Alexandre, its relevant to note that Brown and Cornell are SAT-heavy schools so the ones who submit ACT scores to these two universities belong on the lower end of test scores across the spectrum of the enrolled students. Many of the Brown admits who took the ACT did so since they didn’t do as well on the SAT and wanted to try their hand at another exam to see if they would do better.</p>
<p>This can be corroborated when we compare SAT scores of enrolled students between Brown and the University of Michigan:</p>
<p>Percentage of Students who Score over 700 on SAT Math
Brown: 67%
U of M: 27%</p>
<p>Percentage of Students who Score over 700 on SAT Critical Reading
Brown: 62%
U of M: 52%</p>
<p>As you can see, a significant difference exists here.</p>
<p>Oh, have faith! There are still a couple of favorable rankings such as the NCAA football AP and Coaches poll. Especially before any games are played.</p>
<p>*You’re confusing holistic admissions with affirmative action. They’re not the same thing. Proposition 209 was a blow against affirmative action; URM enrollment went down as a result of it (at least at top schools like UCLA and Berkeley) while Asian enrollment increased. AA is ‘discriminatory.’ ‘Holistic admissions’ is not *</p>
<p>I know that they’re not the same thing. I’m not confused.</p>
<p>The point is that publics aren’t really free to use true “holistic methods” because then accusations of “veiled AA” come in. If the UCs used true holistic methods (an end run around Prop 209), then new lawsuits would be filed because the Asian numbers would likely drop and the URM numbers would increase.</p>
<p>Blue…I agree that many Calif graduating URMs aren’t qualified for UCs. I should have included a source for that stat…sorry. It’s not mine. However, their argument is that the current non-holistic methodology for admittance to a UC keeps out URMs. </p>
<p>Personally, I support the current formula for admitting. I think admitting unqualified students just leads to more drop-outs, unfinished degrees, wasting tax payer money, etc. I think the TAG program is great. Let those with inadequate K-12 education get their foundation in a good calif CC, and then move on to a UC or CSU. </p>
<p>As mentioned, implementing Prop 209 caused URM numbers to drop…because the admittance formula had to become less holistic (subjective) and more objective. Those who are complaining that there aren’t enough URMs in the better UCs want a more holistic admissions policy, but that won’t square with Prop 209.</p>
<p>The only acceptable “end-run” around Prop 209 is to weight GPA more heavily than test scores so that nearly all the seats don’t get filled with Whites and ORMs. That said, the URM distribution is not even amongst the UCs. the lower tier UCs have nearly half URM enrollment, while the middle and upper tier UCs have far less. Again, I understand why, and I don’t support putting unqualified students into seats where they will likely fail when pitted against much stronger students. </p>
<p>It is ranked ridiculously high for a state school in the middle. I don’t think there is much to complain about. Very good school, very good ranking.</p>
<p>I have no idea where you got your definition for holistic admissions or ‘true holistic admissions’ as you like to call it, but it’s incorrect. Here’s the definition of holistic admissions as defined by an administrator at UCLA</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>After prop. 209 passed, URM enrollment went down, and so did ‘diversity.’ So, in order to increase diversity, holistic admissions was used which again is different from AA (which is what i’ve been arguing all along). Again, there’s no mention of ‘true’ holistic admissions, or HA being used to try to circumvent prop. 209. As i said earlier, it’s a small, but important legal point. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Acusations aren’t evidence, and they won’t win you a lawsuit.</p>
<p>What are “true ‘holistic methods’”? Must they include consideration of race and ethnicity, or must they necessarily be to the disadvantage of Asian applicants?</p>
<p>While the UC comprehensive review is structured differently from what is commonly described as “holistic admissions” at smaller private schools, the difference has to do with the presumed goals of consistency, repeatability, and scalability. The methodology used is a different decision from the decision of which criteria to use.</p>
<p>What most people arguing about Proposition 209 and UC fail to realize is that these and other changes in the admission process at the UCs merely redistribute UC eligible students between the different campuses. Sure, some students may get into what they see as “more desirable” or “less desirable” campuses, but the effect on the entire UC system considered as a unit is theoretically null. Of course, some students may choose to go to UC if they get into a “more desirable” campus, or go elsewhere if they only get into a “less desirable” campus, but again this is more of a redistribution effect than anything else.</p>