SACRAMENTO, CA - At the June meeting of the California Postsecondary Education Commission, UC President Richard Atkinson tried to convince commissioners of the soundness of his plan to eliminate the SAT I as a UC admissions tool. Rather than make a persuasive case, however, Atkinson offered his version of the "Great Bamboozle."

Atkinson handed out a document that showed, based on 1996-99 data, that the SAT II, which is comprised of subject-specific tests in areas such as math and science, better predicted UC students’ first-year grades than the SAT I, a general aptitude test that measures reading comprehension, vocabulary, and mathematical problem solving. Although Atkinson favors using the SAT II instead of the SAT I, he made the debate over SAT I versus II irrelevant when he said that use of the SAT II would only be transitional. His goal is to have new subject tests, based on the California academic content standards, created in the next few years.

Trouble is, there are no data on Atkinson’s yet-to-be-created tests. Although California’s standards are rigorous, will these tests be as rigorous as the SAT I or II? What types of questions will be emphasized? How will they be scored? The answer is that no one knows. Thus, it is impossible to say whether Atkinson’s new tests will correlate better or worse with students’ first-year college grades than the SAT I. In a statistical sleight of hand, Atkinson is trying to convince decision-makers to drop the SAT I because an abbreviated data set shows that it isn’t as good a predictor of college performance as the SAT II, which he then proceeded to swap for a currently non-existent unresearched exam. In other words, the con is on.

Atkinson is also duping Californians in other ways. In a recent article, he claims that "Excellence is not measured by grades and test scores alone." He is, therefore, pushing a holistic admissions process that would evaluate applicants "comprehensively rather than setting aside a percentage who are reviewed on grades and test scores alone." Yet, despite his protestations that such a change wouldn’t lower the quality of UC students, some interesting statistics suggest otherwise.

In its recent analysis of UC remedial education programs, the state Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) found that in 1999 at UC Berkeley, where the average entering freshman had a median SAT I score of 1370 and a high-school GPA of 4.23, only 17 percent of regularly-admitted students needed remedial education. In contrast, at UC Riverside, where the average entering freshman had a median SAT I score of 1120 and a high-school GPA of 3.61, a shocking 60 percent of regular admittees needed remediation. If grades and test scores are de-emphasized, will UC students perform more like students at UC Riverside and less like those at UC Berkeley?

Atkinson’s proposals are a backdoor attempt to re-institute race preferences. Indeed, a recent Wall Street Journal article showed how Spanish-fluent Hispanic immigrant students in California choose to take the SAT II Spanish-language exam in order to receive high scores. The Journal says that such a situation "operates as an undeclared affirmative-action policy." Californians should not be fooled by Atkinson’s bamboozle. The real solution to low minority admissions is to reform K-12 education so that more minority students take college-prep courses, get better grades, and achieve higher test scores.

- By Lance T. Izumi