Joanne Jacobs discusses a Los Angeles Times article that features interviews with Berkeley students concerning the recent news that in 2002 400 students with SAT scores of 600&ndash1000 were admitted (the Berkeley average was 1337).
I found one student’s comment on this news particularly interesting.
This report is “another way to question whether students of color are deserving to be at a four-year institution of higher education,” said Taina Gomez, 22, a senior Latin American studies major and the student government executive vice president.
“It’s unfair to stigmatize these students.”
To the best of my knowledge the report, commissioned by John Moores, the chairman of the Board of Regents, did not identify the students by race, much less by name. Ms. Gomez’s comment indicates, however, that she, along with probably everyone else, assumes these low-scoring students were primarily minorities. But what, precisely, is the stigma?
Does the stigma consist in revealing that Berkeley’s “comprehensive review” policy results in the admission of a not insignificant group of students whose test scores are dramatically lower than the Berkeley average? Or is it the policy itself that generates the stigma? If “students of color” feel stigmatized by a policy that admits a large number of minority students with low test scores, shouldn’t they oppose the policy rather than accurate information about it?
Unfortunately, Ms. Gomez�s comments were considerably more restrained than those of Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl. Angry that the information leaked, Berdahl sent an intemperate letter to Board Chariman Moores.
The chancellor said Moores’ report �attacked� already-enrolled students who overcame disadvantages and were admitted despite low SAT scores.
�They deserve more than derision from the chair of the Board of Regents,� Berdahl wrote .
P.S.
Now comes news, in today�s UCLA Bruin, that in 2002 UCLA admitted 525 students (out of a total of 10,455 admitted) whose combined SAT score was 1000 or less. At the same time it refused admission to 1,646 students with scores of 1400 or above.
I have no problem with these schools (Berkeley for example)changing the rules to allow a “critical mass” of minorites to enter.
However, lets not assign these schools an “elite” status, because obviously they are not, because they let these students in. In this case, Berkeley is no better than Cal State-Northridge. (No offense intended to Cal State-Northridge)
I don’t think that covers the whole issue. People will simply devalue elite university degrees to minorities on the suspicion of the preferences effect. The university’s overall status will remain unchanged.
This will then be offered as “proof” of racism, which of course requires the program to continue.