<p>need advice the poeple who got in with the low sat score were minorities....(look at the essay)</p>
<p>I see. I still stand by what I say. A 900 on the SAT is unexcusable, particularly 400 something in mathematics. I understand the low score on the verbal section if English isn't your first language, but math?</p>
<p>Anyway, I'm a minority too: half-Asian (Oriental). I guess it's the wrong kind of minority though.</p>
<p>However, I do think these applications were prior to the elimination of Affirmative Action at Berkeley...</p>
<p>Well, Berkeley has "supposedly" gotten rid of it.</p>
<p>asian is not minority. minority is african american, native american , hispanic.....</p>
<p>Race should not be a factor in the admissions process. It'd make more sense to make your economic status a factor rather than race.</p>
<p>That is all.</p>
<p>I know...I am asian too (indian)</p>
<p>DRab: I agree with you, bias is not the right word. My point was that I'd rather have an admissions reader who brings a set of personal preferences and prejudices to the table than what amounts to a machine--that would scare me.</p>
<p>vicissitudes: The problem with GPA and SAT is that (and god how I hate acronyms) is that they really aren't necessarily solid indicators of how well a student will perform in college or how much an individual might contribute to the university community. With GPA, for example, so many high schools have inflated their grades so much that As are no longer valuable. Anyone who works hard has a really good chance at getting an A in a class--and hard work is hardly my measure of intellectual prowess. SAT is also not necessarily a reliable indicator (some would say it is in fact a terrible indicator) of intellegence. That is why an ever-growing number of schools don't use it, and why at most schools it takes the back seat to GPA and other factors. You argued against one writing sample as a primary factor; so why should one test be one of the sole factors? You have to read further than GPA and SAT. I'm not proposing that we eliminate both (although I'd be perfectly happy if the College Board rotted in hell, and I had good SAT scores), but I am pointing out that, as is already the case, decisions should be made based on the totality of an applicant's strengths and weaknesses. Essays can demonstrate what SATs cannot: an applicant who has not worked hard but has profound intellectual capacity. Why should admissions be based on hard work? Who cares how hard you've worked in high school? Universities are places of learning, and the people best apt to learn are logically the best fit. I worked hard in high school, but not to get into college.</p>
<p>Asian is a minority. At least it is in the "real world" it is... In college world, it is not.</p>
<p>thespondee, about the people who " has not worked hard but has profound intellectual capacity", how "profound" are they? Can you really judge through an essay, something kids give their teachers to read? & suppose they are truly "intellectually profound", you think they have enough academic preparation for some place like Berkeley? Most of all, do you think that they really deserve the reward of getting in? </p>
<p>"Why should admissions be based on hard work? Who cares how hard you've worked in high school? Universities are places of learning, and the people best apt to learn are logically the best fit". Well, it's not really hard work, but how well you did in high school to prove your potential. Where's the guarantee for success if you didn't do well?</p>
<p>Agreed. But this is why what you've labeled 'bias' is a necessary component of the process. A student with poor grades but strong intellectual capacity still deserves to go, no? That's the assumption from which I've worked. Grades really do seem meaningless in the present high school environment (and not just at my school, which is one of the "most competitive" in the state). As I see it, hard work can get you good grades without having the actual potential for success at the university, but potential withought good grades is just as possible. Clearly the students with potential that has been fully utilized throughout high school with hard work and dedication have the most to offer the University: there we are in agreement, I believe. But this is not a clear-cut game. The rules are gray, and they're made to be bent. Universities aren't looking to 'reward' students for hard work. They want to create the most intellectul atmosphere possible. I don't see how any sort of mechanical formula will ever achieve this end. Subjectivity will remain an inherent and integral component of the process.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why should admissions be based on hard work? Who cares how hard you've worked in high school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, because a lot of where you get in life is hard work, excluding intelligence, connections, personality, etc. </p>
<p>The perfect combination would be a smart, hard worker. A person who is only smart and lazy and a person who is a hard worker but a dumbass are both unfit for university.</p>