The Tri-Valley Herald provides an update on the "innovate" college admissions policy implemented by UC President Richard Atkinson. The plan two years ago was to move away from test scores and GPAs, and towards a "comprehensive, holistic" form of judging applicants (despite their best efforts to deny it, judging applicants is exactly what they're still doing).
Has it worked? I suppose that depends on how you define "worked":
On Thursday, the effectiveness of that policy was a dominant theme of Atkinson's last board meeting before he retires on Oct. 1.
First applied to the incoming class of fall 2002, the comprehensive review policy has shown some success in increasing the numbers of low-income and first-generation students admitted to UC, according to a faculty report on the policy presented to regents. Such students typically don't attend UC with the same frequency as their more affluent peers.
The proportion of black, Latino and American Indian students admitted to UC has also increased, and more are applying to the system -- a reflection of California's changing demographics and the increasing number of minority high school graduates, the report said.
Oh, so the racial balance hasn't been upset. Good, good. Of course, that "increasing number of minority high school graduates" might have been dependent on the recent decision to push back the high school exit exam. What happens with the UC admissions model if minority high school graduation rates drop? Will they allow their admissions model to remain the same even if minority enrollment rates then decrease?
And what kinds of students are attending UC these days?
Barbara Sawrey, chairwoman of UC's Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, which oversees matters relating to undergraduate admissions, said the report should also allay critics' fears that the comprehensive review policy would diminish the quality of entering freshmen...
But Regent Ward Connerly said he has heard criticism from community members who say UC is turning away highly qualified candidates because they don't have enough non-academic credentials listed on their applications.
"We have clearly redefined merit," Connerly said. "And some would say we have given non-academic factors more weight, some would say a disparate weight, in the new process."
Sawrey said academic achievement is still factored heavily in the new process, although admission consideration has been broadened to also take other factors into account, such as personal achievement.
Personal achievement that isn't apparent in increased test scores or in increased GPA, that is. I'm all for personal achievement, but it's downright bizarre to see colleges downplaying academic achievements and giving heavier weight to non-academic matters, such as whether you were the first in your family to go to college:
The new comprehensive admissions process combines the current two-tiered policy into one review. The new policy allows UC admissions officers to consider all applicants' extracurricular activities, leadership skills and personal obstacles, in addition to academic achievement.
It also allows admissions officers to consider if the student had to overcome difficulties, such as being the first in the family to go to college or attending a school with limited educational resources, in making decisions to admit students.
Well, I guess that's one way to get rid of those annoying legacy students who went to good schools, made good grades, and hoped to follow in Dad's footsteps at UCLA. No need for them as part of the campus's "diversity." As one critic of the admissions model wrote in an Los Angeles Times article around the time of implementation, "It looks like they're trying to punish kids who have gone to good schools, tried their best and played by the rules...And they're really pulling the rug out from under them by doing all this at the last minute."
Have the academic standards actually remained high? I'd like to see that above-mentioned faculty report mentioned above to judge for myself.
Posted by kswygert at September 22, 2003 11:29 AM