<p>At UCs, the admission reader does not admit or reject an application; s/he assigns it a score. Then another admission readers reads it and assigns a score. If they are too different, a senior reader also reads it to assign a score. Then the applications are rank-ordered to determine who is admitted to the campus/division/major.</p>
<p>Perhaps you are arguing that the admissions read score, and the threshold score for admission to the campus/division/major be disclosed to the applicant?</p>
<p>All levels of government are subject to “sunshine laws:” public records acts, FOIA, etc. The intent is that all government business should be open or made available to the public, unless subject to specific protections. And yes, I expect every governmental entity to willingly comply with their obligations to provide information about how they conduct their business to anyone who properly requests it.</p>
<p>I’ll guess that applicants’ records that include identifying information are protected from public disclosure for privacy reasons, but I cannot think of a reason why records indicating the reason for a rejection should be withheld from the applicant himself. I have not done the research in this regard; maybe someone else has.</p>
<p>Considering the demand for accountability in how public universities use tax dollars, I am curious why people concerned about that do not ask for the same thing from private universities that receive government funds. I have read people suggest that federal student loans and pell grants be limited to public universities, but I have not read much about all the other federal money that is given to private universities in the form of research/development grants and contracts and training grants, all of which fund graduate students among other things. My PhD program at a top 15 private research university was funded by a federal training grant to support the graduate training of future researchers in my field. I was grateful for that support. I brought this up only because it is curious to me that people who want transparency about admissions decision making in public universities are not demanding transparency from private universities even though many of them receive large amounts of federal money (aside from anything like a Pell Grant or Stafford Loan ) that they use in part to fund students. Should private universities receiving a lot of federal grants and contracts be expected to have accountability or transparency to taxpayers?</p>
<p>Bay, by “transfer authority” I meant many people do not examine the details. Many allow their govt entities to simply operate as they see fit. They sit tight and trust, until it either affects them or stikes big in the media. Based on that- and the hubbub of this thread- I wonder how much of this is an issue people feel they have a stake in, perhaps emotional, in that it’s about kids. Are there other aspects of public govt that posters monitor? Or is this a particular hot button?</p>
<p>I can see ways it could be accomplished. In theory. But am not worried it will affect the use of holistic.</p>
<p>Bay, as the parent of two kids who applied to UC campuses, I am really puzzled by your attitude. I found the application process to be very transparent – there was all kinds of published information about the admissions process for each campus, as well as an array of published statistics broken down by a variety of different demographic factors. There were no surprises. </p>
<p>I can understand a kid wanting to know why they have been turned down from a less selective campus if they meet the eligibility requirements – that is, if the kids has the stats but is turned away from Riverside or Merced… then I can see them contacting admissions and asking why. (And as far as I know, if there is a specific deficiency in their record, they would be told).</p>
<p>But competitive admissions by its nature is going to rest on discretionary choices, and I think it is unreasonable and immature for anyone to expect to be given a “reason” why they did not make the cut to attend Berkeley or UCLA or get into one of the more selective programs. There are a limited number of spaces. Not everyone can go. NO one is entitled to a spot. End of story.</p>
<p>If you are qualified for a program and you don’t get in, the answer as to why is easy and obvious: because they chose someone else instead. </p>
<p>Again, California has a spot for everyone - although some of the CSU’s are so crowded that you do need to apply early to assure that you get the spot It’s not as if there is any student in the state who is being denied a college education.</p>
<p>@rigaudon, it would have even been better if U.I. included outsiders in its investigative committee. How objective can one be in investigating oneself for bias?</p>
<p>I think everyone understand that Michigan need 45% percent of its incoming class to be full pay OOS and international. How about giving wealthy in-staters that same opportunity? It seems to really burn people that those spots are going to less qualified OOS when there are plenty of less qualified Wealthy IS.</p>
<p>Seriously, though, I don’t understand why it is so hard to see that, as calmom says, it isn’t about being rejected–it’s about not being accepted. There are a finite number of spots, and based on the strength of the applicant pool they will go down to a certain score and have to turn away everyone below it. It’s no different in that regard from NMF cutoffs that vary year over year.</p>
Not sure where you got that from, but my kids’ high school sent 112 students to UofM out of a class of 468. According to my math, that’s 23%. The application rate must have been much higher. Unless you’re looking at statewide where some high schools send almost none. Like Romani said: The bottom 3/4 of most schools certainly aren’t going to waste an application fee on Michigan nor would they want to attend.</p>
<p>If, as you contend, the reason for each applicant’s “non-acceptance” is so simple to understand, why do you object to disclosure of the evaluation?</p>
<p>According to ucbalumnus, in CA for example, each application is assigned a score by two or three readers. Why do you object to disclosure of those scores?</p>
<p>Because, again, this is a solution in search of a problem and will come at the expense of resources being diverted from ACTUAL problems. Students get rejected from public universities all the time. Their recourse is to go to another school and, if they still want the original one so badly, do what it takes to get in as a transfer (which, in many cases, IS guaranteed provided certain goals are met). So they can STILL achieve the desired outcome and not suffer any harm. I do not see hundreds of thousands of students clamoring for this disclosure. As has been stated above, most kids are smart enough to have a rough idea of their chances and have a plan B in place if the A choice doesn’t work out.</p>
<p>Omedog, there may be plenty of in staters at full pay, we are full pay at Ds school, however it is much less than it would be if she was out of state,
Isn’t that a major perk to staying instate?</p>
<p>And so do the universities, via their CDS information…for the QUANTIFIABLE part of the application. What benefit do you see from receiving a letter telling your child that his ECs only received a 78 score and his essay only rated him a 55 on the personal qualities index? Neither of those things could be changed between the time he receives the notification and the time he needs to put down a deposit at another college. Which leads me back to thinking that the ONLY reason for this is so litigious parents (or students backed by benefactors with political/social agendas) can clog up the courts for dubious reasons.</p>
<p>Bay, a question. From UI, they describe ECs, service, work:
“Involvement in productive activities that reach beyond the classroom, that point to a
range of diverse interests among students on campus, and that embrace volunteerism may be important components of an application. Each application is reviewed for evidence of the applicants commitment to an activity, special interest, or community service project as shown through consistent involvement, increased responsibility or leadership positions, and positive impact.”</p>
<p>For me, it makes sense. Been there, seen what comes in, how it stacks up, just how much some kids can do. Is it sufficient for you? Because it is still soft. It doesn’t explain how various activities are interpreted.</p>