3 ms·

UC Berkeley alumni here. Don’t know that this is a good thing. Currently, the UC’s provide a lot of weight to holistic applications. These often favor privileg

UC Berkeley alumni here. Don’t know that this is a good thing. Currently, the UC’s provide a lot of weight to holistic applications. These often favor privileged kids, as they have access to far more opportunities than others. For some, the SAT provided a sort of leveling field in that regard. Still, it wasn’t perfect, but I fail to see how what they come up with will fix the issue. Of interest is that all of this is taking place in a state that has banned affirmative action.

tankerdude 6y ago
Yes, but wealthy or not, the UCs limit the number of kits from high achieving schools, usually to around 50 for UCLA and UCB, as examples. They then accept a certain number for every lower achieving school, due to the 10% requirement (is it still 10% these days?). People then game the system, with the wealthy, moving to a poorly performing school, and the child will be ranked very high in their school, so it is easy to get into the highest rated UCs. I will also disagree that the SAT is a leveling field. The reason is that in the high achieving schools, the child is sent to private tutors and classes every single year of their lives starting in elementary school. The parents will spend $1k+/month on activities as well as academic classes. That type of knowledge seriously adds up. For the disadvantaged, they _could_ but the steps are a lot steeper, and most don't make those steps.
- ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
  >I will also disagree that the SAT is a leveling field. The reason is that in the high achieving schools, the child is sent to private tutors and classes every single year of their lives starting in elementary school. The parents will spend $1k+/month on activities as well as academic classes. That type of knowledge seriously adds up. This sentiment is littered throughout the comments here. Do we want colleges to admit the brightest, most academically ready 18 year olds? Or to simply admit equal percentages matching race and income levels? You even seem to admit the student would be better off with those extra classes. >That type of knowledge seriously adds up. Personally I'd have no problem with someone smarter than me getting into a college over me... It's not as if you can pay a tutor and then go to bed while they do the work for you, you still have to put in time...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ciarannolan 6y ago
>These often favor privileged kids, as they have access to far more opportunities than others. I think these "holistic" admissions do the opposite. They allow a small group of college administrators to pick which "backgrounds" they want to make up the freshman class each year.
- grumple 6y ago
  Admissions already works like this. An admissions committee is a bunch of professors that volunteered / were convinced to do admissions, and they consider the academic background, personal background, demographics, essays (sometimes), and most of all - ability to pay. Requiring aid negatively impacts your chances of even getting in.

tankerdude 6y ago

Yes, but wealthy or not, the UCs limit the number of kits from high achieving schools, usually to around 50 for UCLA and UCB, as examples. They then accept a certain number for every lower achieving school, due to the 10% requirement (is it still 10% these days?). People then game the system, with the wealthy, moving to a poorly performing school, and the child will be ranked very high in their school, so it is easy to get into the highest rated UCs. I will also disagree that the SAT is a leveling field. The reason is that in the high achieving schools, the child is sent to private tutors and classes every single year of their lives starting in elementary school. The parents will spend $1k+/month on activities as well as academic classes. That type of knowledge seriously adds up. For the disadvantaged, they _could_ but the steps are a lot steeper, and most don't make those steps.

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
>I will also disagree that the SAT is a leveling field. The reason is that in the high achieving schools, the child is sent to private tutors and classes every single year of their lives starting in elementary school. The parents will spend $1k+/month on activities as well as academic classes. That type of knowledge seriously adds up. This sentiment is littered throughout the comments here. Do we want colleges to admit the brightest, most academically ready 18 year olds? Or to simply admit equal percentages matching race and income levels? You even seem to admit the student would be better off with those extra classes. >That type of knowledge seriously adds up. Personally I'd have no problem with someone smarter than me getting into a college over me... It's not as if you can pay a tutor and then go to bed while they do the work for you, you still have to put in time...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ciarannolan 6y ago

>These often favor privileged kids, as they have access to far more opportunities than others. I think these "holistic" admissions do the opposite. They allow a small group of college administrators to pick which "backgrounds" they want to make up the freshman class each year.

grumple 6y ago
Admissions already works like this. An admissions committee is a bunch of professors that volunteered / were convinced to do admissions, and they consider the academic background, personal background, demographics, essays (sometimes), and most of all - ability to pay. Requiring aid negatively impacts your chances of even getting in.