The case of UCLA’s increasingly competitive admissions is hardly a secret. While the rising average GPA and SAT score of the incoming freshman classes impresses many current students, I am apprehensive.
Although this may boost UCLA’s national rankings, the upgrade is a Pyrrhic victory. Prospective students will be unduly wrapped with constructing the “impeccable college application” rather than taking intellectual risks and exploring and developing their creativity.
The fight for an admissions offer from UCLA is steadily becoming tougher because of the growing legion of qualified applicants and the reduced number of available spots. Ultimately, this combination most conspicuously affects academic endeavors. From the fall of 2006 to the fall of 2009, the average GPA and SAT scores for admitted freshmen have jumped from 3.85 to 4.16 and from 1804 to 2010, respectively.
Even as a 2007 high school graduate, the majority of my classmates occupied their time with AP and honors classes, SAT tutoring, community service, sports and other extracurricular activities ““ anything to potentially boost their worth in the eyes of the admissions officers.
The lexicon of their undertakings amounted to little more than “this is what I did; this is how I grew as a person; this is why I’m qualified.” I wondered if my peers spent time genuinely piqued by said pursuits or if it was merely a scheme to boost their standing within the applicant pool.
Data from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program at UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute further my speculations. Since 2000, about 70 percent of college freshmen consistently volunteered their senior year of high school. This is a tremendous leap from the 45 percent in 1988. And depending on their level of selectivity, different universities have varying counts of community involvement from their admits. However, highly selective schools regularly have higher volunteering rates compared to schools with less intense selectivity.
Furthermore, the number of students attending school clubs has ebbed from 18 percent to 14 percent by the mid 2000s. The trend seems to insinuate that students choose to participate in extracurricular activities with higher rates of investment, all to fit the prototype admit of a highly selective institution.
The crowd is following a regimen that dictates what will open the doors of the most competitive institutions. Exertions to push the outer limits of one’s imagination and ventures in one’s sincere passions are now seen as futile if the admissions committee deems it worthless.
UCLA’s student homepage displays the quote: “Nobody at UCLA keeps score on who you are. They just want to see what you do.”
Even this statement is action-oriented and emphasizes visible results. This type of ideology fosters rivalry, necessitates conquest, and places boundaries on potentially rewarding gambles.
Unfortunately, CIRP’s data presents little evidence that the heightened “I must do” atmosphere has had a positive effect on student learning. If anything, student labor is not directed toward discovering the intricate workings ““ the why and how ““ of a particular subject, but only toward mastering dry textbook material. Because obtaining straight As is academic’s ne plus ultra.
However, El Camino Real High School senior Daniel de Haas would beg to differ. Last month, Haas earned the top score at the California Academic Decathlon, demonstrating his academic genius and promise. From such a champion, one would assume he has a flawless report card, but it is littered with what many people would categorize as unacceptable “blemishes” ““ Bs, Cs and sometimes even an F.
Such mentality is precarious and stagnates learning. The application system fails students in the sense that they are encouraged to act like robots unable to make prudent decisions for themselves, memorize spoon-fed material, regurgitate information, and partake only in approved activities with prestige.
This inability to enjoy academic freedom carries over to college and into our adult life. We’re terrified of being wrong because society declares mistakes to be shameful and repugnant. Sir Ken Robinson, a creativity expert, said in a Technology, Entertainment, Design talk, “If you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original. … We are educating people out of their creative capacities.”
The mania for academic ability originates from before the 19th century, when academic expertise was paramount to meet the growing demands of industrialism. And Robinson says that the repercussions of postulating intelligence to be exclusively academic is that many profoundly gifted people believe they aren’t brilliant.
But intelligence is diverse, comprised of not just academic ability but also of kinesthetic savvy and the capacity to think abstractly, among others. If Bill Gates succumbed to these principles and shied away from his visions by choosing to follow the crowd and continue his education at Harvard, would Microsoft Corporation exist?
I believe people who had the opportunity to explore their interests before college hold a significant advantage over people who merely satisfied their scholarly duties. The former group unstintingly indulges their creativity, imagination and passions.
UCLA prides itself on the academic and extracurricular diversity of its incoming freshman classes, from Science Olympians to most valuable players in their sports. But in the end, we’re all from the same mold; all of our success is quantifiably measurable.
There is no doubt that UCLA, alng with other schools, wants students to attain their personal definition of success and greatness. For this to happen, student learning needs to be redirected from a focus on motivations of wanting to merely be an admitted college student to curiosity and the simple love for learning.
Although UCLA is not as selective as other private universities such as Harvard University, which had an admissions rate of 7.2 percent for its 2010 applicant pool compared to UCLA’s 22.6 percent, the disparity is unavoidable. The difference in acceptance rate stems from the bigger amount of space a public school has to offer its applicants compared to a private school.
Thus, rather than searching for “excellent students” with an incredible biographical resume, the admissions committee can seek the eccentric and the maverick. Whether it is the avid blogger or the obscure geographical explorer, UCLA also needs students who trust themselves and their own rules when aspiring to live out their passions ““ not just the academically perfect.
It’s this independence and willingness to engage in uncertainties that create prominence.
If you wish you were catching butterflies instead of studying your behind flat, e-mail Jessica Lee at jlee@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.