<p>
The analysis regarding the projected impact on each race group had been known before the final decision was made. Why would anyone want to implement a new policy that doesn’t solve the problem of low URM admissions?</p>
<p>Affirmative Action fails because it refuses to target by socio-economic status, and looks more on race instead.</p>
<p>how can they even say they are going to try to admit fewer asians? it is totally illegal to use race as a factor in admissions…i mean look at this quote from berkeley’s undergrad admissions webpage
“Race, ethnicity, gender, religion, military are excluded from the criteria”
and i find it quite ironic that just a few years ago the ucs were talking about getting rid of the SAT reasoning test as a requirement and now they are getting rid of the subject tests…
seriously college admissions are messed up and by looking at all the crazy qualified people who don’t get in and all the random people that do I think we can conclude that they don’t know what they are doing and no rejection should be taken personally</p>
<p>Things like this creates more discrimination</p>
<p>honestly, i haven’t really heard of crazy work hard, qualified people NOT get into Berk. However, I know of people who don’t even get into LA or SB but get into Berk just because they wanted to apply for fun. </p>
<p>again, i think berkeley is trying to do the right thing in a wrong approach. the amount of Asians (and I mean ALL types of Asians – PIs, Indians, etc) here is ridic. Like I’ve always heard that there was a lot, but I never visited before accepting the SIR. Then I got here and was pretty much completely overwhelmed…</p>
<p>^
overwhelmed by asians? you don’t like asians? :(</p>
<p>I am Asian and I don’t get what the big deal is. If I read the article correctly, all they’re doing is eliminating SAT subject tests from the admission process and making some more high school students UC eligible. I don’t see how this disadvantages Asians specifically, except that beating their peers in SAT subject tests won’t matter. It’s not like they’re deciding to accept more white people and reject more Asian people.</p>
<p>asians tend to do better on sat ii according to stats.</p>
<p>I realize that, but I don’t that makes removing the SAT II requirement is wrong. This purpose of this change is to allow for a greater variety of applicants. I also think it’s kind of childish for Asians to complain about this when they can still distance themselves from their peers through GPA and SAT I, which were more important than SAT II anyway.</p>
<p>I would also put a “cap” on Asians at Cal, if I’m one of the decision makers. There are just too many of them on campus gradually destroying the equilibrium of what’s supposed to be an excellent student body based on race and ethnic representations. But this is just my personal view. </p>
<p>I have an Asian blood, btw.</p>
<p>hm, I’ve never heard people saying "There are too many of White on campus gradually destroying the equilibrim of whatever…</p>
<p>there are too many whites here.</p>
<p>There was an old UC report concluding that SAT subject test is a better predictor of success in college than SAT, and recommended increasing the weight of SAT II or eliminating SAT. How time has changed.</p>
<p>"hm, I’ve never heard people saying "There are too many of White on campus gradually destroying the equilibrim of whatever… "</p>
<p>that’s because the US is predominantly a white people country. what do you think berkeley’s reputation happen, or any school for that matter, when it would be dominated with asians? i’m sure even a lot of asians themselves wouldn’t want to go to “prestigious” school that’s dominated by their own race. somehow the social mix, diversity and college experience are lessened when you have a crowd dominated by your own race --asians-- in the united states of america, a cuacasian dominated country. look, don’t get mo wrong. i have asian blood too. but somehow, i would not want to be just another asian in my school.</p>
<p>25% asians at Cal is okay. 27%-30% would be ideal.</p>
<p>if anything all SATs should be canceled. Because no matter what race, it’ll favor the wealthy with all those elite preps hanging around that are so costly.
Also tests like Math 2c are easily “ace-able” with the use of a ti89. hehe</p>
<p>^ A good alternative solution here is to create an entirely UC administered admission test. The UC would be able to better determine which applicant is better suited at which campus and on which program. The admission becomes centralized, in that way. there would be lesser paper works for the whole UC system. It would also lessen the burden of the students on which campus to choose from because each applicant is only admitted into two campuses, his 1st-choice and 2nd-choice. </p>
<p>for example, an applicant indicated that his 1st choice campus is cal and his 2nd choice campus is SD. if his predicted grade point at Cal makes the cut-off, he would be given an admission to Cal, his 1st-choice campus. and since Cal has a higher Predicted Grade Point than SD, he’s also automatic admitted at SD. He only needs to choose between Cal and SD since he’s only allowed to apply to 2 UC campuses.</p>
<p>UC only needs to determine what are the Predicted Grade points for each campus. This is how I would suggest.</p>
<p>top 2% of the applicants would be admitted to Cal
top 5% would make it to UCLA
top 8% would make it to SD
top 10% would make it Davis and so on. </p>
<p>Predicted Grade point is a combination of high school GPA (40%), Entrance Test which is administered by UC (30%), EC (10%), Essay (10%) and recommendations of past teachers or principals/legacies (10%)</p>
<p>Problems with your idea: 1. some high schools are substantially easier than others (and rank is no better, as a student in a super-rich community will be ranked worse than if he went to a more average high school). 2. Entrance test? What would be on it? What if someone who was applying to engineering stunk in english and got the same average as someone who was mediocre in both math and english. 3. Over or under enrollment is a serious possibility with your plan, unless someone took days to actually research and crunch some predicted numbers, but even then it wouldn’t be perfect. 4. So, what if you just missed the top 2% (say by like 1 person, which would have to happen)? 5. What if a student could not visit all of the UC schools and he can’t make an educated decision to narrow it down to 2? And no, this doesn’t lessen the burden on the student, it increases it, as they would have to narrow down their choice a long time before they would have to under a normal system. (Note: I could have listed more problems, but these are the ones that stuck out in my mind)</p>
<p>Admissions to top schools is very subjective, but isn’t that a good thing? When adcoms read over your application, they may get an impression that may not be inferred from your system. Holistic decisions are a great thing, and more schools are moving towards it- the only drawback being effort to organize and read over so many files and such.</p>
<p>RML
If you want to apply the fair-number rule then you also should apply it to Berkeley employees such as custodians, administrators, and professors too. Why there are so many white teachers and deans and administrators but no complain that oh there are too many whites let hire a fair number of blacks, hispanics, and asians</p>
<p>Did they use this policy during this year’s admissions?</p>
<p>^ No.
10char</p>