New revelations emerge about attempts to get students into Berkeley.

Applying to College
21

I think that everybody here agrees that the fake athletes are not the same as borderline applicants who had LoRs which may have pushed them across the line.

Fake athletes were accepted fraudulently, and they were admitted based on their identity as an athlete. Their admission itself is invalid.

At least in the case of Blum, the student was waitlisted, and had chances of admission which were at least as good as most solid RD applicants. The 26% chance of admission that was mentioned in the article is higher than that of most applicants. The applicant did not present any false info, and they had a decent chance of being admitted even without the LoR.

22

The report mentions more than just fake athletes and a borderline kid Blum recommended. White the kid Blum recommended may have had an estimated 26% chance of admission (I assume this is the average admit rate for kids with same overall ratings), some of the other relatives of faculty/staff and donors admits were by no means borderline. Instead some of the special admits received the lowest possible overall ratings from both readers, giving them “virtually no chance of admission.”

23

Ouch! I still think that there is a difference between students who were accepted based on fraudulent applications materials, and those who were accepted, despite not really qualifying, because they had a LoR from somebody big.

Moreover, the fact that, evidently, athletes are being accepted with this same ratings, means that the ratings are meaningless.

If they thought that ratings this low means that these students cannot succeed at the college, then athletes are being recruited to play and fail, or they are being allowed to stay in college and to graduate through fraudulent practices.

If, on the other hand, they think that students with such low ratings can succeed as well as any other student, these rating mean absolutely nothing.

The main educational mission of the University of California campuses is to provide education to students from California. They can only justify rating students if those ratings indicate the suitability of these students to the college. If “suitability” is not primarily “the chances that the students will succeed”, that means that they are failing their main mission, and doing so miserably.

24

“Holistic” means that the applicant is treated as a whole, rather than evaluated in parts (like a point system)."

That’s the dictionary definition of holistic,and not how it actually works. From the Atlantic:

"There are two serious problems with this portrayal of college admissions. The first is that it is dishonest—and arrogant in the extreme—for admissions offices to claim that they are entitled to pass judgment on the character of each of the tens of thousands of 17- and 18-year-olds whose applications they read each year.

Second, it is unhealthy for anxious high school students applying to college to be under the impression that they are facing a type of comprehensive judgment—not just of their academic and extracurricular performance but of their quality as human beings and their value to their communities."

and the actual truth about holistic admissions:

"From colleges’ perspective, “holistic” is just shorthand for, we make the decisions we make, and would rather not be asked to spell out each one.:

“The main educational mission of the University of California campuses is to provide education to students from California.”

Which they do, really well, as I’ve said before, the UCs, CSUs and community colleges in CA are the best in the country, not even sure there’s a close second. They’re not perfect, of course, so yes things like this will happen.

“that means that they are failing their main mission, and doing so miserably.”

that’s a big LOL, again, the UCs CSUs Cal Polys and the community colleges in CA are the best at providing economic mobility for low-SES.

25

UC has a documented admission system that they are required to follow. It’s my understanding that UC permits up to 6% of students to not meet standard eligibility requirements – 4% SES “disadvantaged” students and up to 2% non-disadvantaged. One of the permitted admission by exception categories is, “They have demonstrated exceptional talent, accomplishments, or potential in athletics, performing arts, a specific academic area, leadership, or in contributing to the community.” So it would be acceptable for some athletes to be admitted who do not meet the standard UC eligibility requirements… One of the 14 holistic admission criteria for applicants is “Special talents, skills, or interests or other significant experiences or achievement.” Athletes could also be favored due to excelling in this criteria. The report mentions that athletes as a whole do tend to be weaker admits at both UCLA and Berkeley. 2/3 of Berkeley athletes received the lowest rating from both readers, indicating that the both readers recommended that the applicant be rejected. I suspect that most athletes were among the “admitted by exception” kids, which is allowed under the UC system.

In spite of the low ratings, most Berkeley athletes do seem to be academically successful, or at least successful enough to graduate. Berkeley athletes averaged a 75% graduation rate, compared to 94% for the full student body While receiving the low rating doesn’t necessarily destine the athletes for failing out of college, that doesn’t mean the rating system is meaningless. I’d expect there are still statistically significant differences in average measures of academic success during college between applicants who receive the lowest rating and highest rating, such as the graduation rate example.

I do not entirely agree with this system or the degree of athletic preference, but one could make a good argument that a strong preference for exceptional athletes is allowed under the existing UC admissions system. However, unlike most private colleges, the UC system does not permit a similarly strong preference for applicants who are related to faculty/staff or donors. Faculty/staff/donor kids should not be among the 2% of non-disadvantaged students who may be “admission by exception” admits unless they meet the “admission by exception” guidelines. It’s my understanding these guidelines are as follows. The report mentions that unlike the claimed athlete kids, no reason was listed for their admission, so I assume that the highlighted admits were not “admission by exception” kids.

26

That is basically the whole point of the matter. Regents Policy 2202 limits what can be done in terms of donor-related admission. So the various donor-related admission cases were apparently in violation of the rules.

Blum may be getting the attention because he is named, although it is questionable how much effect his attempt (a letter of recommendation outside the standard admissions process) actually was (but attempts to do things against the rules are still against the rules, even if not successful). But there appear to be plenty of worse cases involving unnamed donors’ influence.

Those here who support donor-related admissions need to consider that this is less about whether donor-related admissions is acceptable or desirable than whether those in and associated with the university should follow the university’s rules. If the rules are undesirable, they should lobby to change them, not cheat their way around them. Otherwise the message looks like “it is ok to cheat if you have money” (which is unfortunately a common viewpoint, given the amount stolen in white collar crime these days, among other things).

27

Sorry but this makes no sense. There are far more applicants who can pass the courses and graduate (“succeed” by your definition) than there are places available at a college like Berkeley. This is not an open access community college.

So there has to be some basis for selecting between them. The (holistic) academic ratings appear to be about estimating the future level of success of prospective students. So (simplifying hugely) a prospective student who has the potential to get a 4.0 GPA in college should be rated more highly than one who is only thought like to get a 2.5 GPA, even thought that latter score is “success” in terms of gaining a degree.

Inevitably such predictions about future success are often inaccurate, but that doesn’t imply that they “mean absolutely nothing”. If I hire someone to do a job, then I’m trying to determine who I think will be most successful in that job. I may be wrong, but it would be crazy not to try and exercise some judgment in choosing between applicants. I’m certainly not going to conduct a lottery amongst everyone who could do the job.

28

Ime, ratings are just a shorthand, not an absolute. Not everything fits into neat little boxes: is he a 3 or a 4? Not at Harvard, either.

With the volume of apps, I guarantee this becomes blurry. And the apps themselves don’t help. These are 17 year olds, not us, with our years and layers of experience.

Holistic isn’t rack and stack.

Many times, I think yes, just graduating is a goal. Not who does it with a 4.0. Who goes on to an educated, engaged life, not the CC thinking that being on a Forbes list is the peak.

It’s an exercise to strip away the hierarchical thinking, but we can try.

Sorry for the OT. Yes, Blum should not have written the letter and the Chancellor and Dev should not have forwarded it. My original point was that WE not leap to conclude he bought this kid in. Sheesh.

29

“Otherwise the message looks like “it is ok to cheat if you have money” (which is unfortunately a common viewpoint, given the amount stolen in white collar crime these days, among other things).”

The issue not that cheating is being condoned here, the policy is that it’s appropriate to send recommendation letters as long as you do it during admissions season and send it to the director of admissions. Blum claims he’s been doing this and didn’t get that feedback.

“The Board recognizes that any correspondence or inquiries received from individual Regents and from elected officials may be appropriate but also notes that efforts to inappropriately influence the outcome of individual admissions decisions are not.”

I don’t think this is cheating, of course others would think that it is. To me cheating is varsity blues - lying on the application, making up stuff about an athlete, getting illegal accommodations on tests, that’s cheating. If the Feds get involved in this, I’ll stand corrected.

30

As noted, Varsity Blues style fake athletes also occurred. I don’t understand why the thread seems to be so focused on the kid Blum recommended, rather than what I perceive as the more severe issues.

31

Actually, the UC process is holistic for initial readings, where each of two readers gives a score of 1 (best) to 5 (worst). If they are too far apart, a senior reader also reads the application and replaces a score. Each application then has an average of the two holistic scores. Indeed, the single score may be more holistic than the Harvard process which assigns several subcategory scores during initial reading.

But then it is mostly rack and stack within a campus, division, or major (depending on whether admission is done by campus, division, or major). Of course, the cutoff may be within a group of applicants with the same score, so tie breaking procedures are used to determine admit, spring admit (if used), waitlist, and/or reject within the group that is tied. The Hout report describes the process in detail.

At UCB, recruited athletes go through the regular process; only if not admitted through the regular process do they go to a recruited athlete review for the limited number of recruited athlete spots. Any “fake athletes” admitted through this path were taking spots away from genuine athletes who may have otherwise been admitted.

32

While the overall rating is not absolute, there should be a clear correlation between the admission decision and the rating. If there is not such a correlation, the ratings “shorthand” has little meaning. This type of correlation occurred in the Harvard lawsuit analysis as summarized below, just as it does for the UCs. If an applicant gets the referenced low “3 or 4” overall rating, he/she is extremely unlikely to be admitted, without strong hooks.

Harvard Admit Rate by Overall Rating: White Unhooked Applicants
1 Overall Rating: 100% Admit Rate
2 Overall Rating: 66% Admit Rate
3+ Overall Rating: 8.9% Admit Rate
3 Overall Rating: 1.9% Admit Rate
3- or 4: Overall Rating: <0.02% Admit Rate

Harvard Admit Rate by Overall Rating: White LDC Hooked Applicants
1 Overall Rating: 100% Admit Rate
2 Overall Rating: ~90% Admit Rate
3+ or 3 Overall Rating: ~21% Admit Rate
3- or 4 Overall Rating: ~2% Admit Rate

The Harvard admit rates by overall rating also suggests that one could find a similar pattern for children of faculty/staff/donor preference at Harvard, as was described in the UC report. I expect this would include a very small number of donor admits who received a low less than 3 rating. Among applicants with the low less than 3 rating, the Harvard admit rate appears ~100x higher for LDC hooked kids than unhooked kids. This is far less problematic for Harvard than UC since Harvard has no rule I am aware that prevents them from favoring children of faculty/staff/donors, like the UC system does.

33

You’re still trying to view this as hierarchical, now: ‘He with the best ratings wins.’

The volume of top performing applicants (in all respects, down to the quality of thinking or something like appropriate maturity,) means the college can choose what they feel is the best class- this is not true “rack and stack.” The Comprehensive Review allows for some of this. Presumably, they intended the legit sort, not outright fraud.

34

That was not what my post said. Nobody in this thread has claimed ratings are absolute or “he with the best ratings wins.” In fact my post explicitly said “the overall rating is not absolute.” The admit rates for unhooked kids were as follows. If it was simply “rack and stack”, then the admit rates would be 0% for anything below 2. However, instead 2s had a 66% admit rate, and the borderline 3+ kids had a 9% admit rate. A small minority of the lower rated 3+ kids were admitted over the higher rated 2 kids, for a wide variety of reasons. Nevertheless, there is a clear correlation between overall rating and admit rate.

1 Overall Rating: 100% Admit Rate
2 Overall Rating: 66% Admit Rate
3+ Overall Rating: 8.9% Admit Rate
3 Overall Rating: 1.9% Admit Rate
3- or 4: Overall Rating: <0.02% Admit Rate

It doesn’t have to be a choice between either ratings provide no meaningful information because they are not absolute, or the kids are “racked and stacked” from highest to lowest rating without any additional consideration. Instead ratings and admission results of large groups of students can provide meaningful information, by looking at patterns and abnormalities, as was done in both the UC and Harvard analyses. This is especially true when there is such extreme differences in admit rate between the high ratings (100% admit rate for 1) and low ratings (<0.01% rating for 4). For example, if one group of 4 rated kids has a <0.01% admit rate, and another group of 4 rated kids has an 80% admit rate (that may not be far off from actual for Harvard recruited athletes), then it suggests that the 2 groups are treated differently in the admission process. The Cal State Auditor appears to have found this type of evidence.