<p>
</p>
<p>This of course is the correct legal definition. This reminds me of something that was said in the [UCLA</a> Today statement](<a href=“http://www.today.ucla.edu/news/080905_holistic-admissions_reed/]UCLA”>http://www.today.ucla.edu/news/080905_holistic-admissions_reed/). Paraphrasing the incorrect statement there into a statement that would be factually true, UCLA could say, “Each of the Ivy League institutions, UC Berkeley, Stanford, USC, and UCLA could likely fill each of their incoming freshman classes with applicants with below-average standardized test scores and below average grade-point averages from any ethnic group or combination of ethnic groups they please. Yet all of these institutions, including UCLA, understand that the ability to succeed in college depends on much more than ethnicity considered in isolation, so they use admissions processes that examine the total candidate and his or her achievements in the context of the opportunities they have been given.” Achievement (considered in the context of opportunities) before high school is indeed an important clue as to who has ability to succeed in college. If achievement is what colleges are looking for, or at least what colleges like UCLA are looking for, why should any college presuppose any distribution of student characteristics other than achievement in the context of opportunities? </p>
<p>Of course California has a large number of open-admission colleges that admit any student who is interested in attending college.</p>