This past Saturday, the Los Angeles Times reported that John
Moores, chairman of the University of California Board of Regents,
has written a draft report that raises questions about admissions
at UC Berkeley, pointing out that some students with lower SAT
scores than others are admitted to the campus under the current
admissions policy.
As the UC student regent and a student representative to the
Berkeley Academic Senate’s Admissions, Enrollment and
Preparatory Education Committee, we have both read the draft report
and can say with confidence that by focusing almost exclusively on
the SAT, the report fails to address the necessary complexity of
any competitive university admissions process by a long shot.
The SAT has been the subject of intense national scrutiny in
recent years, and drawing conclusions based simply on
applicants’ SAT scores is premature at best.
Comprehensive review was implemented across the UC system
precisely because simple measures like the SAT do not provide an
accurate picture of the preparation and potential of prospective
students. Makers of the SAT acknowledge that the test is neither a
measure of intelligence nor an assessment of high school
achievement.
Additionally, our past UC President, Richard Atkinson, led a
statistical study in 2001, which proved that the SAT is by no means
a useful predictor of college GPA, the only claim its creators
make. Because it has been so strongly undermined, the SAT is
currently undergoing significant revision.
The fuller the available picture of an applicant, the more
accurate an admissions decision will be. Current UC guidelines
outline 14 criteria on which campuses should base their admissions
decisions. Note that 10 of the 14 factors are exclusively
“academic” in nature. The SAT, with all its flaws, is
only a small part of one criterion ““ scores on standardized
tests; SAT II scores comprise the bulk of that factor.
The other 13 criteria include: high school GPA; high school
course pattern; performance in honors, AP and college-level
courses; class rank; quality of senior year course load; available
educational opportunities; outstanding performance in an academic
subject area; outstanding work on a special project in any academic
field; significant recent improvement in grades and coursework
difficulty; special awards and talents (e.g. artistic, athletic or
leadership ability); participation in special programs indicating
dedication to educational success (e.g. outreach programs); special
circumstances an applicant has overcome (e.g. disability, low
family income, first generation to attend college, etc.); and
location.
College applicants are people, not numbers and deserve to be
treated as such. Many more applicants to UC Berkeley are qualified
to succeed than there are available spots in the incoming class.
The admissions office needs to make fine distinctions when choosing
who is and is not accepted. Such decisions cannot legitimately be
made based on only one or two simple factors.
The university is seriously reviewing the issues raised by
Moores’ report on a system-wide level, which is exactly what
it should do. The university must always be self-critical. We must
constantly scrutinize our admissions processes to ensure they are
as solid, justifiable and understandable as possible.
A reasoned, in-depth study of the multitude of factors that must
be included in any truly fair and defensible admissions policy is
the only way to draw a legitimate conclusion concerning the
efficacy of our policies. We look forward to the results of the
university’s review, but we strongly caution that making
premature conclusions based on a tiny sliver of the picture ““
especially when that sliver is a questionable measure like the SAT
““ is no way to make reasonable decisions concerning core
university policy.
Murray is the UC student regent. Komarek is student
representative to the Admissions, Enrollment and Preparatory
Education (AEPE) Committee of the UC Berkeley Academic
Senate.