<p>Interesting insight into the struggles faced by kids from bad school districts who end up at Berkeley. A key difference between the two kids profiled is that one had a college graduate for a parent, and was encouraged to read from an early age:</p>
<p>It is moving but also revealing. Berkeley admitted a student who cannot pass freshman composition even on the second try, causing him to ask, “Is life really worth living?”, but who gets an A- in African American studies class that pulls his GPA up to 2.0 . How do you get an A- in a humanities or social science class if you can’t write?</p>
<p>I think Berkeley is passing over much better qualified applicants, and many of the commenters at the LA Times site agree with me.</p>
<p>For the love of god, Beliavsky, did you even READ the article? </p>
<p>It astonishes me that there are people in this world who reduce EVERYTHING to numbers…who look for the “I-told-you-so” negative in every situation…who seemingly have no empathy or compassion whatsoever. I am very glad I know very few of them in real life.</p>
<p>All things considered, the difference in academic success, often begins at home. </p>
<p>If there is a culture of education and parents support this, the kids have an advantage…no matter what their socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity or where the kids are educated.</p>
<p>Unless the course specifically lists the reading and composition course as a prerequisite, a lower division course (in any subject) would only realistically be able to assume a high school level of writing skills. Otherwise, what would incoming frosh take for courses besides the reading and composition course?</p>
<p>Upper division courses probably assume stronger writing skills, since students are supposed to have completed reading and composition courses before junior year.</p>
<p>In any case, the absence of any non-trivial college with a 100% bachelor’s degree graduation rate indicates that no college has found the perfect predictor for college success at the application and admission stage.</p>
<p>There are a limited set of ideas, attitudes and points of view on CC. Most high volume posters adhere to a predictable and repetitive position. Bring up the pope and a predictable poster will appear with a snarky and offensive post. Challenge the value of a high priced hand bag, and and the responding cast of characters is predictable. Question the value of tenure and teachers unions and . wait for it…wait for it…here they come…like the sun rising in the east… anyone here on a regular basis can name the list of the righteously indignant…bearing statistic and links to the ‘correct’ data. So, guys… the OP is no different…the OP just happens to hold a minority opinion…why is that so threatening? Why the need to denigrate, belittle and silence? Why would the OP’s particular position astonish anyone…they are predictable just as everyone else.</p>
<p>And frankly, how does someone get an A- in humanities class if they do not posses basic writing and analytical skills. Is this particular course so watered down that a passing grade is a give…thereby bringing up the question…what is the purpose?</p>
There are a lot of athletes who are borderline illiterate who graduated (or at least had a high enough GPA for 3 years to not fail out) from decent schools. Classes like this must be one of the reasons as to why this is happening.</p>
<p>That was a take home message for me from the article. Kashawn and Spencer probably looked very similar on paper; raised by hardworking single mothers, eligible in the local context based on their rank at their rough LA schools. But Spencer was encouraged to read by his college educated mother while Kashawn was not. Regardless of where Kashawn ultimately graduates, it is clear that his struggle at Cal has molded him and changed him. I have no doubt that if he has children or is in a position to influence children in the future he will instill in them the importance of reading and writing at a young age. And that’s what holistic admissions is all about. It’s about changing the future for generations.</p>
<p>Spot on! Holistic admissions are NOT about the merits of an INDIVIDUAL, or the accomplishments of an INDIVIDUAL on an objective basis in comparison to other individuals. They are about comparison of groups to groups (which are identified based on current social theory). They are about social engineering for the purpose of accomplishing a SOCIAL goal. And, that is NOT admissions for the most capable or qualified based on objective measurements. Let’s call it what it is.</p>
<p>D has fulfilled a few requirements by taking classes in the grievance disciplines. These departments exist and fill classes only because they are required to fulfill certain GE’s. If, in the case of a CA public institution, you get a low priority for registration and thus can’t get into your (and everyone else’s) preferred course, you resign yourself to spending a quarter or semester in a grievance discipline course. D learned very quickly that the quality of thought and writing was much less important that the point of view expressed. It is better to write badly but parrot the party line than it is to write critically and well but contradict the acceptable point of view.</p>
<p>This is not necessarily a bad thing. Part of succeeding in life, career, relationships and the world in general is knowing when to just lay low and play the game. Actually, it is a valuable skill…so in a weird way…I’m glad she had to go through it.</p>
<p>That is not all that big a surprise, since many schools have some relatively easy (“gut”) courses and majors where students have a reasonable chance of academic success even if they were admitted with much lower high school academic records.</p>
<p>Note that the standards for the lowest academic risk athletic admits who were not admitted by the normal admissions reading process (“gold tag”) are not particularly high – UC eligibility and some minimal HS GPA and SAT score combined into an academic index (e.g. 3.0 HS GPA with 1350 SAT). Higher academic risk categories are “blue tag” and “red tag” athletic admits. For junior transfers, the “gold tag” and “blue tag” thresholds are 2.4 and 2.2 prior college GPA respectively; this is far below the typical prior college GPA needed to successfully gain admission otherwise. (Athletic recruits who were admitted through the normal process are not “tagged”.)</p>
<p>The 275 frosh tags limit is about 1.9% of the 14,103 admits for 2013. The 25 transfer tags limit is about 0.65% of the 3,824 admits for 2013. Total number of tags per year is limited to 300, of which up to 100 may be blue or red, of which up to 20 may be red.</p>
<p>Some people may consider the tagged athletic admits (particularly the blue and red tag athletic admits) to be more scandalous academically than any other actual or speculated admissions preference (SES, race, etc.). But things like SES and race are hot enough buttons, and winning sports teams are popular enough, that SES and race (mostly race) get most of the attention, whether or not there is actual admissions preference (which may be different from whether someone believes there should or should not be such a preference).</p>
<p>If you mean the ethnic studies departments, there is no general education requirement at Berkeley that requires taking a course in any ethnic studies department (and the criteria for courses fulfilling the American cultures requirement excludes a large percentage courses in the ethnic studies departments).</p>
<p>Whether an admissions process is holistic or not is independent of the goals of the admissions process in terms of what you are claiming here. A non-holistic admissions process could be designed using purely group membership criteria, while a holistic admissions process could be designed with the intention to look only for individual achievement, recognizing that (unlike in some other countries) there are few common measures, and those that do exist (common standardized tests) are not particularly good predictors of college performance, even compared to non-standardized measures (high school courses and grades).</p>
<p>dietz- sometimes, it’s the fact of one poster starting so many threads with a link to a questionable article. That pattern.</p>
<p>If it all boils down to family, how do you explain the differences among our children?</p>
<p>I can only speak for my experience, but if you don’t think applicants are looked at as individuals, you may not have seen how these apps actually appear, how a kid actually pulls his together. You may be assuming all apps are “equal” with only variation for “academic achievement” or the specific ECs. Not. It is very much about how each kid presents himself in the app. The app is his vehicle- and all he really has- to present himself to stranger adults charged with the review.</p>
<p>OMG, GMT7.<br>
I followed the link and read each kid - as soon as I saw your link and before I saw your summaries for each kid.
You really honed in on what forms your own perspective.<br>
Your summary reads like a chance-me.</p>