Should SAT I scores be the sole criteria of the University of
California admissions process? As evidenced by his recent report
criticizing UC Berkeley’s admissions policy, John Moores,
chair of the UC Board of Regents, seems to think so.
Never mind the host of other factors that go into determining
whether an applicant is admitted or not ““ Moores’
report uses applicants’ SAT I scores alone to examine whether
they should be admitted into UC Berkeley.
Moores’ analysis of UC Berkeley’s 2001 admissions
data showed that 381 students with SAT I scores between 600 and
1000 were admitted. After the San Francisco Chronicle reported that
90 percent of the lowest SAT scoring admittants were minorities,
Moores and UC Regent Ward Connerly publicly criticized the
university’s comprehensive review policy, saying it violated
Proposition 209’s requirement that race not be used as a
factor in admissions.
However, these analyses only examined SAT I scores, not the host
of other factors that are considered in the University of
California’s comprehensive review policy, including GPA, SAT
II scores, athletics, rank in high school class, overcoming
hardships, volunteer work, leadership or strong commitment to
activities/clubs/organizations, and socio-economic status.
Shame on Moores for using his own individual and selective
analysis to mislead the public into drawing false conclusions about
the UC admissions process. In reference to the 381 below-average
SAT I applicants, Moores has even said, “It is outrageous.
They don’t have any business going to Berkeley.”
The argument that these 381 students don’t belong at
UC-Berkeley is bunk; according to Chancellor Berdahl, performance
data on these students’ first year at the university shows
they are doing fine and none have left due to academic deficiency.
In the words of the Chancellor, these Berkeley students
“deserve more than derision from the chair of the Board of
Regents.”
All of Moore’s misgivings about UC Berkeley’s
admissions process have simple explanations that show the
university is in full compliance with the mandates of Proposition
209 that indicate race cannot be used as a factor.
As Chancellor Berdahl has pointed out, “because SAT I
scores, in particular, are very highly correlated with family
income and education level, it is likely that some students with
otherwise strong academic and personal qualifications will present
relatively low SAT I scores.” Given the relationship between
race and distribution of wealth in this country, it is no surprise
that many of these low-SAT scoring/low-income students are
minorities. It is also common practice for wealthier students to
take comprehensive and extremely expensive SAT prep courses that
claim to boost their scores by 100 points or more on average.
Moores’ charge that 641 applicants with SAT I scores of
1500 or higher were rejected is explained by the fact most of the
students were applying in more competitive applicant pools. These
pools ““ out-of-state students, international students and
three highly competitive engineering majors ““ have much
higher standards than the other pools.
Additionally, Chancellor Berdahl has pointed out many of these
641 students had also either withdrawn their applications or were
deficient in their GPA or other academic factors.
Especially with respect to the different applicant pools, it is
evident the 381 students with below average SAT I scores are not
“taking the place” of more qualified applicants. They
also represent only a small portion of the approximately 10,000
undergraduate students accepted by UC Berkeley in 2001.
Because the University of California looks at more than just SAT
scores, any reasonable study on its admissions process should do
the same. Moores’ and Connerly’s arguments fail this
requirement miserably because they want you to reach the flawed
conclusion that the comprehensive review policy violates
Proposition 209. In their crusade against this admissions policy,
Moores and Connerly seem to be on a mission to make numbers ““
SAT I scores in particular ““ the sole determining factor in
the admissions process.
The day the University of California begins only admitting
students with 4.0 GPAs and 1400 SAT Is is a dark day for the
university. There is only so much a university full of students who
spent their whole high school careers just making the grade and
taking SAT prep classes can offer.
The SAT I represents only one day of work in a student’s
four years of high school. Using solely GPA and SAT numbers to
govern admissions would toss the goal of admitting well-rounded
students out the window.
Moores’ commitment to the seriousness of his allegations
about UC Berkeley’s admissions process is summed up by his
response to Chancellor Berdahl’s explanations: “This is
under the blah, blah, blah, category.”
No, Mr. Moores, you are wrong. It is your disingenuous report
that belongs in the “blah, blah, blah category.”
Bitondo is third-year political science and history student.
E-mail him at mbitondo@media.ucla.edu.