Holistic method more fair than not
The two articles about “score gaps” and racial “disparity” in the May 2 edition of the Daily Bruin (“Admitted students’ scores show disparity,” “Score gaps stir dispute over holistic approach,” News) offer little news about UCLA’s recently adopted holistic admissions model.
Few conclusions can be reached about the model’s fairness based solely on the data discussed in the articles.
First, the holistic model, by definition, considers all factors in a student’s application together.
It is impossible to interpret the differences between racial and ethnic groups without also knowing something about how students from the groups compared in terms of life challenges and personal achievements ““ the other factors that readers weighed while they evaluated a given candidate’s academic record.
Second, admitted students from each of the major racial and ethnic groups posted mean GPAs that were exceedingly high, above 4.0.
Research has shown that differences in GPAs of the magnitude discussed in the articles have dubious meaning at best.
This is particularly true when we consider that the highest GPAs were undoubtedly inflated more by Advanced Placement courses than the lower ones, and there is no way to tell from these data the degree to which students in each group had access to AP courses at their respective high schools.
Third, each racial and ethnic group also posted relatively high mean SAT scores. The difference of 100 points or so between the highest and lowest group means for each component test mirrors the national pattern and tells us very little in isolation.
Research shows that standardized tests such as the SAT are better indicators of racial and socioeconomic privilege than they are of academic ability or the likelihood that students will succeed in college.
Even the Educational Testing Service acknowledges that the SAT should be considered only in tandem with other measures of achievement.
I have been and continue to be a proponent of the holistic admissions model because of the principles on which it rests.
These principles include the idea that student achievement should be evaluated in the context of the opportunities students have and the challenges they face, as well as the idea that all factors in an application that shed light on the applicant’s accomplishments should be considered together.
On these grounds alone, I submit that UCLA’s current admissions model is vastly fairer than the one it replaces.
Darnell M. Hunt
Director, Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies
Professor of sociology
Westwood comes at a high price
While I empathize with students who complain about the high costs of living in Westwood (“Rising rent squeezes students,” News, May 1), their problem is one that arises from their decisions to live so close to campus.
There are as many affordable housing options outside of Westwood as there are public transportation options. For one reason or another, many choose to live in Westwood, or commute by car ““ paying high prices for both.
One thing that could drive prices down (albeit infinitely improbable), is for people to actively seek out alternative choices, and maybe create less of a demand for both close housing and cars.
Students can pay less rent by choosing to live farther away and pay less for gas by using public transportation or even riding a bicycle.
Jose R. Cordero
Graduate student, neuroscience