University of California President Robert Dynes is in the news today, defending the "comprehensive review" admissions policy that has drawn so much fire as of late:
Dynes defended the UC’s fledgling “comprehensive review” system of admitting students based on a number of factors beyond standardized test scores and high school grades.
The system has been under scrutiny since Board of Regents Chair John Moores released a report showing that hundreds of students with near-perfect SAT scores were turned away from UC Berkeley. At the same time, the report showed that hundreds of students with much lower scores — many below 1,000 — were accepted.
Dynes said that he took the concern seriously following Moores’ report, and said the university system would be “receptive to criticism.”
...But Dynes stood by the admissions policies, which have recently reduced the weight placed on standardized test scores — the SAT I in particular.
”Creativity, imagination, motivation and just plain work ethic have to count for something,” he said.
Really? Why? Are creativity and imagination absolutely essential for success in college? Are they predictive of eventual graduation? Does this mean the less-imaginative students will be less likely to be admitted, despite good grades? Can motivation be reliably measured? How can you tell if a student has a good work ethic? What if they've worked really hard and are really motivated, but still have bad grades? Why would that background be beneficial to the applicant, when one could view it as proof that this student just can't succeed in an academic environment, no matter how hard they work?
Why don't any reporters play Devil's Advocate with these fatuous statements? I mean, it might be true that "creativity and imagination" are absolutely essential for success in college, but I don't see anyone providing any data showing that, and I don't see anyone pointing out that such statements are theories, not facts.
Posted by kswygert at October 27, 2003 09:41 AM