First Berkeley, then UCLA - and now it's UC-San Diego's turn:
Nearly 800 students, about 58 percent of whom were underrepresented minorities, were admitted to UC San Diego last year with below-average SAT scores, while an equal number of students with high SAT scores were denied access.
New data released by UCSD show that more than half of those students admitted with low SAT scores had grade-point averages below 3.8. The average GPA for the accepted students in 2002 was 4.13.
Remember my post about the aggravated columnist who is convinced that high-test-score, low-GPA folks are getting into top-notch schools left and right? That writer didn't provide any data to support her claim, and this is why. What's more likely to happen is this - high-GPA and high test-score folks are less likely to get into schools if they don't meet "diversity" guidelines.
UCSD officials emphasize that the 790 students with SAT scores below 1,000 made up only 4.7 percent of admitted students, and that most admitted students had good grades and SAT scores that were closer to or surpassed the 1293 average.
But the numbers raise questions, considering UCSD's 2-year-old admissions process, known as comprehensive review, in which 75 percent of the criteria is based on academic qualifications. The other 25 percent is based on a numerical measure of an applicant's socioeconomic status and personal opportunities and accomplishments.
So it's only 25% of the total. Still, one could ask why SES factors into college admissions at all, given that low SES isn't predictive of high college performance.
UCSD Admissions Director Mae Brown defended the [comprehensive review] policy, saying UC's responsibility as stated in California's Master Plan of Higher Education is to accept students from among the top 12.5 percent of high school graduates, a group that isn't limited to those with outstanding grades and test scores.
In other words, this includes students who, thus far, may not have necessarily produced any evidence of being capable of doing college-level work. That certainly may have been due to factors beyond these applicants' control, but unless UCSD is going to admit that their first year program is essentially a baby-sitting/remedial program, I don't see the point in admitting students who haven't yet proved themselves. Why is it now a given that students can begin to prove themselves in college?
A 2-year-old policy called Eligibility in the Local Context, or ELC, is widely considered race-neutral because it bases admission solely on GPAs. Similar to the approach at public university systems in Texas and Florida, UC guarantees admission to students graduating in the top 4 percent of their high school classes.
At UCSD, the 4 percent plan, as some call it, has had enormous impact...About 34 percent of students admitted last year were ELC students...
This guarantee has allowed UCSD to admit dozens of students with below-average grades and test scores for the past three years.
For example, in 2001, 22 students were admitted with an average GPA of 3.87 and average SAT score of 1,001. That year, the average SAT score for admitted freshmen was 1,313 and the average GPA was 4.15.
While the number of so-called local 4 percent admissions is very small, it has been growing in the past two years.
Still, long-term data show that many of those students admitted continue to have lower than average grades in their first year at college.
And there's the rub. If these kids didn't do well in high school, it's not necessarily just because they weren't given the chance. It could be simply because they're not smart, or focused, or determined enough. And now, thanks to UC's policies, these kids are paying for the privilege of earning bad grades at a good school.
The students attained an average 2.76 GPA for their freshman year, which was below the 2.94 average for the freshman class. But UCSD's Brown lauded the students' performance.
"They're clearly not struggling, with almost a 'B' average," Brown said. "These students are doing comparably to all other students at UCSD."
At what point, do you think, would UC be willing to admit that their policy was not working? Would these students have to flunk out en masse? My bet is that such an event wouldn't faze these "compassionate" educators; they'd just double up on the remedial work in the first year, never losing sight of their assumption that these kids can do the work. It's going to take more than data to dissuade them from their belief that admitting students with a track record of relatively low academic achievement to high-ranking universities simply may not be the best thing for those students, "diversity" of campus atmosphere be damned.
Update: Over at Discriminations, John is marveling at UC Berkeley's new definition of "stigma." Apparently, it's not stigmatizing to drastically lower standards for one group; it's only this inconvenient publicity that is the problem.
Posted by kswygert at October 24, 2003 11:26 AM