Daily Cal Counterweight

Week of April 4 - 8

By Kerry Eskenas and Andrew R Quinio
Posted on 04/09/05

NEWS: UC Takes Fewer Applicants With Low SAT Scores

The headline of this news story should not be that shocking. After all, UC Berkeley and the other UCs believe in merit, right? As this Daily Cal article shows, ‘merit’ at Cal tends to have varying definitions.

Some are upset because the UC decided to stick with the Master Plan for Higher Education, which requires the UC to select from among the top one-eighth of the high school graduating class. UC spokesperson Ravi Poorsina explained that some of the Regents prefer the comprehensive review system, which “downplays standardized test scores like the SAT in favor of grade point average and stresses a more thorough analysis of students’ academic records.”

A 2003 report done by then-UC Regent Chair John Moores revealed that 386 applicants were admitted to UC Berkeley who scored less than 1000 on the SAT, and 641 students with near perfect scores were rejected. In what seems to be a justification for this admissions disgrace, The Daily Cal adds, “More than 90 percent of the low-scoring admits were underrepresented minority students.” Well as long as they were underrepresented minorities, we can ignore the Civil Rights Act and Prop 209. Why don’t they mention the race of the 641 rejected applicants who had high SAT scores? If it is so important to mention the race of those who were admitted, it is just as important for those were rejected.

As for comprehensive review, it didn’t exactly work in favor of GPA and other factors as Poorsina contended. Moore’s report concluded that “386 students were admitted to UC Berkeley who earned GPA’s generally well below UC Berkeley’s average for admitted students.”

The Daily Cal printed the profile of an admitted applicant whose life story benefited from comprehensive review. “…UC Berkeley admitted in 2002 one immigrant student with a 4.2 grade point average who lived in a one-bedroom apartment with a family of eight. The student began working at 15 years old and was forced to study in the bathroom to concentrate.”

So take that Ward Connerly. This one student’s unique and underprivileged profile has substantiated comprehensive review’s soundness. Or has it? Consider these other profiles reported in a July 12, 2002 story from the Wall Street Journal:

“After [Stanley] Park's parents, Korean immigrants of modest means, divorced three years ago, he lived with his mother. When she developed breast cancer, he began tutoring children to help pay the rent. Despite his work commitment, he scored an impressive 1500 out of 1600 on his SAT college-admissions exam. UCLA and the state university's other elite campus, Berkeley, both rejected Mr. Park.”

“Blanca Martinez also grew up in a working-class immigrant family, and also helped support it when her mother had breast cancer. Her SAT score, though, was 390 points below Mr. Park's. Both Berkeley and UCLA admitted her.”

It looks like “life circumstances” is a false front for what comprehensive review really looks at for admissions…RACE. Pushing the legal envelope, are we?

*To see Regent John Moore’s full report, click here.

NEWS: City Only Seeing Black and White

The Daily Cal reports that the lack of minorities in Berkeley City government has left some residents wondering if they are being represented accurately. But Howard Chong, the only Asian elected official and Chair of the Rent Stabilization Board, believes that race should not dictate how one serves the public. He says, “…the color of their skin doesn’t matter to me…Good people come in all colors and bad people come in all colors. Race is very important but it’s not the only way you can get diversity—you need diversity of ideas and diversity of classes.”

There is hope after all for Bezerkeley, as it seems a voice of reason has actually been elected to local office. But don’t get too excited. Chong adds to his argument by saying, “Case and point: the Bush administration…he has an ethnically diverse cabinet, but I don’t think they look out for all the communities.” So much for hope... As he made this career saving Bush attack, he might have been thinking, “Look Berkeley, I remembered to bash Bush, so cast away your stones and put out your torches. Vote Chong.”

Despite Chong’s last-minute appeasement of the Liberal rabble, his first point is still valid. One does not have to be the race of the community he serves. Bill Clinton was supposedly the “First Black President.” The black community felt that he served their needs best, notwithstanding his white skin color.

As for Chong’s second point, Bush’s diverse cabinet does serve the community well. That community is the American community. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, the first Asian- American woman appointed to a President's cabinet, looks after the employment opportunities of all Americans and not just the Asians. Condoleeza Rice, the first black female to become Secretary of State, concerns herself with international affairs for all Americans and not just blacks. Alberto Gonzalez, the first Hispanic to become Attorney General, defends justice for all Americans and not just Hispanics. What is wrong with just being an American?

NEWS: Officials Alert Students To New Class Pass Proposal

It’s interesting to note students’ reactions to the various student referendums being introduced on campus that propose to increase student fees. For the past few years, students have unhappily experienced constant increases in fees owed to the university due to budget cuts for public education. In November of 2004, some students were so distressed with the decision of the Board of Regents to increase fees yet again that they confronted the University of California with a class-action lawsuit.

There was very little uproar, however, when the Student Health Care Fee Referendum was conducted and passed in March of 2005. This referendum resulted in a $43 increase in fees for all students, regardless of whether or not the students actually use UC Berkeley’s health services. There also was relatively little uproar when the Student Voice Referendum was introduced this month by the ASUC. The ASUC is supposed to serve the interests of students. However, the purpose of this latest referendum was to increase student fees for the sake of helping the ASUC’s lobbying efforts in Sacramento, which are aimed at resisting further increases in student fees that are meant to maintain a quality UC education.

Amazingly, The Daily Cal announces yet another student referendum that will take place in Fall of 2005. This referendum is meant to increase the mandatory AC Transit Class Pass fee so that, among other useful things, “students will be able to take a shuttle directly from San Francisco to Berkeley as early as 5 a.m.,” according to the AC Transit manager of service and operations planning. It’s unfair that all students, some of whom own cars and some of whom simply walk to their destinations, should have to pay for such frivolous extra bus services. Yet I predict that there will be no uproar over this fee increase when Fall of 2005 arrives.

Students who embrace referendums to increase fees for non-educational purposes and who protest increases in fees for educational purposes seem to be forgetting the reason that they are at Berkeley. While all fee increases are deplorable, those aimed at maintaining Berkeley’s top-notch status as a public university are much more important than those aimed at offering extended services in health care and transportation.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot