If assertions made by UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl are
true, UC Regents Chairman John Moores should have ensured his
report on Berkeley admissions remained private until “flawed
assumptions” it contained were further discussed.
Instead, the release of the report ““ which shows about 400
students were admitted to Berkeley in 2002 despite relatively low
SAT scores ““ has created a media storm and raised doubts
about the fairness of Berkeley admissions. Because of the limited
scope of the report, it is premature ““ and irresponsible
““ to draw negative conclusions about the admissions process
at Berkeley or any other UC school.
The report looked only at SAT I scores and found about 400
members of the admitted Berkeley class scored below 1000 out of a
possible 1600. A couple dozen students had scores around 700,
dramatically below the national average.
But, in letters to both UC President Robert Dynes and Chairman
Moores, Berdahl has correctly pointed out that the report was
one-dimensional: It failed to consider grade point average, SAT II
scores, family income or life challenges. And, as reported by The
Los Angeles Times, Berdahl also noted that almost half of the
students in question were in the top 4 percent of their high school
class ““ a selection factor long considered important by the
UC.
Numerous factors are used by Berkeley and other UC campuses as
part of the comprehensive review admissions process. Designed to
have more of an intuitive approach rather than a straight numerical
evaluation, comprehensive review allows admissions personnel to
select promising students who might have a weakness in an academic
area, but strengths in other areas.
By authoring the report without investigating these other
factors, Moores unfairly sensationalized the findings by focusing
on a test which is widely used but which cannot predict success in
life. As many people know, one’s accomplishments and
potential cannot be measured only in terms of SAT scores.
For this reason, Moores was wrong when he told the San Francisco
Chronicle, “It is outrageous. (The 400 students) don’t
have any business going to Berkeley.” It is exactly this sort
of generalization that Berkeley is seeking to avoid though its
comprehensive review admissions process. According to Berkeley
officials, the students with low scores had something special about
them that caught the eyes of the admissions board. Furthermore,
their admission does not mean Berkeley has begun ignoring academic
measures ““ these students make up a very small percentage of
the nearly 8,000 students admitted to Berkeley each year.
Although Moores should not have made generalizations about the
low-scoring students, his report was not entirely ill-conceived.
Audits of admissions policies are reasonable ways to ensure that
the letter and spirit of the law are being upheld. But Moores
should have been more sensitive about the process, and taken time
to evaluate other aspects of the university’s admissions
procedures. The admissions process should not only look at numbers.
Similarly, any reasonable critique of the process should look at
more than just SAT scores.