I suggest that answers to many of the questions arising in this article become clear if you consider the hypothesis that the UC is committed (they certainly state this all over their website) to a program of social engineering, of racial diversity over merit. That in itself is a good reason for the UCs to want to avoid gathering, reporting, or using SAT data. It is a "luxury belief" imposed by virtue-signalling regents who rejected the unamimous faculty committee report recommending retaining SAT. Which parallels the solid data in this report https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf
I suggest that answers to many of the questions arising in this article become clear if you consider the hypothesis that the UC is committed (they certainly state this all over their website) to a program of social engineering, of racial diversity over merit. That in itself is a good reason for the UCs to want to gathering, reporting, or using SAT data. It is a "luxury belief" imposed by virtue-signalling regents who rejected the unamimous faculty committee report recommending retaining SAT. Which parallels the solid data in this report https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf
The graphs at the end of this article serve as an excellent summary of which colleges are evading the "natural experiment" of the SFFA ruling. https://edreformnow.org/2024/09/09/tracking-the-impact-of-the-sffa-decision-on-college-admissions/ and while it does cover the UC, their racial demographics I believe remain flat despite Prop. 209 and the Supreme Court's SFFA ruling. There are two explanations: either the UC never had any affirmative action, or the UC has practiced it steadfastly all along. I favor the latter explanation, given how secretive the UC is with its data.
This month, two groups filed lawsuits pursuant to the above. Hopefully they will lead to the discovery of more data, and, sunlight being the best disinfectant, remedies requiring the UC's to actually follow the law. You can follow the lawsuits here:
Race is obviously the topic that gets people excited but it's the opaqueness of the whole process that is my core objection. A public university should be transparent about its processes. Every factor that the UC considers should be quantified so that every applicant gets (and can ultimately see) how they compared to other applicants. Your grade point average is worth X points; your extracurriculars are worth Y points; your first generation status is worth Z points; being a recruited athlete gets you W points etc. Your score then translates into a certain chance of admission (like the chances of winning the NBA draft lottery). You'd have to do admissions by school and it would be even better if you could list in advance your campus preferences. Everyone would then be admitted to no more than one school with the highest scorers getting first choice of campus.
The opacity discourages students with options from applying to UC. Admissions doesn't have to be such a crap shoot and it isn't in other countries. Trauma dumping is peculiarly American and not all students, even in California, come from a cultural background that makes it acceptable.
A huge factor in admissions is not how well you do compared to the broad range of applicants statewide but how well you do in your school. High performing students in a lower performing school have a better chance of admission than high performing students in a very high performing school.
Indeed. All the UCs claim (in their common data sets) that class rank is not considered at all in admission decisions but the the whole point of Admission in the Local Context is to admit the top 9% in each school. I suppose the distinction they'd draw is that the top 9% is established by looking at applicants from the same school over multiple years not just one year.
The UC is happy to establish policies, like test blind (I use "SAT denier"), that enable them to increase diversity at the expense of merit, while also covering their trail. That also policies like ELC (Eligibility in the Local Context) and just straight discrimination against Asian and white applicants, are part of their program of social engineering. Indeed on February 3rd we filed a lawsuit in federal court on the UC for their biases, which violate Prop. 209 along with SFFA. See https://sard.law/
Yes, admission rates by sex are available. They don't break out the number of honors classes taken, which is why I didn't mention it in my post, but getting rid of the SAT did favor girls. Their admission rates went up at the more selective schools and those of boys, correspondingly, went down. Maybe a post for another day.
I suggest that answers to many of the questions arising in this article become clear if you consider the hypothesis that the UC is committed (they certainly state this all over their website) to a program of social engineering, of racial diversity over merit. That in itself is a good reason for the UCs to want to avoid gathering, reporting, or using SAT data. It is a "luxury belief" imposed by virtue-signalling regents who rejected the unamimous faculty committee report recommending retaining SAT. Which parallels the solid data in this report https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf
I suggest that answers to many of the questions arising in this article become clear if you consider the hypothesis that the UC is committed (they certainly state this all over their website) to a program of social engineering, of racial diversity over merit. That in itself is a good reason for the UCs to want to gathering, reporting, or using SAT data. It is a "luxury belief" imposed by virtue-signalling regents who rejected the unamimous faculty committee report recommending retaining SAT. Which parallels the solid data in this report https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf
Much becomes clear if this article sharpens the definition of "academic storytelling" to: trauma porn to signal your status as an under-represented minority to help the admissions staff practice affirmative action, despite it being proscribed by Prop. 209 and the SFFA ruling alike. See Confessions of an Application Reader https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/lifting-the-veil-on-the-holistic-process-at-the-university-of-california-berkeley.html?unlocked_article_code=1.gE4.abXn.Dl_zX_D9NKsG
The graphs at the end of this article serve as an excellent summary of which colleges are evading the "natural experiment" of the SFFA ruling. https://edreformnow.org/2024/09/09/tracking-the-impact-of-the-sffa-decision-on-college-admissions/ and while it does cover the UC, their racial demographics I believe remain flat despite Prop. 209 and the Supreme Court's SFFA ruling. There are two explanations: either the UC never had any affirmative action, or the UC has practiced it steadfastly all along. I favor the latter explanation, given how secretive the UC is with its data.
This month, two groups filed lawsuits pursuant to the above. Hopefully they will lead to the discovery of more data, and, sunlight being the best disinfectant, remedies requiring the UC's to actually follow the law. You can follow the lawsuits here:
1. from https://sword.education/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69630620/ps-zhong-v-the-regents-of-university-of-ca/
2. from https://sard.law/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69607483/v-the-regents-of-the-university-of-california/
Race is obviously the topic that gets people excited but it's the opaqueness of the whole process that is my core objection. A public university should be transparent about its processes. Every factor that the UC considers should be quantified so that every applicant gets (and can ultimately see) how they compared to other applicants. Your grade point average is worth X points; your extracurriculars are worth Y points; your first generation status is worth Z points; being a recruited athlete gets you W points etc. Your score then translates into a certain chance of admission (like the chances of winning the NBA draft lottery). You'd have to do admissions by school and it would be even better if you could list in advance your campus preferences. Everyone would then be admitted to no more than one school with the highest scorers getting first choice of campus.
The opacity discourages students with options from applying to UC. Admissions doesn't have to be such a crap shoot and it isn't in other countries. Trauma dumping is peculiarly American and not all students, even in California, come from a cultural background that makes it acceptable.
A huge factor in admissions is not how well you do compared to the broad range of applicants statewide but how well you do in your school. High performing students in a lower performing school have a better chance of admission than high performing students in a very high performing school.
Indeed. All the UCs claim (in their common data sets) that class rank is not considered at all in admission decisions but the the whole point of Admission in the Local Context is to admit the top 9% in each school. I suppose the distinction they'd draw is that the top 9% is established by looking at applicants from the same school over multiple years not just one year.
The UC is happy to establish policies, like test blind (I use "SAT denier"), that enable them to increase diversity at the expense of merit, while also covering their trail. That also policies like ELC (Eligibility in the Local Context) and just straight discrimination against Asian and white applicants, are part of their program of social engineering. Indeed on February 3rd we filed a lawsuit in federal court on the UC for their biases, which violate Prop. 209 along with SFFA. See https://sard.law/
Did you see any information about admission rates by sex, and whether those changed at all in relation to this policy?
Yes, admission rates by sex are available. They don't break out the number of honors classes taken, which is why I didn't mention it in my post, but getting rid of the SAT did favor girls. Their admission rates went up at the more selective schools and those of boys, correspondingly, went down. Maybe a post for another day.