardized tests allow universities to set a bar for their admits. A university’s admitted-student SAT score range allows applicants to better understand the university’s requirements and make informed decisions regarding their applications.

“I think the SATs are important to gauge the academic standing of applicants and establish a benchmark for admission to a particular university,” said Aditi Ganesh, a third-year economics student.

They also add a sense of predictability to the admissions process. Applicants can expect higher chances of admission if their scores on standardized tests fall in the top 25 percent of previously admitted students’ scores. This allows them to be more pragmatic about the universities they apply to.

Of course, standardized tests can appear to disadvantage lower-income students who cannot always afford to pay for lessons, study materials and practice tests. These students can struggle to cover the cost of taking the test and sending scores to universities.

Despite these barriers, the solution clearly isn’t removing standardized testing altogether. The UC already takes applicants’ socioeconomic background into account and compares their scores on standardized tests with others from similar communities and backgrounds. By using a holistic admissions process, the UC is able to compare applicants from all backgrounds on a level ground.

With over 100,000 students’ admission decisions on the line, UCLA must be more objective than ever. And until a better alternative is found, the SAT and ACT are the best we have.

Standardized testing fails to reflect holistic achievement of college applicants

Applying to attend the country’s No. 1 public university doesn’t just mean being a student. Sometimes, it also entails beating a system meant to work against you.

The phrase of the day is standardized tests.

Standardized tests like the SAT are required of students all over the world hoping to be admitted to the University of California and UCLA. Since its start in 1926, the SAT has been used by universities to set standards of not just what is expected of applicants, but also to determine whether a student is ready for college.

But these tests offer a limited insight into students’ potentials. There are numerous financial barriers to taking tests like the SAT, including registration costs, fees associated with sending scores to universities and tuition for prep courses. Students coming from low-income homes often are unable to afford these expenses.

The UC is now, at the request of President Janet Napolitano, studying whether standardized testing is an accurate predictor of success in college.

But we already know what the results will be.

 

 

Standardized tests perpetuate systemic inequity in the application process. In order to make sure students are able to do their best at campuses like UCLA, the UC should end the use of standardized tests and rely on applicants’ grades, extracurriculars and personal statements for admission.

The SAT has a long history of being exclusive. Carl Brigham, the psychologist who invented the SAT, created the test in hopes of excluding Jewish students and black students from attaining higher education. Although standardized tests have evolved since then, they are still a barrier to higher education.

Reports from the 2018 SAT show that 59 percent of white students and 75 percent of Asian students achieved their benchmark score as compared to 21 percent of black students and 31 percent of Latino students. These benchmarks are meant to show whether a student is ready for college and indicate career readiness.

Pedro Noguera, a professor of education at the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, said standardized tests have historically been problematic for students.

“Historically the idea of a standardized test was seen as a way to prevent bias. Standardized tests were seen as a way to get around nepotism,” Noguera said. “The problem is that the test is rooted in biases – not simply socioeconomic, but also ethnoracially.”

Preparing to take standardized tests isn’t cheap. And then there’s also the cost of tutors, practice tests and retaking the exam if students need to improve their score.

Moreover, the only thing the SAT is good at testing is students’ ability to take tests, not their readiness for college.

Noguera said there have been studies showing that high school grades are better predictors than standardized test scores of how students will do in college.

“The hard things to consider, (which) are really important, are the attributes of a student – the ability to recover when they have a setback,” Noguera said. “Students do not do well emotionally in college. They seem great on paper, but not in person.”

Standardized tests are a one-time event. There are many factors that can affect a student’s score. Four years’ worth of high school grades are a better indicator of how consistent students are and how well they challenge themselves on a daily basis. Personal statements allow students to discuss what they’ve struggled with and how they’ve come back from that.

The combination of high school GPAs and personal statements allows applicants to show their resilience in academics and life – something college students have to deal with.

Lily Barajas, a first-year political science student, said scores do not represent how hard a student is working in high school.

“A number is not (a representation) of who you are. Your story is,” Barajas said. “I’m worth more than a score.”

Tests like the SAT and ACT, in plain terms, show that you can fill out bubbles and put words in an essay that will please graders. This can result in students feeling they are inadequate when, in reality, they posses qualities that make them a good fit for college.

Amy Bueno, a first-year Italian studies student, said she saw her peers compare themselves to each other after SAT scores came out.

“I noticed a lot of people comparing their scores and it was sad that they only compared themselves to those who got higher scores,” Bueno said.

Moreover, despite getting outstanding scores on the SAT or ACT, students might not do well in college because of the variety of topics that aren’t covered on the tests.

And that’s the point: Standardized tests don’t capture the entirety of an applicant. Looking at a student’s achievements, like how they did extracurriculars while still maintaining good grades, shows their depth better than a good score on a three-hour test.

Certainly, the UC can justify its use of standardized test scores by stating it looks at students holistically. But the disparity of students on campus is apparent: Three percent of current UCLA students are African American and 22 percent are Hispanic, despite that being inconsistent with California’s demographics.

It’s clear barriers like standardized testing are inhibiting marginalized communities. So long as they are part of the admissions process, applicants will continue having their identities tied to arbitrary numbers.

And for those without resources, the odds will still be stacked against them.