With the falling temperatures, it appears that wildfire season may be coming to an end in the brush, but if Board of Regents Chair John Moores’ preliminary analysis of the UC Berkeley admissions process is any indication, fall signals the start of a new season of conflagrations. A Los Angeles Times article has reignited the dry brush that has grown since the summer Supreme Court decision striking down the University of Michigan admissions system that awarded extra points to applicants of underrepresented races.
This time, Moores has discovered that nearly 400 students that were admitted to Berkeley had S.A.T. scores ranging from 600 to 1,000, bad by any measure, but atrocious by the standards for the University of California (with the possible exception of Riverside and Davis, but maybe we should “”play nice”” here). On the other hand, 641 students with scores above 1,500 were denied admission.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl fired right back in a letter to UC President Robert C. Dynes, contending that Moores’ analysis was misguided, pointing out that since students who applied to different majors were considered separately, three certain engineering majors were far more competitive than the rest.
Second, Berdahl points out that UC admissions policy requires that campuses take into account the circumstances behind an applicant’s achievement ‹ if a student went to a traditionally poorly performing high school, for example, lower S.A.T. scores may still be an indication of promise in a relative context.
Furthermore, none of the applicants on the lowest end of the pool have yet dropped out of the school.
Berdahl’s defenses, however well-intentioned, still fall flat. The Berkeley admissions officers were no doubt aware of the effect of treating applications to different majors separately, rather than admitting the class on the whole first, and then distributing the applications to departments (and colleges, as UCSD does).
How can anyone reasonably expect a high school senior to understand the various facets of a computer engineering or bioengineering program to the point where he or she knows that the only way to succeed academically and later in life is by being admitted to one of these three majors? This is a rather ludicrous proposition ‹ despite the importance that an undergraduate major plays in structuring one’s studies, jobs in the real world are not separated by majors, and certainly any quality engineering (or physics, or chemistry) education should enable a graduate to operate in a wide variety of disciplines. One might make the argument that with the specialization implied by choice of major in college, an art or dance major might show considerable promise in his or her chosen field, but that it would be irrelevant to that student’s S.A.T. scores.
However, there are highly regarded institutions for those talented in art and dance. In the more academic of majors, a degree from the University of California should imply not only mastery of the field in question, but also a satisfactory completion of rigorous general education requirements. Regardless if a student is an engineer, a studio artist, or an athlete, a UC degree should imply satisfactory writing ability and mathematical skill. If students come ill-prepared for that next step in their general education from high school, regardless of where their talent lies, it is difficult to believe they can be held to the same standards in both their general education and their major while receiving a remedial education.
And herein lies the problem. This is not a question of whether these applicants show talent, leadership experience or promise. It is a question of whether the University of California should offer remedial education to correct the indefensible disparities in California K-12 education, while sacrificing academic standards in the process. Berdahl has defended the admission of these 381 students by pointing out that none of them has dropped out of school yet. The real question is why Berkeley’s academic standards can accommodate 381 students who cannot demonstrate a basic competence in reading, vocabulary and arithmetic only a year before. While one might argue that to distill one’s academic competence down to a number is meaningless and insubstantial, and this writer might agree if we were comparing an S.A.T. score of 1,200 to 1,300, or 1,300 to 1,500. But how can one of the top university systems in the country, one which is supposed to serve by mandate, the top 4 percent of the graduating class, abide a substantial number of freshmen who test below 50th percentile (a score of 1,010) in two areas that are core to general education requirements?
Berdahl also defends the admission of these students by contending that many had rather high grade point averages ‹ indeed, only 17 percent had grade point averages under 3.50. However, a central component of comprehensive review assigns added value to an applicant who comes from a historically underperforming high school. What do grades mean anyways if one comes from a school with a lackluster reputation? Does it mean that you have outperformed your classmates while receiving a lackluster education? How is that any different from outperforming your classmates while receiving a quality education? It certainly is a relative indication of talent, no doubt. But a high grade point average from a school with historically poor academic record is no indication of objective academic preparedness. A central criticism of the S.A.T. is that the scores are highly correlated to family income. The fallacy implied here is that wealth, in and of itself, is the causal factor to performance on the test.
The real issue is that wealth is correlated to twelve years of academic preparation in our public school system, so much so that graduates from inner city schools often end up at least three years behind those in suburban ones. These applicants are no less talented, but they are no doubt much less prepared.
The difficulty is that the core mission of the University of California seems to have run into a conflict of fundamentals. On the one hand, the university is supposed to be the first-tier higher education system in the state ‹ in a perfect world, there should be no need to sacrifice UC academic standards because we still offer ample opportunities through the CSU and community college system to eventually end up at a UC campus as a transfer or in graduate school. The University of California remains the first-tier system not because we need ivory towers sprinkled through the state, but because it serves the economic and social goals of California to have a public education system with the most rigorous standards possible for a select group of students.
On the other hand, we recognize that a racially and socially disproportionate population in that select group is a damning indictment of the travesty that is our educational system. One way to correct this might be to balance the difference by fiat, first by quotas and then by affirmative action. Someone had the gall to point out that 90 percent of the 381 students were from underrepresented minorities, accusing university officials of backdoor affirmative action. The disproportionate racial representation on the top side of the S.A.T. spectrum, on the other hand, does not seem to bother them.
But, then again, is this not what the entire debate is about? Of course the university is considering race. If the admissions officers were banned from considering geography, family wealth and parental education in ways that are closely correlated with race, then the result would be a student body makeup that was politically indefensible.
UCSD, likewise, abandoned its 50-50 policy of evaluating half of the incoming class based solely on scores and the other half on a varied set of criteria.
Instead, UCSD now performs comprehensive review on all applications, with the subsequent effect that the average S.A.T. scores for the incoming class dropped last year. It does not take a genius to realize what the motivation for dropping purely objective criteria for half the class is. Both sides, by demonstrating the extremes of either race-blind or race-conscious admissions policies, have forced a ludicrous situation where proxy variables are used instead of race to achieve a result that is reported in only one manner ‹ the ethnic breakdown of the incoming class.
The social justice of our lack of diversity at the University of California is appalling, and criticizing comprehensive review may seem like a step backward. However, this writer has long argued against affirmative action ‹ and now against comprehensive review ‹ because not only does it clearly lower academic standards, it places a band-aid on the real problem by creating equality of results by fiat. In the process, the university undermines both of the values in question: it sacrifices its academic standards by becoming a remedial institution, and it undermines social justice because its admissions standards imply that these students are prepared regardless of their previous 12 years of schooling, obviating the need for real reform.
The disparity between academic standards and resources given to the schools of suburban California, and those in rural areas or the inner city is the real problem. If we are led to believe through our admissions systems that underrepresented minorities are prepared for higher education despite their atrocious treatment at the hands of the state, then we as a society can believe we have achieved social justice, and only the few of us who dare look beyond the racial breakdown of admissions statistics will be aware of the full magnitude of our failure.
This is a lie that cannot be abided.
