The Univerisity of California at Berkeley has charted a brave new course with its recently-implemented "comprehensive review" admissions process. As Joanne Jacobs reports on the original LA Times story, Berkeley took the bold step of admitting, in 2002, almost 400 students whose SAT scores were anywhere from 300 to 700 points lower than the school average. Some students with SAT scores as low as 600 (yes, that's combined) were admitted in place of far-more-qualified students. What an innovative idea! Wonder why no one else has thought of it?
Of course, there are the naysayers. A confidential university report notes, with exquisite understatement, that "the admissions process at UC Berkeley might not be compatible with [the school's] goal of maintaining academic excellence." Gee, do you really think so?
One regent, Ward Connerly, said Berkeley's flexible standards might be an attempt to get around the state's ban on affirmative action and admit more underrepresented minority students...
UC Berkeley officials and faculty members acknowledged that the statistics in the report are generally accurate, but cautioned that in some instances the data were misinterpreted or misunderstood. They strongly defended their admissions practices, saying that academics are the leading criterion in all decisions, apart from a small number of exceptions for those with "exceptional personal talent" — often athletes.
UC Berkeley officials said the largest group of rejected applicants with 1400-plus SAT scores were denied admission largely because of their lower grade-point averages...Yet statistics provided by UC Berkeley officials on Friday showed that these rejected students actually had, on average, higher grade-point averages and more semesters of honors and AP courses than the students with SATs in the 600 to 1000 range who were accepted.
The usual blather about how the sun doesn't rise and set on SAT scores, and the complication of the admissions process, is repeated here, although, if admissions are so terrifyingly complicated these days, it's worth asking, who made it that way? Not California's voters.
Great quotes:
"I'm not a big supporter of SAT scores at all," said William G. Tierney, director of USC's Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis. "But if you sign your name, you get a 400."
"Either the University of California at Berkeley really believes that students who are lower academic achievers based on SATs are better students than those who are higher achievers on those tests, or there is some other reason here. You know which I think," [Ward Connerly] said, adding that "this is a damning report."
And Joanne, as usual, sums everything up perfectly:
It's hard to believe students with below-average math and verbal skills can succeed at a university designed to educate the ablest students in the state. Berkeley is a sink-or-swim environment. Except for star athletes, who will get tutoring and support, underqualified students are likely to sink.
Posted by kswygert at October 6, 2003 04:04 PM