What should differentiate a high school hopeful wearing a UCLA
sweatshirt from an accepted UCLA student? The answer should be
obvious: a competitive minimum competency and a highly visible
determination for success.
In UCLA’s oft-disputed admissions process, too much weight
has been put on factors such as grades, test scores and personal
achievements, without enough concern for student motivation.
Comprehensive review as it currently works, is not enough to take
this crucial factor into account.
The entire concept of the admissions process was designed in
order to ensure a student body which would be
“successful” in college and in life. But, the current
admissions criteria falls short in being able to choose students
who really add to the life of the campus.
The common factor the most successful UCLA students share is
their determination to better themselves and the environment around
them.
A will to succeed is the all-encompassing general attribute
which will make up for other deficiencies of a potential
student.
Of course GPA and class rank are important, but to what degree
is it useful in determining which students are more qualified than
others? Does anyone believe that his or her high school GPA means
anything at this particular institution? Keep in mind that every
year, there are enough applicants to fill the freshman class with
4.0 students more than four times over.
The SATs are similarly flawed. The difference between a 1600 and
the UCLA average of 1332 may be significant, but is likely the
result of inane memorization and hours at SAT training centers. At
a certain point, the numbers cease to be useful in their relation
to students’ natural aptitude, instead being a measure on a
prepared performance test. At least this much is clear ““ as
UCLA has stated, “SAT I scores are the least predictive of
first-year success at the UC’s undergraduate
campuses.”
Academic qualifications should only be used as minimum
requirements to attend UCLA. Beyond that, applicants are too
similar to delineate in a meaningful manner. Furthermore, it is
hard to see how an actual difference in natural intelligence as
measured by half a GPA point would be relevant to success in a
university environment. Extreme “intelligence” or the
crude version of it gauged by GPA and SATs has never been shown to
be a common characteristic of successful students.
The difference will be that the motivated student will go to
class, seek out extra help in seldom-used office hours, and perform
beyond the normal call of duty.
In some respects, the UCs ““ and especially UCLA ““
have done a good job in considering admissions factors other than
academics. While their policies are criticized, their results can
only be commended. As the regents have stated, no students admitted
with comparatively lower scores “are facing any more academic
problems than any of their counterparts.”
Comprehensive review is working but it must be expanded to
incorporate motivation and allowed to carry far greater weight if
UCLA wants a truly qualified and diverse student body.
Moon is a second-year psychology student. E-mail him at
jmoon@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.