It’s weird how I get into ruts here. I’m not usually obsessed with the subject of college admissions, but it came up recently, and now there’s just one article after another about it (because, of course, it’s college admissions season). I’m getting a little tired of it, but not so tired that I want to pass up interesting articles.
The latest, via Inside Higher Ed is an Los Angeles Times article about UCLA’s new process. They’ve moved to a “holistic” admissions process, which will no doubt cause many people to roll their eyes and say “Oh, those California hippies…” but this is actually the fault of the right wing:
The university announced in September that it was making a major shift in the way it accepted freshmen, switching to a more “holistic” approach in which all available information about a student could be considered at the same time by admissions readers. Previously, UCLA applicants’ files were divided by academic and personal areas and read by separate reviewers. […]
The change was made after figures, released last summer, showed that only about 100 African American students, or about 2% of the freshman class, would enroll at UCLA for the current academic year. The number, the lowest in more than 30 years, prompted UCLA leaders to declare an admissions crisis and push for the new system. But under Proposition 209, the state’s 1996 voter-approved ban on affirmative action, the university cannot consider race in its admissions decisions.
The reporter attended a training session for admissions staff who will be reading applications. It’s an interesting look inside the process, and provides a few case studies drawn from actual applications, so people can see what the admissions office has to contend with.
While the description sounds pretty arbitrary, there are a number of checks on the process, to keep things fair:
Admissions Director Vu Tran told readers they would be ranking applications on a 6-point scale, from those that would merit 1 — “emphatically recommend for admission” — to 5 — “recommend deny.” There is also a score of 2.5, because the distinction between 2 and 3 is often the toughest for readers to make.
Each application would be scored by two readers. If the scores were more than a point apart, the application would be assessed again, this time by a senior staff member.
Applicants would be admitted in rank order, 1s, then 2s and so on, up to UCLA’s admissions target of 11,800, which officials say will ultimately yield a class of about 4,700.
(We’ll leave aside the question of what the need for a “2.5” score says about the psychology of application readers…)
And, of course, there’s still the dread “D-word”:
What about diversity, a reader asked?
Pimentel answered without hesitation. UCLA, like other top schools, was looking for a range of personal backgrounds and experiences in each freshman class, she said. Socioeconomic diversity was a plus. But, she cautioned, race could not be part of the equation.
Of course, this is the real reason why things like Proposition 209 are completely futile and stupid. Leaving aside for the moment the racist intent of the law, there are a million ways around it using other factors as a proxy for race. If an institution decides that racial diversity in the incoming class is a goal that they would like to achieve (and I think that’s a perfectly reasonable decision to make), then they’ll find a way to do that, even if it involves this sort of wink-wink, nudge-nudge crap.
(Note to “Uncle Al”: I realize that this is a topic that is likely to inflame your basest impulses. Make an effort to control yourself and keep things civil.).