<p>I am aware of the UC net price calculators. They say students with income of more than $80,000 can get some grant. I don’t know how reality play though. There are some other strings like
and Cal Grant determination formula.</p>
<p>Anyway, if students from families making more than $80,000 can get some grants then students from families making less than $80,000 will receive more generous money. All are good for both groups.</p>
<p>The BGOP promise was probably made knowing that it was already being fulfilled by normal UC financial aid policies for most students to whom it applies (i.e. no additional financial aid grants needed in most cases). I.e. it is more of a way of marketing UC’s relatively generous in-state financial aid.</p>
<p>The study found that when white Californians were informed that Asians were twice “overrepresented” in the UC student body, they wanted to place less emphasis on grades and test scores in admissions than whites who were not so informed before taking the survey.</p>
<p>The study may be</p>
<p>Samson, Frank L. 2013. “Altering Public University Admission Standards to Preserve White Group Position in the United States.” Comparative Education Review. 57(3) .</p>
<p>^^^Thats because Americans have a strong sense of fairness. If the survey question had been worded “Whites where twice “overrepresented” in the UC Student body” you would have seen the same result. </p>
<p>Thats also why low SES policies are popular, while race based policies are not. As long as the public view Holistic admissions as fair, they will stay in place. That’s one reason for all of the articles about how un-fair holistic admissions can be…</p>
<p>I actually favor merit- I think I can fairly say I practice it, when reading apps. But not as defined in a high school, among teens and their teachers, not based on the testing available, the ability to game it, the limited context of classes and the ease of pleasing some teachers, the false comforts of taking AP and studying for those tests. That’s a box and only one box. That’s a very “high school view.” </p>
<p>“High school grade-point averages and standardized test scores” are a very limited measure of merit. We back into that because it’s the only quantitative measure we have. Merit is not simply about doing what you are told and doing it measurably well. We all know that. Think of the great leaders we respect, across many categories. It’s for how they do all of what they do- not simply their stats.</p>
<p>And IQ isn’t nearly as important as what you do with it. I think we all know that, too. We have to get away from flat thinking, climb out of our own preconceived boxes. Johnny is not special because he got a 2400. It’s good, sure. But it’s just one measure, among a host that should matter.</p>
<p>I’d like to go back to bashing the author of the original article a second. She just seems kind of clueless to me. Example:
No, being a leader means leading people. It doesn’t mean any good thing you might do.</p>
<p>I think this article, and this discussion, shows that you can’t, at the same time, have genuinely holistic admissions and ensure that race isn’t considered at all. You can have a policy that race won’t be considered, you can train people not to consider race, and you can look for patterns suggesting that race is being considered–but you can’t completely eliminate it. That’s just the nature of subjective evaluations. But the fact that Berkeley has only 3% black kids suggests that even if there is a finger on the scale, it is not nearly as effective as actual affirmative action programs. And the graduation rate for URMs at Berkeley suggests that they may not be getting the right URMs through this process–what’s the graduation rate for URMs at Stanford?</p>
<p>I note that somebody upthread said that elsewhere in the world, only “merit” is considered. That’s only true if merit equals stats. Holistic admissions looks for other kinds of merit. (cross-posted)</p>
<p>Lookingforward, of course merit is more than test scores and high school records, but I don’t think we can just throw them out. There may be problems with the SATs, and a high school’s evaluation of a student is only as good as the high school, but these factors aren’t meaningless. I don’t assume that a 2400 val from a good high school is brilliant - I’d be much more likely to say that of someone with objectively lower stats who had done well in IMO or some other competition. But I also don’t dismiss that achievement, and think it is probably safe to assume that we’re talking about a bright kid here - not necessarily brighter than a lower-scoring kid from a more modest background, but someone who deserves serious consideration.</p>
<p>It is great when a student has significant academic accomplishments outside of school. But the reason those accomplishments are impressive is because they are comparatively rare - I don’t think you can fill all the elite schools with these students, especially once you look beyond STEM, where you do have well-established competitions like math olympiad to identify exceptional high school talent.</p>
<p>Entitled much? Harvard is going to reject 95% of its applicants, the vast majority of which would have been fully qualified to attend Harvard, but they simply don’t have room to accommodate all the “worthy” students. That’s only a problem if one thinks Harvard (or a handful of other places) are the only places worth studying at. Because you are apparently from another country, that may very well be what you think, but you’re entirely wrong. There are plenty of great colleges in this country, and the only people who think “Harvard or Stanford or bust” are either unsophisticated high school seniors or unknowledgeable people from overseas.</p>
<p>They don’t “disappear.” They go into the other great universities of this country – the Vanderbilts and Carnegie Mellons and Tufts and Michigans and so on and so forth, not to mention the great liberal arts colleges – that you probably wouldn’t accept as “good enough” because you’re likely stuck on what the people in the old country think, as if they are actually knowledgeable or something.</p>
<p>People rarely object as loudly to policies to help low SES students as they do to race-based policies, but do not push for them as much either. Before race-based policies started being curtailed due to popular opposition, the race-based policies tended to have greater preference in college admissions than those for low SES students. In the realm of financial aid for low SES students, we can also see that many state universities do not meet need for in-state low SES students, indicating a lack of actual commitment to helping such students afford college (PA and IL are particularly notorious for poor in-state financial aid).</p>
<p>In any case, on these forums, we do get posters resenting the offering of financial aid to low SES students, or assuming that low performance of students in low SES schools is purely due to student lack of innate intelligence, rather than being influenced by the external problems of being in a low SES situation (crime, underfunded school, can’t afford school supplies, etc.). Indeed, analogous to the article linked in #143, some (presumably high SES) posters have expressed opposition to the idea of college admissions considering whether an applicant had to overcome adverse conditions (like low SES) to get to the level of achievement presented.</p>
<p>"^^it is such a shame you weren’t around when we were advising MIT on admissions decisions."</p>
<p>I speak for a lot of people in academia. I am not sure if MIT Profs are happy with common appl and holistic approach. "</p>
<p>This is where I call BS. If profs at any university are sooooooo unhappy with the admissions criteria such that they feel that real talent is being turned down for kids they don’t want, then they are certainly free to gather en masse and take their concerns to the head of the university. The adcoms work FOR the university. They follow whatever strategic plan the university sets out for the mission of the school. If these profs are unable to gather en masse and present a cogent point of view for change, then guess what? They aren’t leaders in any sense of the word, and they deserve what they get.</p>
<p>Hunt, “leading people” isn’t the only marker or all those kids with hs titles leading the prom dec committee would be golden. It has to do with vision and perspective. How one can view beyond the four walls and self-interest and the clubs that meet when the bell rings. What commitments a kid can make and follow through on, over time, beyond what’s facilitated at the hs. </p>
<p>I often read apps without looking at the identity check box. First thing I look at is actually what hs, where. I doubt many will believe it, but my first instruction was not to let race guide my sense of accomplishments.</p>
<p>Apprentice, doing well is good. There are standards and it’s always good for a kid to strive to meet them. But what I say is that just meeting/exceeding in the hs is a very narrow indicator of what a kid will bring to a college campus- especially one with the means to cherry pick and a broad definition of success in college years. </p>
<p>About “adverse conditions.” Seen one way, the conditions tug at heartstrings. We speak of many siblings and home responsibilities, nutrition, jobs to support the family, dangerous neighborhoods. That’s not what attracts adcoms, ime. It really is about what the kid achieved, despite. The best of these kids aren’t just enduring and getting B’s. They’re doing what it takes to move forward- and that forward movement is what impresses. Contrast it with the kid who applies with a pattern of doing what’s available, succeeding, but not going further in his efforts.</p>
<p>I had trouble with the author’s comment that some kid couldn’t have ECs because of his family situation. Many, many kids are out there doing something of value. It reflects, again, perspective, vision- and the energy to go make some contribution.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus
What’s popular (say using holistic admissions to compensate for over-representation, in the above example) with the general populous may not be as popular with the parent trying to get their child into “the dream” school. :)</p>
<p>How popular aid to low SES students is likely proportional to the amount of aid. For example:</p>
<p>Do you favor giving financial aid to low SES college students to help them afford attending college? This would likely receive a fairly positive response.</p>
<p>Do you favor meeting 100% need for low SES college students? This would likely receive a fairly negative response.</p>
<p>Of course, you should always be careful in how survey questions are asked…</p>
I think this shows a bit of over-STEM focus. There are lots of competitions and activities that identify exceptional non-STEM students–writing, music, debate, theater, and lots of others. Also, there are impressive achievements that aren’t academic in nature, and the top colleges are interested in those as well.</p>
<p>
I see your point, but it’s still my opinion that an activity, no matter how admirable, that doesn’t actually involve leading people, doesn’t show “leadership.” It may show perseverance, creativity, or many other traits. I remember an old discussion when somebody argued that a kid practicing his musical instrument showed “leadership.” No, not really.</p>
<p>But I think my point is that the author of the article was complaining (among other things) that the criteria were too mushy–and then she herself made this one even more mushy.</p>
<p>Ya think?! LOL. I swear, the STEMmies on here are like the blind men feeling the leg of the elephant. It’s all they can think about, and they can’t possibly comprehend talent, leadership, and / or potential measured any way than on some contest.</p>
<p>The definition of “meeting 100% need” is not consistent across colleges, since “need” can be defined differently (FAFSA versus institutional methodology), and colleges have varying expected student contributions (usually ranging from $4,000 to $10,000, but UVA was $0, soon to be $7,000).</p>
<p>However, offering financial aid, but falling well short of meeting need (as PA and IL do) effectively isn’t much better for low SES students than not offering any financial aid at all – most won’t be able to afford to attend anyway.</p>
<p>You suggest faculty revolt, because they don’t get the right undergards students? No they wouldn’t. The faculty would import Asian grad students, en mass … and don’t care about the undergrads.</p>
<p>Berkeley: 90% Grad Rates(6 years), 71% Black/A A, 81% Hispanic/Latino
3% Black, 12% Hispanic/Latino</p>
<p>These two schools that may be better comparisions/peers for Berkeley(outside of the UC system). Both of the following schools are Public Flagship universities in states with large hispanic/latino populations.</p>
<p>UT-Austin 81% Grad rates(6 years), 66% Black/A A, 72% Hispanic/Latino
UT-Austin uses a top X% of HS class and then Holistic admissions to fill out the class.
5% black and 20% Hispanic/Latino</p>
<p>UF 84% Grad Rates(6 years), 77% Black/A A, 83% Hispanic/Latino
UF is 100% Holistic admissions (50% GPA/Rigor/Test, 50% EC’s/Leadership/Essay)
9% Black, and 17% Hispanic/Latino</p>
<p>Okay, Calif, what we are all trying to say to you is that you have your take on one situation you are involved with, in some unspecified capacity. None of us can speak for the entire post-secondary situation. You could even be wrong for what you do observe. That’s something, frankly, that most of us on CC accept: our observations can be flawed, we cannot specify universals- and a good conversation allows for back-and-forth, not pronouncements. Use IME or IMO and accept that none of us know it all.</p>
<p>Ok, not most of us, but the interesting threads involve dialogue. IMO.</p>