Superb study of UCLA's admission holistic process.
A bit of background first that inspired Tim Groseclose writing 'Cheating'. In 2012 the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools (CUARS) at UCLA intentionally obfuscated the conclusions of the 'independent' researcher originally hired to investigate whether or not UCLA used race as a determining factor in admissions. I write the word independent in quotes because Robert Mare, just like Groseclose and his research partner Richard Sander (author 'Mismatch'), also works for UCLA. Mare was extremely thorough in his research, using more variables than were provided to Groseclose/Sander. Even when Mare's work was released, UCLA turned a blind eye to the results and, in Groseclose's words, used a bit of "groupthink mixed with tiny perturbations of the truth" to gloss over the clear bullet points in Mare's executive summary. CUARS only publicly acknowledged 3 out of 9 points; the other 6 points, which underscored Mare's findings, were conveniently disregarded.
For those outside of California, and I'm one of you, Prop 209 is a "provision in the California Constitution [that states] public universities cannot use race as a factor in admission decisions." Many states have similar laws for state run universities, and many universities likely have this rule in their charters. In fact, I think most of us know this rule HAS to be posted at every place of employment. (You may be asking yourself why we have to provide our race on every government form...I wonder that myself.) In 2006, there was an anomaly in the admissions of African American students - a lower number were admitted than in preceding years. People noticed, both inside and outside of UCLA. As a result, great social pressure was placed upon CUARS to increase African American enrollment. CUARS scrapped their old admissions policy and adopted a holistic approach, trying to duplicate the system at UC Berkley. Yes - African American enrollment increased significantly with implementation of the holistic system - but did it really work? Was it fair? Was it honest? Asians, Latinos, and others who are underrepresented - will likely find this book eyeopening. The truth, as discovered by Groseclose/Sander, is that the holistic approach was merely a smokescreen covering a darker secret...one that speaks to the very heart of the problems in academia today; institutional dishonesty, groupthink, and (for 1984 fans) doublethink.
One of the best aspects of Groseclose's work is that he has posted the data set from which he drew his conclusions online. It is accessible to anyone with a computer, and he encourages those who might challenge his conclusions to study the data set. [...]
Even though this study only covers UCLA, it speaks to a larger problem at all universities. I think if universities were to be as honest as Dr. Groseclose is in presenting his findings, perhaps there might be a solution to the diversity / fairness issues that plague admissions teams. His closing words sum up , but don't entirely capture, the importance of 'Cheating':
"...UCLA turned a true statement into its exact opposite. Remember, the distortion was the product of a highly esteemed university, which, in theory, is one of society's guardians of truth. When people place other values above honesty, and when those people live and work in an environment where there is no true diversity of thought, such instances...can become commonplace. Such distortions, I believe, are more common than people outside academia realize. Perhaps it's time we rethink the values that pervade most American universities."
Riveting work, with a sum greater than its parts.
- Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account
