Oh, Berkeley's now on the defensive, thanks to the public dissemination of the report stating that students with rock-bottom SATs who were admitted in 2002:
Officials from University of California, Berkeley, defended their admissions processes Monday after a confidential document hit the media that questions whether "marginally academically qualified" students were admitted to the campus last year over better students.
The 2002 freshman class at Berkeley was "the academically strongest freshman class in UC Berkeley's history," according to a campus statement issued in response to the document...
Um-hm. Any evidence to support that? Or were enough geniuses admitted that the mean SAT scores didn't change?
Moores' analysis said UC regents have received complaints from parents and students who question why well-prepared students are denied admission to UC -- particularly competitive campuses such as Berkeley.
Parents should be pissed. Berkeley's process is anti-achievement, anti-striving, and anti-effort. Students are being rewarded with entrance despite doing little more than signing their names correctly to the SAT.
Richard Black, Berkeley's assistant vice chancellor for admissions and enrollment, said Moores' analysis looks only at students' scores on the SAT I standardized test. In fact, officials said those scores are only one of several factors in admissions decisions. Factors such as high school grades and scores on subject-specific standardized tests, called SAT IIs, are weighed more heavily in admissions decisions.
Students who score 600 on the SAT do not do better on the subject-specific tests. I can guarantee you that, because the subject-specific tests are generally considered to be more difficult. Also, with grade inflation so rampant, I'd like to know why Berkeley apparently didn't find it odd that someone could have a good high school GPA without being able to answer simple vocabulary and Algebra I items on the SAT.
The university also weighs other factors, such as obstacles students have overcome, demonstrated leadership abilities and academic opportunities available at a student's high school. The process is part of the university's "comprehensive review" admissions policy, which looks at factors besides test scores and grades. The policy was applied for the first time to the incoming class of 2002.
Ah, there we go. "Obstacles" they've overcome. If life didn't throw you hardships, you had a nice, well-lit, comfy kitchen in which to practice your SATs, and you went to a good high school, you're out of luck. On the other hand, if your parents sent you to a rotten school that didn't pull you too far down into squalor, but you haven't demonstrated much in the way of academic achievement, Berkeley wants you around. Of course, a cynic might note that, if these students are making such low SAT scores, it's hard to see how they've overcome anything, unless Berkeley is awarding them admission simply for staying out of trouble or for working at McDonald's all through high school.
It apparently doesn't matter to Berkeley how hard an individual works; what matters is whether they worked more than Berkeley expected them to, given circumstances completely out of their control. You hard-working middle-class white-bread honor roll students better pray for a close relative to get cancer during your junior year, or hope that one of your teachers sexually harasses you, because that's your only shot at awakening Berkeley's "compassionate" admissions officers.
Further, the statement said the review policy helps UC meet its mandate to offer a space to the top 4 percent of students in each high school graduating class.
"Students with low SAT scores are more likely to come from schools and school districts which, in the past, have sent few or no students to UC Berkeley," the statement said. "Admission of such students, who are often the highest-performing students in their schools, is consistent with recent UC regents' policy."
Regardless of whether those students have accomplished much in an objective sense, or whether their academic capabilities are in line with the rest of the students, or whether grade inflation is rampant in these schools. There are no longer objective standards for college readiness, and it's apparently unfair to suggest there are. In other words, if Bridget Green ever manages to pass that exit exam, Berkeley's got a spot open for her.
I apologize if I seem to be harping on this too much, but it really frosts my shorts. I don't often take these stories personally, but today I am (perhaps I haven't had enough coffee yet).
Anyway, it's appalling for me to consider that I, personally, would not be admitted to Berkeley (or, probably, to any UC school) if I applied today, despite a good GPA, stellar SAT scores, and a well-rounded activity schedule. I didn't have hardships to overcome (my parents worked their tails off to do that for me). I didn't have diverse life experiences, thanks to the small Southern town in which I was raised. The hard work that I did in high school would have meant diddly-squat to the racial bean counters of Berkeley, who apparently don't care if students have what it takes to finish college, only whether students add the right mix of "diversity" to the campus environment.
Posted by kswygert at October 7, 2003 11:09 AM