Last week, the UC Board of Regents approved several changes to the University of California undergraduate admissions process. Some changes were positive, but others have given this board reason for concern.
First, we are satisfied that the UC Regents have done away with the SAT Subject Test.
As we have previously said, this particular standardized test is expensive and does not provide information about a candidate that cannot be proven by other documentation or accomplishments.
It only further advantages students from wealthier backgrounds who can afford classes and tutors to prepare for these tests, and who can afford to retake exams in hopes of improving their score.
For UCLA specifically, taking subject tests is not always as advantageous as some alternatives; taking the SAT Reasoning Test or a number of Advanced Placement exams might prove to be as beneficial.
With regard to the minimum GPA change from a 2.8 unweighted to a 3.0 weighted, the Daily Bruin Editorial Board is concerned and fears that this change may contradict the eligibility progress that the UC Regents made in eliminating the subject test.
GPAs can be finicky numbers, and they can mean different things at different schools. That’s why we like the idea of a lower, unweighted GPA as one of the many standards for UC eligibility. There isn’t much of an emphasis on it until an admissions officer can evaluate the whole application.
Raising the requirement from 2.8 to 3.0 might not seem like a lot, especially when the average for students admitted to UCLA is above a 4.0, but the “weighted” difference can be dramatic for people taking seven or nine AP or honors classes as opposed to those who are offered zero.
Remember that students who take the advanced classes get an extra point added to their average for every honors and AP class. A C in an advanced class is calculated like a B in a normal class.
Many of the schools that don’t offer as many advanced classes are in poor or rural neighborhoods.
UCLA made a point of implementing a “holistic review” admissions process so that it can take a closer look at applicants with lower GPAs. What’s the harm in letting them continue to be eligible?
One of the keys to true diversity at UCLA (and the UC) is to include under-represented students, students from rural communities and those with lower socio-economic backgrounds by broadening the pool of applicants. If we shrink the pool of people we can select from, we will likely diminish diversity.
It looks like the UC will dramatically broaden the pool of students it can accept by eliminating the SAT Subject Test, but at the same time, it will disadvantage the students it seeks to admit through processes like “holistic review” and reduce the number of students who would be eligible.
If administrators mean it when they say they want to increase diversity in the UC and at UCLA, if they mean it when they say they want to take “life challenges” into heavy consideration on an application, and if they mean when they say someone doesn’t have to have a perfect GPA to be academically qualified to go here, then why are they doing this?
There is no harm in keeping the GPA requirement what it is, especially if the new requirement will impede our efforts toward real diversity.