Here it is; as I read it, it doesn't really respond to Prof. Groseclose's concerns (which he discusses in more detail here):
UCLA's admissions policies and practices were developed to scrupulously adhere to state law and University of California regulations. The campus remains committed to the highest ethical standards and to openness and transparency in establishing and maintaining admissions policies in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
The admissions process has many safeguards to ensure fairness to all applicants and compliance with state law. For example, approximately 55,000 applications are distributed randomly to more than 160 trained readers, and there is no way for a reader to know who else is reviewing the same applications. Two trained readers score each application, and if one score is inconsistent with another, the application is reviewed by a senior reader.
Nevertheless, UCLA several weeks ago initiated a comprehensive study to analyze the effect of the holistic review admissions process and ensure its continued consistency with state law. Funding has already been approved and a researcher selected to conduct the study. To ensure fairness, the review is being conducted by an independent researcher for the Academic Senate's admissions policy–setting body. The concerns expressed by Professor Timothy Groseclose will be addressed in the study.
UCLA stringently follows state and federal law and university policy protecting the privacy of student applicants and governing the release of personally identifiable information. UCLA's admissions team has offered to work with Professor Groseclose to provide data meaningful for use in his own analysis — within the constraints of privacy laws but going well beyond what would be required by the California Public Records Act. It is disappointing that Professor Groseclose has decided not to work with staff to arrive at a solution.
Background on the holistic review admissions process
Beginning with the fall 2007 freshman class, the UCLA faculty adopted the "holistic" process — which has been in use at UC Berkeley for many years and also is used at Ivy League schools and at most highly selective institutions — in which applicants are assessed in terms of the full range of their academic and personal achievements, viewed in the context of the opportunities and challenges each has faced.
The UCLA Academic Senate made the change because the faculty believed a more individualized and qualitative assessment of each applicant's entire application would be fair and would better achieve the UC Regents' goal of comprehensive review.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The L.A .Times on Prof. Groseclose's Allegations of Possible Malfeasance in UCLA Admissions:
- UCLA's Short Response to Prof. Groseclose's Allegations:
- UCLA Faculty Member Resigns from Admissions Committee, Alleges Possible Violations of the Law by UCLA:
Did they ever hear of protesting too much?
Would you elaborate, so we might understand the thrust of your question. Do you think Professor Groseclose's concerns about the integrity of the admissions process are most likely unwarranted, or you don't care whether they are warranted or not? Did you prefer the University of Michigan's grid for ranking applicants, which when finally revealed in the course of litigation could be seen to be objectively and unabashedly biased, as opposed to less unequivocally biased "holistic" approaches?
EH: "I have a feeling this is going to turn out to be some kind of around-the-bend anti-Affirmative Action case..."
What might be the elements of an "around-the-bend anti-Affirmative Action case..."? Does "around-the-bend" imply that you either do not believe that UCLA would not be operating in full compliance with Proposition 209; or that you don't care one way or the other if UCLA is or isn't in compliance with this particular state law; or that you oppose Proposition 209 and would happy to see it subverted, if not frankly breached? Or is your point something altogether different?
For those who might think a holistic application review is prima facie absurd, realize that California bar exam essays and performance tests are graded holistically. And many failed students would agree that the approach is absurd.
He raises a couple good issues. Now I wonder if UCLA does have something to hide. But their independent expert should include his objections in the analysis, as far as it is reasonable.
I would not ignore the 2007 data. But I would not compare single years because of possible unknown confounding factors. Also, the start-up year of a new policy is always confusing. Rather than jsut get the "impulse response," to me it would make sense to compare three non-holistic years with three holistic years.
But I don't know why he would need the identities of the readers. They assumed their decisions would be kept confidential, or at least not scrutinized in detail. But I see no problem with coding the data as "Reader A," etc. to look for consistency. If he thought certain characteristics of each grader might be significant, those could be extracted and tabulated. If readers favor their own nationality or gender, that would be good to know.
"It would look more legitimate if Prof. Groseclose did not look like a lone crank: Lone committee member who opposes holistic admissions wants application data so that he can analyze it to prove that it violates Prop. 209. When committee majority/university counterproposes independent review, lone committee member takes his ball and goes home."
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.