<p>I tend to think, based on entirely anecdotal evidence, that UC Berkeley readers are still looking at hardship and other issues when evaluating applications from white students. My son had a 3.3 UC GPA and commensurately nebbish test scores. Though we knew he could not possibly get into Berkeley, we ticked the box because going there would have saved us tens of thousands of dollars in housing costs. Because UC Santa Cruz uses UC Berkeley’s scoring when students apply to both schools, I know that my son’s Santa Cruz application was actually scored at Berkeley. The fact that he was admitted to Santa Cruz and rejected by Riverside is, I think, telling. Riverside does not do holistic evaluation. Berkeley/Santa Cruz does. My son, a white kid with learning disabilities, lots of community service, leadership, and sports was rated more highly by Berkeley’s readers than he was by Riverside’s more “objective” standards. That resulted in his being admitted to Santa Cruz and not Riverside, though Santa Cruz is significantly more “selective” than Riverside. This is, to me, one small example of UC Berkeley being evenhanded in the application of criteria like “overcoming hardship” and “leadership.”</p>
<p>For this group, the number of EC and their nature is directly proportional to the perceived retun. If ECs are not playing a great part in the application process, the paint by the numbers applicants stay on the sidelines, especially for group and unselfish activities. It is all about gaming the system and padding the file when there is a prize. </p>
<p>It is such an old story that it is no longer worth mentioning.</p>
<p>Holistic admission is a noble cause. But it has to have some limit. Otherwise, the tax payers will stop supporting the public university.</p>
<p>A commentary on the NYT article:</p>
<p>[Cheating</a> at Colleges – by Admissions Officers
by Michael Barone
National Review Online
August 9, 2013](<a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355356/cheating-colleges-admissions-officers-michael-barone]Cheating”>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355356/cheating-colleges-admissions-officers-michael-barone)
</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s racial discrimination at all. Using a “holistic” approach to level the playing field due to socio-economic factors or other “stressors” may have the effect and appearance of favoring, say, black and hispanic applicants, but it’s not their “black-ness” or “hispanosity” that is driving the decision-making. It’s not really fair to compare head to head based on GPA and SAT scores alone Candidate A who lives in a ritzy suburb where local residents pour money into the school system, does not have to work a part-time job while going to school, and whose parents can pay for private tutors with Candidate B who lives in low-income neighborhood, has to work part-time to help the family survive, and helps care for several younger siblings. As a CA taxpayer, I have no problem with the UC admissions committee looking for ways to give Candidate B a fair shot, even if it’s more likely that Candidate B is black or hispanic.</p>
<p>I am not sure if I misread the statistics in the Hout report, but it looked to me as though an applicant with a score of 2 was admitted 100% of the time to most of the majors within the College of Engineering, and 99% of the time to the rest. (Seriously, maybe I did misread the table.)</p>
<p>If I read the table right, then there is no apparent issue that the application was scored as a 2 rather than as a 1. Does a 1 qualify a student for some special scholarships, or something? He’s essentially just as guaranteed admission with a 2 as with a 1 (except for 1% of one major).</p>
<p>What is more relevant is the distribution of scores across the applicant pool–how many in each category? The “rubber hits the road” somewhere around 2.5-3.0.</p>
<p>There’s no doubt holistic allows a certain hand in decision making. We all know that. But some of this talk is so theoretical. We try to boil this down to something representative and that’s usually stats and a list of ECs. That doesn’t allow for the real differences in how one kid strived, grew, has certain personal attributes- versus another who may look better in the digest , but may also comes across as flat and sometimes, less multi-dimensional. </p>
<p>Plenty of those low SES kids, helping with family, working- are also doing more to advance themselves (and their communities) than plenty of kids at lusher hs, with easier lives. It’s not being poor and having stressors- it’s what you do with the hand you are dealt. </p>
<p>I really can’t speak for UCB, but can for the apps I see- I get flack for this, but some of the striver kids leave ours in the dust. When we limit ourselves to thinking it’s about race or ethnicity, when we focus on some stats differential, we miss what’s really behind the notion of the American dream: hard work despite challenges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While the mechanism is the same, remember that the Hout report was from nearly a decade ago, so it is possible (though not necessarily the case) that some divisions or majors may have gotten so competitive that a 2 score on the reading may now be on the borderline.</p>
<p>However, if essentially all 1 and 2 scoring applicants are admitted to the given division or major, then it is likely that the only real distinction is that Regents’ scholarship candidates are more likely to come from 1 scoring applicants.</p>
<p>Re: #65</p>
<p>Note that in the context of promoting access to higher education for those from low SES families, it appears that the holistic review process described here, along with UC financial aid policies (meeting need for in-state students), appears to be successful in terms of this goal. Not only is the percentage of Pell grant students at Berkeley quite high compared to other schools of similar selectivity, but so are four and six year graduation rates, at least relative to other state universities, indicating that the process is not just admitting students so poorly prepared that they will flunk out.</p>
<p>But then it seems that most people pay more attention to race and ethnicity than SES in relation to educational opportunity.</p>
<p>It all depends on how you decide to look at the admissions at the UC. Some see it as a victory for diversity, and others believe for it to be a victory, it out to be relying on a different and screwy definition of diversity. If that is defined as success, I am happy that few states are showing similar statistics! Was it that long that the California was the envy of the US and the world in terms of education? It surely ain’t in 2013! </p>
<p>As far as the SES versus racial diversity, it is not that hard to trace the obvious difference. When your system blatantly favor a certain type of students, the immediate result is a change in the balance. No real surprise that the balance in SES hardly follows the demographics of the state, namely in much lower admissions and enrollment of blacks and hispanics. </p>
<p>As far as the Pell grantees, the higher number at the UC system is also easy to trace to the particularly creative reporting of taxable income in certain subgroups where the cash economy is as prevalent as the “musical chairs” ownership of grocery stores, donut shop, seamstressing operations, or … SAT tutoring emporiums. </p>
<p>There, I said it!</p>
<p>Ucbalumnus, which Universities are you comparing to Berkeley? URM grad rates at UC-Berkeley are not that impressive. </p>
<p>What sticks out is the delta between the average grad rate at UC-Berkeley and the URM’s (90% 6-year grad rates vs 71% Blacks/African Americans and 81% Hispanic or 19% and 9%). </p>
<p>Why are Blacks/African American grad rates so low at Berkeley? </p>
<p>Maybe the issue is really with the K-12 system in California that fails the URM/low SES families. All of the holistic “magic” in the world can’t seem to fix it…A state this large should be able to generate a host of high performing Hispanic and Black/African American students, all wanting to go to the best UC school…</p>
<p>The enrollment stats for UCB just do not support the theory that URM receive preferential admissions. The UCB numbers from 2011 (source College Navigator) are as follows:</p>
<p>Asian 37%
White 30%
Hispanic 12%
Black 3%</p>
<p>Where is the evidence of “illegal” affirmative action?</p>
<p>^^^ UC-Berkeley isn’t using “illegal” affirmative action. However, the holistic method does allow for lower SES students, who tend to be URMs. Some may think this is a back door to affirmative action, but it’s perfectly legal and very popular (unlike race based affirmative action). In general, folks are ok with helping low SES students, but they don’t want race to play a direct roll. </p>
<p>Many have issues with Holistic admissions, that stems from it’s history as being originally used to limit the amount of Jews admitted to the Ivy league schools. Now the concern is it’s can be used to limit other groups, such as Asians.</p>
<p>Though I’m not a big fan of Holistic admissions, I can’t think of a better system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What happens in K-12 is the root of the reason why many URMs and low SES students often face higher challenges and are often underrepresented (and not just in California).</p>
<p><a href=“http://diversity.universityofcalifornia.edu/documents/diversity-accountability-report-and-appendix-0910.pdf[/url]”>http://diversity.universityofcalifornia.edu/documents/diversity-accountability-report-and-appendix-0910.pdf</a> (page 19) shows a chart noting percentage of high school graduates, percentage of UC eligible high school graduates, and percentage of UC frosh.</p>
<p><a href=“http://diversity.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/SPEID_Appendices_webversion.pdf[/url]”>http://diversity.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/SPEID_Appendices_webversion.pdf</a> (page 5) shows a chart for Berkeley in particular. Note that only one of the stages is one where the Berkeley campus controls (from UCB applicants to UCB admits).</p>
<p>It is obvious that the main source of underrepresentation of black and Latino students at UC is getting to UC eligibility (see [Admission</a> requirements | UC Admissions](<a href=“http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/requirements/]Admission”>http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/requirements/) and [University</a> of California - Statewide path](<a href=“http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/admissions-index/index.html]University”>http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/admissions-index/index.html) and [Local</a> path (ELC) | UC Admissions](<a href=“http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/local-path/index.html]Local”>http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/local-path/index.html) ; one can say that this approximates preparation needed for going to a highly selective university (not just UC) after high school) in the first place.</p>
<p>^^^ the “Pipe line” is worse than I thought…</p>
<p>Reviewing the data, one interesting stat is the acceptance rate to Berkeley, based on race. For Asians it’s close to 60% (of admitted students that then enroll at Berkeley), but it’s much lower for URMs and Whiles (closer to 40% for both). </p>
<p>URM’s are likely finding better $$ aid at Privates/non UC schools and don’t find the campus welcoming (based on the “Students of my race/ethnicity are respected on this campus” survey results).</p>
<p>Whites decline at a higher rate than URMs. I wonder if this is a version of white flight.</p>
<p>^ I don’t think URM can find better $$ at private colleges. Only the tiny top low SES students are admitted to selective private colleges that generously give money. The UC campuses give subtantial money to low SES students. Students from families with more than $80K pay full price to the UC. But low SES students pay a lot less. Many students are incorectly considered as low SES because the FAFSA exclude small businesses, house values, personal properties, and cash under the mattresses.</p>
<p>What proportion, though, choose CSUs?</p>
<p>What a horrifying prospect for the excellent student.</p>
<p>If you mean CSU, I know the difference. But many kids choose friends and family- and empowerment isn’t always about playing in the big pond. with those stakes.</p>
<p>@coolweather</p>
<p>From Ucbalumnus first link:</p>
<p>“UC faces additional challenges in recruiting talented students from underrepresented minority groups because these students often accept offers from private universities that do not face the same restrictions on affirmative action that UC does and can offer more generous and targeted financial aid.”</p>
<p>So that’s UC spin on it. These kids are being accepted but choosing different options (at about a 3 to 2 ratio). To lookingforward’s point, I’m sure the CSU’s play a role.</p>
<p>However, if you have the stats to get into Berkeley, you have the stats to earn significant merit awards at private (and OOS public) schools. If they are high SES, then merit plus family contribution would be more than enough. If they are low SES, they would also gain needs based aid at selective schools that can award a significant amount of aid… </p>
<p>What surprised me is the low yield (40%…but low in comparison to Asians) of whites. Where are they going and why? Maybe it’s a cultural thing, where whites feel more comfortable leaving the state for college?</p>