cal83dls79 said:

---

Thanks. But you blew many opportunities to blow up on SC. Should have let the misinformation continue.

---

She was born in 1951 and earned her B.A. in 1976.

Cal fact machine. Well done

okaydo said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

She was the one unc forced out after that last scandal right?

---

3. She's a University of California alum.




4. This will be the third year in a row that her school will face Cal football.

---

The only people who refer to themselves or are refered to as University of California alum are people who went to The University of California, which is in Berkeley. Nobody is considered and "alum" of the "system."

TheFiatLux said:

---

okaydo said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

She was the one unc forced out after that last scandal right?

---

3. She's a University of California alum.




4. This will be the third year in a row that her school will face Cal football.

---

The only people who refer to themselves or are refered to as University of California alum are people who went to The University of California, which is in Berkeley. Nobody is considered and "alum" of the "system."

---

HAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA

okaydo said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

okaydo said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

She was the one unc forced out after that last scandal right?

---

3. She's a University of California alum.




4. This will be the third year in a row that her school will face Cal football.

---

The only people who refer to themselves or are refered to as University of California alum are people who went to The University of California, which is in Berkeley. Nobody is considered and "alum" of the "system."

---

HAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA

---

Well played, both of you. Well played.

A wiretap brings privilege and helicopter parenting to the fore in the college admissions scandal

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-parents-admission-cheating-20190321-story.html

"But experts in parenting say the win-at-all-costs attitude can have a pernicious effect on a child. When they try to clear the way for their children's success, parents are essentially saying to their kids that they can't do it on their own, a stance that may block the path to successful adulthood."

..."When we do too much for our kids, and we tell them what to do every step of the way, they never build up a tolerance for frustration," she said. "The problem is that kids who can't be frustrated don't learn as well."

TheFiatLux said:

---

okaydo said:

---

The only people who refer to themselves or are refered to as University of California alum are people who went to The University of California, which is in Berkeley. Nobody is considered and "alum" of the "system."

---

---

A consultant once introduced himself to me as a Graduate of the University of California. I welcomed him and asked a few questions about his time at Cal. His answers were odd. After the meeting, he took me aside and clarified that he was an graduate of another UC campus, but it is all part of the same University of California system.

He did not get the business.

bearister said:

---

A wiretap brings privilege and helicopter parenting to the fore in the college admissions scandal

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-parents-admission-cheating-20190321-story.html

"But experts in parenting say the win-at-all-costs attitude can have a pernicious effect on a child. When they try to clear the way for their children's success, parents are essentially saying to their kids that they can't do it on their own, a stance that may block the path to successful adulthood."

..."When we do too much for our kids, and we tell them what to do every step of the way, they never build up a tolerance for frustration," she said. "The problem is that kids who can't be frustrated don't learn as well."

---

And now we have Olivia Jade blaming her mother for the breakdown of her career (whatever that was). This is getting to be soap opera laughable in so many ways if it weren't so pathetic. I guess what goes around comes around.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

bearister said:

---

A wiretap brings privilege and helicopter parenting to the fore in the college admissions scandal

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-parents-admission-cheating-20190321-story.html

"But experts in parenting say the win-at-all-costs attitude can have a pernicious effect on a child. When they try to clear the way for their children's success, parents are essentially saying to their kids that they can't do it on their own, a stance that may block the path to successful adulthood."

..."When we do too much for our kids, and we tell them what to do every step of the way, they never build up a tolerance for frustration," she said. "The problem is that kids who can't be frustrated don't learn as well."

---

And now we have Olivia Jade blaming her mother for the breakdown of her career (whatever that was). This is getting to be soap opera laughable in so many ways if it weren't so pathetic. I guess what goes around comes around.

---

Does Mark Burnett see a Reality TV show in this? Will the actresses be considered for the roles of themselves in the Hallmark movie?

Fyght4Cal said:

---

okaydo said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

okaydo said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

She was the one unc forced out after that last scandal right?

---

3. She's a University of California alum.




4. This will be the third year in a row that her school will face Cal football.

---

The only people who refer to themselves or are refered to as University of California alum are people who went to The University of California, which is in Berkeley. Nobody is considered and "alum" of the "system."

---

HAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA

---

Well played, both of you. Well played.

---

Go University of California!

I once had a lawyer try and soften me up with that alumni stuff...as he tried to extract a large sum of money. I looked at him and said, that has nothing to do with things. Frankly taken aback thinking that could work. Instead of a settlement went to arbitration. He did not make his 30%. I thought about a parting "Go Bears" but thought that would soil the phrase. Instead, the finger would have been the right response. Instead I just had a grin. YMMV.

Iovine was married to a woman in my class in law school for almost 25 years. His net worth is closing in on a billion. That must have been a sweet divorce settlement.

From LA Times: Responding to college admissions scandal, California lawmakers propose sweeping reforms

Quote:

---

"The legislation proposed Thursday included a measure by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) that would bar any special admission, also known as "admission by exception," to a California public college or university unless it had been approved by at least three college administrators, which could include the chancellor or president of the institution."

"Students admitted by exception at public universities would be allowed only if they were California residents and eligible for in-state tuition."

---

There's little in any chance this passes as proposed, but boy would this devastate college athletics in the state.

Though I can't recall where I heard or read this, quite a significant number of students from underrepresented groups enrolled at UC are admiited under this process. The special review includes foster youth, students from rural communities, skilled performers and creative prodigies, students facing significant hardships, and of course athletes.

ajm9191 said:

---

From LA Times: Responding to college admissions scandal, California lawmakers propose sweeping reforms

Quote:

---

"The legislation proposed Thursday included a measure by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) that would bar any special admission, also known as "admission by exception," to a California public college or university unless it had been approved by at least three college administrators, which could include the chancellor or president of the institution."

"Students admitted by exception at public universities would be allowed only if they were California residents and eligible for in-state tuition."

---

There's little in any chance this passes as proposed, but boy would this devastate college athletics in the state.

Though I can't recall where I heard or read this, quite a significant number of students from underrepresented groups enrolled at UC are admiited under this process. The special review includes foster youth, students from rural communities, skilled performers and creative prodigies, students facing significant hardships, and of course athletes.

---

Oh my God. These legislators are imbeciles. Of course 99% of the problems were at private schools and 99% of this legislation would hit public schools. Who already ban legacy/ donor admission by the way. Yeah that makes perfect sense.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

I have often analogized Affirmative Action to a situation where two kids are trying to make a track team.

Runner A has had all the advantages a trainer, top of the line running shoes, a great training facility, a dietitian, top of the line running and training equipment and plenty of time to practice.

Runner B has a beat up pair of heavy Converse tennis shoes, practices along the side of a busy two lane asphalt highway, he has a part time job and can train only on off hours and has irregular meal times.

Runner A runs the mile 10 seconds faster than Runner B. Who is the better qualified runner.
BTW Runner B also has to run wearing a 30-pound back pack

GivemTheAxe said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

I have often analogized Affirmative Action to a situation where two kids are trying to make a track team.

Runner A has had all the advantages a trainer, top of the line running shoes, a great training facility, a dietitian, top of the line running and training equipment and plenty of time to practice.

Runner B has a beat up pair of heavy Converse tennis shoes, practices along the side of a busy two lane asphalt highway, he has a part time job and can train only on off hours and has irregular meal times.

Runner A runs the mile 10 seconds faster than Runner B. Who is the better qualified runner.
BTW Runner B also has to run wearing a 30-pound back pack

---

There is some amazing irony in this. People who go to an elite school like Cal, have success and have the audacity to want their children to have success. Where do you draw the line? Everyone has to go to the same high school? No tutors? Not SAT study courses? There is inequality in every society. Clearly, bribing someone is over the top. But it doesn't seem like this legislation deals with the substance of the Variety Blue accusations. Attacking donors (I don't have a dog in this fight, unless the actually allow dogs into Cal) who contribute and get kids into schools? If this happens at UC schools, it is minimal at best. This is a private school issue. More likely there is more political pressure to get politically connected kids in (and if pushed I can provide examples). What a bunch of hypocrites. Go regulate the private schools where this actually happens.

How come guys like Dr Dre aren't radio active for highly visible companies/organizations? Do people remember his lyrics? You'd think prestigious universities attaching themselves to his name would lead to protests and riots.

bearister said:

---

A wiretap brings privilege and helicopter parenting to the fore in the college admissions scandal

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-parents-admission-cheating-20190321-story.html

"But experts in parenting say the win-at-all-costs attitude can have a pernicious effect on a child. When they try to clear the way for their children's success, parents are essentially saying to their kids that they can't do it on their own, a stance that may block the path to successful adulthood."

..."When we do too much for our kids, and we tell them what to do every step of the way, they never build up a tolerance for frustration," she said. "The problem is that kids who can't be frustrated don't learn as well."

---

Yes the less obvious lesson the kids learn is: "you're not good enough".
But the more obvious and more direct lesson the learn is: "if you want sometng bad enough, it is not just OK but it is SMARTER to cheat to get it ".

GivemTheAxe said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

I have often analogized Affirmative Action to a situation where two kids are trying to make a track team.

Runner A has had all the advantages a trainer, top of the line running shoes, a great training facility, a dietitian, top of the line running and training equipment and plenty of time to practice.

Runner B has a beat up pair of heavy Converse tennis shoes, practices along the side of a busy two lane asphalt highway, he has a part time job and can train only on off hours and has irregular meal times.

Runner A runs the mile 10 seconds faster than Runner B. Who is the better qualified runner.
BTW Runner B also has to run wearing a 30-pound back pack

---

That's a great analogy for socioeconomic affirmative action, though it would fall short at being an analogy for race-based affirmative action.

wifeisafurd said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

I have often analogized Affirmative Action to a situation where two kids are trying to make a track team.

Runner A has had all the advantages a trainer, top of the line running shoes, a great training facility, a dietitian, top of the line running and training equipment and plenty of time to practice.

Runner B has a beat up pair of heavy Converse tennis shoes, practices along the side of a busy two lane asphalt highway, he has a part time job and can train only on off hours and has irregular meal times.

Runner A runs the mile 10 seconds faster than Runner B. Who is the better qualified runner.
BTW Runner B also has to run wearing a 30-pound back pack

---

There is some amazing irony in this. People who go to an elite school like Cal, have success and have the audacity to want their children to have success. Where do you draw the line? Everyone has to go to the same high school? No tutors? Not SAT study courses? There is inequality in every society. Clearly, bribing someone is over the top. But it doesn't seem like this legislation deals with the substance of the Variety Blue accusations. Attacking donors (I don't have a dog in this fight, unless the actually allow dogs into Cal) who contribute and get kids into schools? If this happens at UC schools, it is minimal at best. This is a private school issue. More likely there is more political pressure to get politically connected kids in (and if pushed I can provide examples). What a bunch of hypocrites. Go regulate the private schools where this actually happens.

---

Ideally it would've great to have a society where opportunity is totally equal. But I am not espousing this.
Nor am I espousing simple racial preferences. As we have seen Dre's daughter had some major advantages despite her race.
Instead admissions offices should be able to take into account the obstacles that the applicant overcame in getting to where they are.
From what I have heard Cal admissions tries to do this to some extent.

"Merit" can be measured in different ways.

Classic- under ethnicity they list non-USA as an ethnicity. Pretty much sums up the value of a USCedumacion

Grigsby said:

---

Classic- under ethnicity they list non-USA as an ethnicity. Pretty much sums up the value of a USCedumacion

---

So do the Native American/Amer-Indians say non-USA even though their ancestors have been buried in USA soil for hundreds of years.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

I have often analogized Affirmative Action to a situation where two kids are trying to make a track team.

Runner A has had all the advantages a trainer, top of the line running shoes, a great training facility, a dietitian, top of the line running and training equipment and plenty of time to practice.

Runner B has a beat up pair of heavy Converse tennis shoes, practices along the side of a busy two lane asphalt highway, he has a part time job and can train only on off hours and has irregular meal times.

Runner A runs the mile 10 seconds faster than Runner B. Who is the better qualified runner.
BTW Runner B also has to run wearing a 30-pound back pack

---

There is some amazing irony in this. People who go to an elite school like Cal, have success and have the audacity to want their children to have success. Where do you draw the line? Everyone has to go to the same high school? No tutors? Not SAT study courses? There is inequality in every society. Clearly, bribing someone is over the top. But it doesn't seem like this legislation deals with the substance of the Variety Blue accusations. Attacking donors (I don't have a dog in this fight, unless the actually allow dogs into Cal) who contribute and get kids into schools? If this happens at UC schools, it is minimal at best. This is a private school issue. More likely there is more political pressure to get politically connected kids in (and if pushed I can provide examples). What a bunch of hypocrites. Go regulate the private schools where this actually happens.

---

Ideally it would've great to have a society where opportunity is totally equal. But I am not espousing this.
Nor am I espousing simple racial preferences. As we have seen Dre's daughter had some major advantages despite her race.
Instead admissions offices should be able to take into account the obstacles that the applicant overcame in getting to where they are.
From what I have heard Cal admissions tries to do this to some extent.

"Merit" can be measured in different ways.

---

For state schools, it can't, under current law, be defined by race. But I don't have a problem with merit being defined in different ways or for that matter essentially everything else you said. We do that whenever we go beyond strictly GPA and test score considerations. We often give preferences to many different types of students, such as athletes or those who showed leadership by say being their high school President. But the legislature seems to be saying your GPA is it unless you have a bunch of approvals (because we love more bureaucracy). Another piece of the legislation is no preference to children of DONORS OR ALUMS. That is you guys. So what they are saying Is your kids have to be reviewed separately to make sure there is no preference (whether you donate or not). Think an overworked admission officer wants to deal with that if your kid is even close to the border of being accepted? This isn't about racial preferences, this is about legislating a bias against your kids.

What also bothers me is the legislation eliminates considering the SAT and ACT for admittance, which might be a good idea in most other schools go along, but they won't. Essentially every school considers test scores in the admission process. Why? According to a UT-Austin study colleges are relying on standardized test scores even more when making admissions decisions than they have in past years. One reason is that the number of applications at most top colleges is soaring. That's because more kids are each applying to more colleges. And with little increase in the size of admission staffs at most colleges, schools are using SAT and ACT scores to make a fast, easy way to cut the applicant pool. And colleges want a large applicant pool. The larger the applicant pool, the lower the acceptance rate and the higher the ratings.

There are something like 10 "optional" test schools, some with good reps, almost all private schools. Sounds like these colleges being more humane and open minded, right? But the UT-Austin study says at private schools it is really often used for legacy of donor kids with bad test scores.. Also, unfortunately, for athletes, the athletic scholarship rules of most conferences require the colleges to report and use test scores. But mostly, the schools are chasing rankings. Think about it. When a school declares SAT scores optional, which students report their scores? Only students with high test scores, which means the school can report higher test scores for admits, which means higher ratings. Selling exclusivity. This doesn't even get into the "superscore" stuff that schools like SC pull, taking the highest of your test scores, no matter how many times you take the test.

Why would these schools give any of this up? Which gets to the consequences of not reporting test scores - sinking ratings. These stupid rating agencies rely on the test data in evaluating a school. Are they going to change their rating system because the CA legislature says no test scores? NO, there just going to screw the UC schools even more.

Now maybe some of you don't care what Cal is rated, but when the ratings come out and Cal is like number 20 or something behind some obviously lesser school, many of you guys scream blood murder. Also, I thing the faculty cares. The may espouse lofty equality goals, but that doesn't apply when it comes to academic ratings and having the best and brightest do their research. Think that won't impact faculty recruiting?

There are a lot of other things that I object, but all my objections go away if the privates have to play be the same rules. Otherwise, our wonderful legislators are shooting the UC schools, and their alums, in the foot.

While I doubt it, wonder if their accreditation will be pulled. When you get into major crimes, it seems a fair question.

Another Bear said:

---

While I doubt it, wonder if their accreditation will be pulled. When you get into major crimes, it seems a fair question.

---

I know this is not a serious comment.

America.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

While I doubt it, wonder if their accreditation will be pulled. When you get into major crimes, it seems a fair question.

---

I know this is not a serious comment.

America.

---

Actually it is a serious question. USF had trouble like 15-20 years ago. They were put on sanctions and threatened to have their accreditation pulled. But yes, that' was about academics, not the business/money end...and money always talks.

okaydo said:

---

---

To say it again, USC is really at a whole other level in this scandal. This isn't some rogue coach. This was systemic fraud. They had the AD's office involved in this for God's sake. If that isn't "lack of institutional control" I don't know what is and if the NCAA has any interest in enforcing its rules they'll go after them hard.

But again this scandal perfectly mirrors the USC ethos - every achievement and innovation is about generating money and everything is for sale. There is no ideal or belief they won't sacrifice and no overall guiding moral principle. Looks and appearance beat substance every time and all that matters is perception.

If the true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he would never be caught, then USC stands at about a millimeter.

wifeisafurd said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

I have often analogized Affirmative Action to a situation where two kids are trying to make a track team.

Runner A has had all the advantages a trainer, top of the line running shoes, a great training facility, a dietitian, top of the line running and training equipment and plenty of time to practice.

Runner B has a beat up pair of heavy Converse tennis shoes, practices along the side of a busy two lane asphalt highway, he has a part time job and can train only on off hours and has irregular meal times.

Runner A runs the mile 10 seconds faster than Runner B. Who is the better qualified runner.
BTW Runner B also has to run wearing a 30-pound back pack

---

There is some amazing irony in this. People who go to an elite school like Cal, have success and have the audacity to want their children to have success. Where do you draw the line? Everyone has to go to the same high school? No tutors? Not SAT study courses? There is inequality in every society. Clearly, bribing someone is over the top. But it doesn't seem like this legislation deals with the substance of the Variety Blue accusations. Attacking donors (I don't have a dog in this fight, unless the actually allow dogs into Cal) who contribute and get kids into schools? If this happens at UC schools, it is minimal at best. This is a private school issue. More likely there is more political pressure to get politically connected kids in (and if pushed I can provide examples). What a bunch of hypocrites. Go regulate the private schools where this actually happens.

---

Ideally it would've great to have a society where opportunity is totally equal. But I am not espousing this.
Nor am I espousing simple racial preferences. As we have seen Dre's daughter had some major advantages despite her race.
Instead admissions offices should be able to take into account the obstacles that the applicant overcame in getting to where they are.
From what I have heard Cal admissions tries to do this to some extent.

"Merit" can be measured in different ways.

---

For state schools, it can't, under current law, be defined by race. But I don't have a problem with merit being defined in different ways or for that matter essentially everything else you said. We do that whenever we go beyond strictly GPA and test score considerations. We often give preferences to many different types of students, such as athletes or those who showed leadership by say being their high school President. But the legislature seems to be saying your GPA is it unless you have a bunch of approvals (because we love more bureaucracy). Another piece of the legislation is no preference to children of DONORS OR ALUMS. That is you guys. So what they are saying Is your kids have to be reviewed separately to make sure there is no preference (whether you donate or not). Think an overworked admission officer wants to deal with that if your kid is even close to the border of being accepted? This isn't about racial preferences, this is about legislating a bias against your kids.

What also bothers me is the legislation eliminates considering the SAT and ACT for admittance, which might be a good idea in most other schools go along, but they won't. Essentially every school considers test scores in the admission process. Why? According to a UT-Austin study colleges are relying on standardized test scores even more when making admissions decisions than they have in past years. One reason is that the number of applications at most top colleges is soaring. That's because more kids are each applying to more colleges. And with little increase in the size of admission staffs at most colleges, schools are using SAT and ACT scores to make a fast, easy way to cut the applicant pool. And colleges want a large applicant pool. The larger the applicant pool, the lower the acceptance rate and the higher the ratings.

There are something like 10 "optional" test schools, some with good reps, almost all private schools. Sounds like these colleges being more humane and open minded, right? But the UT-Austin study says at private schools it is really often used for legacy of donor kids with bad test scores.. Also, unfortunately, for athletes, the athletic scholarship rules of most conferences require the colleges to report and use test scores. But mostly, the schools are chasing rankings. Think about it. When a school declares SAT scores optional, which students report their scores? Only students with high test scores, which means the school can report higher test scores for admits, which means higher ratings. Selling exclusivity. This doesn't even get into the "superscore" stuff that schools like SC pull, taking the highest of your test scores, no matter how many times you take the test.

Why would these schools give any of this up? Which gets to the consequences of not reporting test scores - sinking ratings. These stupid rating agencies rely on the test data in evaluating a school. Are they going to change their rating system because the CA legislature says no test scores? NO, there just going to screw the UC schools even more.

Now maybe some of you don't care what Cal is rated, but when the ratings come out and Cal is like number 20 or something behind some obviously lesser school, many of you guys scream blood murder. Also, I thing the faculty cares. The may espouse lofty equality goals, but that doesn't apply when it comes to academic ratings and having the best and brightest do their research. Think that won't impact faculty recruiting?

There are a lot of other things that I object, but all my objections go away if the privates have to play be the same rules. Otherwise, our wonderful legislators are shooting the UC schools, and their alums, in the foot.

---

UC schools will always lose ground on private schools because UCs are beholden to the whims if the legislature.

The other culprit is grade inflation. How do you delineate if everyone is getting 4.0s and everyone has high test scores.

The way high school should assess ability potential etc needs to be reworked so that there is distinction between Student X Y Z.

Testing helps somewhat, but you cannot get a true assessment of ability without delving deeper.

I've met plenty of grads, advanced degree people and PHDs from top public and private schools who great and school but were woefully uneducated in complex thought and cognitive processing.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

bearister said:

---

A wiretap brings privilege and helicopter parenting to the fore in the college admissions scandal

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-parents-admission-cheating-20190321-story.html

"But experts in parenting say the win-at-all-costs attitude can have a pernicious effect on a child. When they try to clear the way for their children's success, parents are essentially saying to their kids that they can't do it on their own, a stance that may block the path to successful adulthood."

..."When we do too much for our kids, and we tell them what to do every step of the way, they never build up a tolerance for frustration," she said. "The problem is that kids who can't be frustrated don't learn as well."

---

Yes the less obvious lesson the kids learn is: "you're not good enough".
But the more obvious and more direct lesson the learn is: "if you want sometng bad enough, it is not just OK but it is SMARTER to cheat to get it ".

---

This is the same rationalization the wealthy use when they evade taxes. Jail time should be imposed to set their ethics straight.

Why do YOU hate America?

Grigsby said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

I have often analogized Affirmative Action to a situation where two kids are trying to make a track team.

Runner A has had all the advantages a trainer, top of the line running shoes, a great training facility, a dietitian, top of the line running and training equipment and plenty of time to practice.

Runner B has a beat up pair of heavy Converse tennis shoes, practices along the side of a busy two lane asphalt highway, he has a part time job and can train only on off hours and has irregular meal times.

Runner A runs the mile 10 seconds faster than Runner B. Who is the better qualified runner.
BTW Runner B also has to run wearing a 30-pound back pack

---

There is some amazing irony in this. People who go to an elite school like Cal, have success and have the audacity to want their children to have success. Where do you draw the line? Everyone has to go to the same high school? No tutors? Not SAT study courses? There is inequality in every society. Clearly, bribing someone is over the top. But it doesn't seem like this legislation deals with the substance of the Variety Blue accusations. Attacking donors (I don't have a dog in this fight, unless the actually allow dogs into Cal) who contribute and get kids into schools? If this happens at UC schools, it is minimal at best. This is a private school issue. More likely there is more political pressure to get politically connected kids in (and if pushed I can provide examples). What a bunch of hypocrites. Go regulate the private schools where this actually happens.

---

Ideally it would've great to have a society where opportunity is totally equal. But I am not espousing this.
Nor am I espousing simple racial preferences. As we have seen Dre's daughter had some major advantages despite her race.
Instead admissions offices should be able to take into account the obstacles that the applicant overcame in getting to where they are.
From what I have heard Cal admissions tries to do this to some extent.

"Merit" can be measured in different ways.

---

For state schools, it can't, under current law, be defined by race. But I don't have a problem with merit being defined in different ways or for that matter essentially everything else you said. We do that whenever we go beyond strictly GPA and test score considerations. We often give preferences to many different types of students, such as athletes or those who showed leadership by say being their high school President. But the legislature seems to be saying your GPA is it unless you have a bunch of approvals (because we love more bureaucracy). Another piece of the legislation is no preference to children of DONORS OR ALUMS. That is you guys. So what they are saying Is your kids have to be reviewed separately to make sure there is no preference (whether you donate or not). Think an overworked admission officer wants to deal with that if your kid is even close to the border of being accepted? This isn't about racial preferences, this is about legislating a bias against your kids.

What also bothers me is the legislation eliminates considering the SAT and ACT for admittance, which might be a good idea in most other schools go along, but they won't. Essentially every school considers test scores in the admission process. Why? According to a UT-Austin study colleges are relying on standardized test scores even more when making admissions decisions than they have in past years. One reason is that the number of applications at most top colleges is soaring. That's because more kids are each applying to more colleges. And with little increase in the size of admission staffs at most colleges, schools are using SAT and ACT scores to make a fast, easy way to cut the applicant pool. And colleges want a large applicant pool. The larger the applicant pool, the lower the acceptance rate and the higher the ratings.

There are something like 10 "optional" test schools, some with good reps, almost all private schools. Sounds like these colleges being more humane and open minded, right? But the UT-Austin study says at private schools it is really often used for legacy of donor kids with bad test scores.. Also, unfortunately, for athletes, the athletic scholarship rules of most conferences require the colleges to report and use test scores. But mostly, the schools are chasing rankings. Think about it. When a school declares SAT scores optional, which students report their scores? Only students with high test scores, which means the school can report higher test scores for admits, which means higher ratings. Selling exclusivity. This doesn't even get into the "superscore" stuff that schools like SC pull, taking the highest of your test scores, no matter how many times you take the test.

Why would these schools give any of this up? Which gets to the consequences of not reporting test scores - sinking ratings. These stupid rating agencies rely on the test data in evaluating a school. Are they going to change their rating system because the CA legislature says no test scores? NO, there just going to screw the UC schools even more.

Now maybe some of you don't care what Cal is rated, but when the ratings come out and Cal is like number 20 or something behind some obviously lesser school, many of you guys scream blood murder. Also, I thing the faculty cares. The may espouse lofty equality goals, but that doesn't apply when it comes to academic ratings and having the best and brightest do their research. Think that won't impact faculty recruiting?

There are a lot of other things that I object, but all my objections go away if the privates have to play be the same rules. Otherwise, our wonderful legislators are shooting the UC schools, and their alums, in the foot.

---

UC schools will always lose ground on private schools because UCs are beholden to the whims if the legislature.

The other culprit is grade inflation. How do you delineate if everyone is getting 4.0s and everyone has high test scores.

The way high school should assess ability potential etc needs to be reworked so that there is distinction between Student X Y Z.

Testing helps somewhat, but you cannot get a true assessment of ability without delving deeper.

I've met plenty of grads, advanced degree people and PHDs from top public and private schools who great and school but were woefully uneducated in complex thought and cognitive processing.

---

"How do you dileneate if everyone is getting 4.0s?"

Easy take the grade inflation over the years out of the equation. Most all students have 7-8+ AP or Honors classes in their resumes' if they are applying to the best colleges. Take their scoring on the AP tests for each course in May and use those to separate the wheat from the chaff. I know of many 4.0s who got 3s (out of 5)or less across the board. Takes the parents and teachers out of it and puts it on a standardized test. And yes make it hard so the curve is not 90%. Right now, those who have children who have gone through AP courses, the work load is tremendous and the year end testing difficult.

In dental school years ago, with 75 excellent students, we early on had a dental materials test where the average was 80 out of 150. One student got 147, and a lot trailed by a bunch. It can be done.