<p>
</p>
<p>For administrators, profs, staff, etc., ability and background supersede race issues. In other words, race shouldn’t be a factor in hiring staff at Cal. But personally, I don’t want to be taught by an Asian whose English is just as lousy as mine. :D</p>
<p>Well RML, I kind of think alike to you in terms of the admissions idea. It’s just that I myself have not been able to work out a feasible way to do this for, say, different majors, undeclared majors, etc. </p>
<p>Perhaps what we want here is a stronger version of the standardized tests existing today. I.e., a stronger set of subject tests, administered by the different UC departments, of comparable difficulty to stuff a student at UCB would have to face. This would be a good thing to replace SAT’s and SAT II’s with, though I do think achievement among 4 years of high school should be considered by itself.</p>
<p>I frankly have always just thought that high school subjects can be too easy, and underdone. Calculus is so much easier in high school than in college, uniformly! If we’re not to make every school out there make its own admissions test (which becomes kind of ridiculous at a point), what we need best is a stronger standardized testing system ideally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some holistic consideration is good. But the fact of the matter is, the standardized tests that exist today are really not that strong in several subject areas, at least some of which I’d say I’m pretty qualified to comment on. </p>
<p>A stronger basic standardized test (for example, for the AP curriculum) would probably result in high schools amping up their own curricula to prepare students. </p>
<p>Also, as tempting as the breakdown RML provides is, in terms of percentages, I am in favor of a holistic outlook towards evaluating applicants, as long as we’re strongly considering grades + academic achievement first, i.e. none of this “throw all the reasonable people into a pile and then assemble a class with 1 ballerina, one mathematician, one of this other variety…” business, because I think a lot of us love the way Berkeley’s process is straightforward, in the spirit of a top public school. </p>
<p>Basically, I’d keep much of what is done the same in spirit, but amp up the level asked for academically on several fronts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The UC adcom should have a list of all the high schools that have sent applicants to UC and categorize them according to academic standards. They can also tap other companies to do this for them, which I’m sure some have already data on which high school has a stronger academic standard than the other. The high school will then be adjusted based on its standards and would have a corresponding value point. It’s very easy to do these, but it would be tedious in the beginning. But once you have the data, the rest should then be easy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This entrance test would be pretty much like SATs except that the questions will come from UC faculty members. The questions will somehow determine the preparedness of the students at a UC campus. The test would also comprise of several subject sections. Of course, engineering and math applicants are expected to do well on the maths and logic parts of the said test. English and social science applicants are expected to achieve excellent scores in the language, reading and written part. Science applicants are expected to score better in science. The test should be administered simultaneously world-wide. </p>
<p>But please take note that the entrance test would only constitute 30% of the whole “University Predicted Grade”. Other factors are also considered. But based on studies, students who do well in the classrooms would have higher chances from graduating. And I believe that. </p>
<p>
In the beginning, the UCs would experience problems as any institution that undergro transition period would. But the problems would be very easy to solve. As the UC implements this system, the admin can start trouble shooting the problems and fresh data would be recorded for future uses. But as a whole, this is a much centralized admission system, thus it’s lesser works and it’s definitely less time consuming. Unlike the current set-up where some applicants apply to like 6 or 7 UC campuses and at the end would not enroll. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then he will be assigned to his 2nd campus-choice. If his “University Predicted Grade” (computed based on the combination of all entrance criteria) still didn’t make the cut-off UPG of his 2nd campus-choice, he will be denied. But if his UPG makes the top 10% of all applicants, he will be considered to a UC campus that requires the least UPG, say UC Merced. If he’ll do will at Merced, he can transfer to any campus choice that he wants after a year. But he still has to apply and admission is subject to availability of slots. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would be his problem. But as a general rule, you should spend time researching on the school that you’re applying. It’s the student/applicant’s job, not the school. The school can only provide free brochures and some reading materials.</p>
<p>One of the reasons why there’s a low yield rate at most UCs is because, the students/applicants have not really done research works on the campus that they’re applying. When you apply to SD, for example, you should know what are SD’s strengths and weaknesses. And the more you do research about SD, the more you’re going to have an idea whether or not you’ll thrive there. If you think you won’t because of personal reasons, look for another UC campus where you think you’ll mature and grow as a student. The process should start before you apply, not when you’re already accepted.</p>
<p>Sorry that I have to divide my post. Thought it was quite long. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but I couldn’t see why having a centralized application system would be more burdensome. </p>
<p>First of all, you’ll save money as you only have to apply to two schools. The result is just the same. Whether or not you can attend a UC campus can be determined by the new system. It’s just that, as an applicant, you narrow down your top 2 choices. You only have to pay for one entrance process, because, again, it’s now centralized.</p>
<p>Second, it you’ll save time in preparing your requirements, because, again, you will only apply to two campuses – your 1st-choice and your 2nd-choice. You will then have more time to research about your other target schools. </p>
<p>third, on the part of the UC, it saves them from loosing students/admitted applicants from other peer schools. Because the process would encourage all applicants to research about their campus choices more vigorously than the old system, tendencies are, admitted applicants would be more infatuated or thrilled to enroll once accepted. </p>
<p>forth, on the part of the UC, it would have more assurance that the students admitted are the top applicants or the most deserving ones. </p>
<p>etc…</p>
<p>I think I would opt to have it something like: a standard math and English for everyone (accommodations made for those whose native language isn’t English as usual), and then choose some subject (or two maybe) test. </p>
<p>I think the current system is already in essence good, just that higher standards should be set. Which I think is one of RML’s goals. </p>
<p>I don’t think his ideas are really all that bad, except that I think if every school around were to implement a different standardized test, it’d be a lot less efficient than if our current testing industry weren’t lacking.</p>
<p>It’s hard to understand the woes of an Asian college applicant unless you’re one.</p>
<p>After seeing examples over the past 3-4 years from my school, I have reasons to believe that it’s harder to make into Ivies as an Asian applicant than as a Caucasian applicant. I often see many comparable students applying for the same school, and while all the Asians got rejected, a good portion of Caucasians and a majority of URM’s got accepted. </p>
<p>Shouldn’t schools judge their applicants base on merit, not skin color or the merit of their parents? For many years Berkeley (and UC in general) has been considered, at least at my school, one of the last bastions where the education is world class, and admission process fair. Though I don’t think eliminating SATII is going to significantly reduce Asian admits (SATII isn’t that important anyway), the notion of further limiting Asian applicants disturbs me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To make it clear, I also admire Berkeley’s relatively fair process the way you do, for similar reasons. The reason I want to get rid of the SAT II’s probably would help those studious Asians anyway – I think our standardized tests need to be more reflective of the rigors to be faced in college.</p>
<p>mathboy98, let the ivies and other schools use the SATs as they’re pretty settled with that. But I think the University of California can afford to “deviate” from the others, as it is a school that primarily caters to California residents. Even if it would have its own admission system, entirely different from all the rest, it would still receive many, many applicants. The best students would still attend UC. The proposed system would just improve the application process for UC and its applicants as lesser works will be done. It would also tailor more to the more deserving students. Except that, they will have to review for the UC Entrance Test as UC is a very competitive school.</p>
<p>“shouldn’t they base their decisions based on merit?”</p>
<p>i don’t think they should base decisions on merit, not entirely anyway. sure it might mean that those kids who worked the hardest for berkeley will get in. but if that’s the case, and those that worked the hardest happened to be majority asians, the school will be very asian concentrated. with that in mind, will berkeley in the end, be what those students who worked the hardest want? </p>
<p>We have to think about quality of life here. I’m an asian too, and I think that the diversity would make a college experience much more enjoyable. If admissions were based solely on merit, where asians are best at, i think berkeley would not appeal to many of those very same students.</p>
<p>I see what you mean RML. It’s a good idea, and not something that didn’t occur to me. Probably the one thing I’d hope is that there’s some degree of choosing what subjects one wants to be examined on, so one can choose to demonstrate achievement in something somewhat relevant to one’s interests, even if the something is somewhat broad.</p>
<p>I think diversity is OK, but honestly I think we shouldn’t go there. What’ll be the difference between how Berkeley does admissions and how private schools do it? I am a guy of simple taste, and just want the biggest, most wonderful academic departments I can lay hands on. If every school out there with such departments were to be a pretty big crapshoot to get into, I’d be pretty disappointed. Those Asians you’re talking about may want a somewhat diverse school, but honestly, Berkeley’s EVERY major isn’t super Asian. Lots of whites floating around. I mean, for example, if I were going to a school with say more men than women, being only human, I probably would like there to be some balance, but still, I can’t say at the expense of the admissions process’s straightforwardness if that’s something the school were reputed for.</p>
<p>Federal and many States have spent tons and tons of money on Recruitment and Retention for Blacks and Hispanics. Why some groups get all supports and other groups get all stops. I support Affirmative Action 100% but I think something wrong in the way this educational system doesn’t support the ones who try hard to achieve their educational goals. I think American government should spend time, energy, and money to figure out a way to nurture and promote this valuable young groups, instead of spending money on military, sending young people abroad to make wars after wars at other’s homes.
RML, even you want to deny the present of people who don’t speak English perfecto, like me, live with it :)</p>
<p>The new admission standard move away from achievement and make it more similar to the CSU’s admission standard, and the CSU is certainly more diverse than UC. It will have little effect on UCB and other top tier UC, but the lower tier UCs will become CSU++.</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply RML, but I still am wondering some things about what you and others have said. You are pushing for UC Entrance exams, but what is wrong with SAT Subject tests? From my personal experience, these tests are a good combination of innate inteligence and learned knowledge. I’ll give you a few examples. </p>
<p>First, the math test may/does not require advanced math knowledge (one does not need to know calculus to ace it). But, why do students who are in Calculus or pre-calc their junior year do better? It’s because they have an innate ability at problem solving that allows them to be in a more advanced math class. One of my friends just couldn’t do well on the test, and I was originally surprised, as the questions aren’t very difficult. But, I quickly realized that not everyone could solve problems as quickly and effectively as I could. </p>
<p>Now, for tests like Chemistry and US History (which I also took), those require an effective mastery of subject material. Those that take an AP chem class will, on average, score better than those in an introductory course (unlike math, when it doesn’t really matter when you take it). I was better at Chem than US History in class, and even though I reviewed for US History more (especially because the AP Test was also coming up), I still did better on the chem test. </p>
<p>I don’t know UC’s requirements, but, at least for engineering students, they should require two subject test. The Math II subject tests, which measures innate problem-solving skills (which you can’t really study for), and a science test, that measures learned knowledge. Those two should definitely be sufficient to see if a student is adequately prepared for the UC curriculum. There may be a few flaws that would be better solved with a UC standardized test, but I don’t think a whole new test is worth the effort to make (and it would also be annoying for students, especially OOS, to take, which may lead to less OOS students applying).</p>
<p>I agree diversity is good, but think of it this way: to satisfy the “taste” of some students for diversity, we will deny many students a great education when they have clearly worked hard to deserve it. That just doesn’t seem fair to me.</p>
<p>Senior0991 – almost anyone and his grandma can get an 800 on the Math SAT II, and the math in the SAT I indicates almost nothing once you cross the 700 line – only how careful you were. It does differentiate the students who can barely pass trigonometry from the students who can take calculus and do decently, but to give you an idea, if one takes 4 people: myself, two friends in EECS, and one friend in political science, you’d possibly be surprised to know that I had the worst math score of all of them on the SAT I, and the one guy out of these who even went slightly forward with college math struggles and has to ask me for help all the time (forget the others, who are scared as hell of college math). The SAT II’s in math were very easy, like the SAT I, and they offer a wider curve, so these two combine to make it quite simple to ace. </p>
<p>What I mean is that the SAT II’s and SAT I seem to be poor in reflecting in many cases how well someone can handle the curriculum in college. They’re often about speed, and only distinguish the brighter from the extremeley challenged. When we have different high schools at different levels, and such things, it’s nice to offer a standardized measure which actually reflects the ability to handle college. I mean, physics and math AP exams are ridiculously easy compared to Berkeley math and physics, even at the absolute lowest levels like 1A, 1B, 7A, 7B. </p>
<p>So they have it right in philosophy, but the tests need to be better if we’re really going to take them seriously. Do you know what the math subject GRE plays as a function in grad school admissions? It’s basically just to weed out the lower end applicants. I feel like the standardized tests mean a bit more for high school + undergrad admissions than just that – after all, while the math GRE is way below the level of most college math, the SAT II’s and AP tests are meant to be at the level of rigorous high school curricula.</p>
<p>Psh, diversity. Why doesn’t this school place more emphasis and be more selective with academic records like GPA and SAT?</p>
<p>Maybe then, there wouldn’t be so many inept Berkeley students failing classes and complaining about how hard the school is.</p>
<p>And what is the deal with transfer students? They don’t have to take the SAT’s and their academic records are based on community college standards. Let’s be truthful, community colleges are not as challenging as high schools. As a case in point, I took a community college class where there was a 50 minute discussion on what makes a better writing tool: a wooden pencil or a mechanical pencil. Seriously, you ask? I couldn’t believe it either. On top of that, they get to skip all the fun of large intro weeder classes.</p>
<p>The UC admission system is biased towards low-achieving students with poor academic backgrounds when you compare it to private schools of the same supposed caliber. Let’s look at Duke, which has an admission rate of 23%, similar to that of Berkeley. Yet, the middle 50% range of SAT scores is 2020-2320 for Duke and 1890-2230 for Berkeley. Why the huge difference? Because Berkeley doesn’t like to admit students based on academic merit, but rather personal backgrounds which are much less objective and easily fabricated since the UC admission process only requires 3 statements of interest and no interview.</p>
<p>And back to the point, diversity? Forget that, let’s go back to the basics-- have a student body that has actually shown academic potential. This is much better than one that has a variety of sob stories and mediocre academic performance. Neither of those qualities are conducive to anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really don’t believe this at all. Berkeley admits students largely based on numbers, I think. I think the reason for the lower scores of Berkeley students on average is that Berkeley on average might be far less selective a school than Duke. If you look at EECS students on the other hand (or those from any other competitive department), you will find the achievements monumentally and ridiculously higher than those of your average Berkeley student.</p>
<p>I think what you want is that Berkeley should be more selective about other majors as well, and basically reduce the size of its incoming class to weed out the flakier students. That’s totally fine with me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most students are not in the COE. What I’m mostly referring to is L&S.</p>
<p>Besides, I’ve met a lot of students in COE who have downright awful high school records and are getting slaughtered in their courses right now. In fact, my lab partner from Chem 1A was a MechE major who got a D- in Chem 1A. He’s still doing MechE, but he’s barely passing and always complaining about fluidics, thermodynamics, or something.</p>
<p>Let em, see if they survive.</p>