When I first read this LA Times article, I thought this seemed backwards. As the concerned father of a high school senior anything that reminds me that factors beyond my son’s outstanding achievements and hard work will have an impact on his chances of being admitted to the school of his choice bothers me. After more reflection on this issue, I'm not sure the "new admission practices” are a bad thing. They certainly aren’t as bad as the article would have you believe. Interestingly, it was the reaction of the students that swayed me the most.
The LA Times reports that UCLA rejected more than 3,000 students with extremely high scores on the SAT entrance exam over the past two years and at the same time accepted more than 900 students with results that were far below the campus average.
This year, UCLA rejected 1,663 applicants with SAT scores totaling more than 1400 and accepted 407 applicants with SATs below 1000. The average SAT score for incoming freshmen at UCLA is 1333. UCLA contends that this year's freshman class has "the highest academic quality ever for a UCLA entering class."
The article fueled the fire ignited by the findings of last month’s confidential report to the UC Board of Regents. The report criticized similar admissions practices at UC Berkeley. The two campuses are the most selective of the eight undergraduate institutions in the University of California system. The concern is that admitting less-than-qualified students could erode the top schools' quality.
Joanne Jacobs posted that in 2002 Berkeley admitted nearly 400 students in 2002 with SAT scores of 600 to 1000, while rejecting 3,200 applicants with SATs over 1400, including 600 who exceeded 1500.
An opinion piece in UCLA’s student paper, the Daily Bruin argues that it is wrong to focus solely on SAT scores when admission decisions are being based on numerous factors including GPA, SAT II scores, athletics, rank in high school class, overcoming hardships, volunteer work, leadership or strong commitment to activities/clubs/organizations, and socio-economic status.
At Discriminations, John Rosenberg also has some thoughts about this issue.
Comments