>a student’s high school grade-point average, the rigor of courses taken, special talents, essays and extracurricular activities.
All of these metrics seem MUCH more gameable than the SAT. Sure, buying an SAT practice test book might bump your score up by 20 points. But if you look at the rigor of courses available, that is going to vary DRASTICALLY from school to school. At least when I was in high school, poorer schools had a lot less to offer in terms of AP classes, and wealthy people have obvious advantages when it comes to extracurricular activities and some "special talents"
That's the point. UC wants to implement affirmative action but can't because voters rejected Prop 16. So they do this to make it easier to justify that their target demographics are "qualified" because now there's no objective measurement metric to judge people by.
I can’t believe how much it feels like 1984. “War is peace.”
‘University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, "The failure of Proposition 16
[repealing that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.]
means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity."’
All of these metrics seem MUCH more gameable than the SAT. Sure, buying an SAT practice test book might bump your score up by 20 points. But if you look at the rigor of courses available, that is going to vary DRASTICALLY from school to school. At least when I was in high school, poorer schools had a lot less to offer in terms of AP classes, and wealthy people have obvious advantages when it comes to extracurricular activities and some "special talents"