Advertisement

Academic Merit versus Fair Representation

A Case Study of the Undergraduate Admissions Policy at the University of California at Berkeley
  • Angela Browne-Miller
Part of the Environment, Development, and Public Policy book series (EDPP)

Abstract

For a university to set as its goals the maintaining of “highest academic standards” and the continuing of a “tradition of service to the public” is highly laudable. It is also quite ambitious in an era in which these goals emerge in apparent opposition. For example, in California, as in some other parts of the country, the cultural diversity of the general public is increasing more rapidly than is the cultural diversity of the pool of what are, by traditional standards, high academic achievers (Figure 5.1). Confronted with different rates in the progress of these trends, authors of higher education admissions policy enter a territory where trade-offs, compro- mises, and redefined priorities are increasingly deemed essential.

Keywords

Grade Point Average Master Plan Mental Ability Admission Policy Admission Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Academic Senate, Berkeley (1989).Freshman Admissions at Berkeley: A Policy for the 1990s and Beyond (The Karabel Report, a report by the Committee on Admissions and Enrollment, Berkeley Division, with Professor Jerome Karabel as chair, Berkeley, CA: U.C. Berkeley, p. 15.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Ibid., pp. 15–16.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goodlad, J. (1984).A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 148–149.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ogbu, J. U. (1978).Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross- Cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press, pp. 355–370.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Second game: A school’s eye view of intelligence. In Langer, J. A. (Ed.),Language, Literacy and Culture: Issues of Society and Schooling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, p. 280.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jensen, A. (1972). Assessment of racial desegregation in the Berkeley schools. In Adelson, D. (Ed.),Man as the Measure: The Crossroads (Community Psychology Series, American Psychological Association, Division 27). New York: Behavioral Publications.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacobs, P. (1980).The Economics of Health and Medical Care. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press, pp. 90–91.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ogbu (1978), op. cit., p. 358.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodlad (1984), op. cit., p. 130.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lightfoot, S. L. (1978).Worlds Apart: Relationships between Families and Schools. New York: Basic Books, p. 4.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Labov, W. (1982). Competing value systems in the inner-city schools. In Gilmore, P. and Glathorn, A. A. (Eds.),Children in and out of School. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, p. 149.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heath, S. B. (1983).Ways with Words. New York: Cambridge University Press. See also Sternberg, R. J. (1987), op. cit.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sternberg, R. J. (1987), op. cit., pp. 38–40.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lightfoot (1978), op. cit., p. 176.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Estes, C. L. (1981). The social construction of reality: A framework for inquiry. InThe Aging Enterprise. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, p. 2.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stromquist, N. P. (1989). Determinants of educational participation and achievement of women in the third world: A review of the evidence and a theoretical critique. Review of Educational Research, 59:2, pp. 143–183.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibid., pp. 143–144.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ibid., p. 152.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghosh, R. (1986). Women’s education in the land of Goddess Saraswati.Canadian and International Education, 15:1, pp. 25–44.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stromquist (1989), op. cit., p. 153.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seetharamu, A. S. and Ushadevi, M. D. (1985).Education in Rural Areas. New Delhi, India: Ashish Publishing House.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Opportunity structure, cultural boundaries, and literacy. In Langer, J. A. (Ed.),Language, Literacy and Culture: Issues of Society and Schooling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, p. 165.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schiefelbein, E. and Farrell, J. (1980). Women, schooling, and work in Chile: Evidence from a longitudinal study.Comparative Education Review, 24:2, pp. 160– 179; based on categorization by Levin, H. (1976). Educational opportunity and social inequality in Western Europe.Social Problems, 24, pp. 148–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sternberg (1987), op. cit., p. 47.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sternberg (1987), op. cit., p. 47.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brown, A., Bransford, J., Ferrara, R., and Campione, R. (1983). Learning, remem- bering and understanding. In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.),Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley, pp. 106–129.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., p. 122.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ibid, and Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in Society: The Development of the Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    This concurs with Immanuel Kant’s argument that the content of knowledge comes a posteriori from sensory perception but that its form is determined by a priori categories in the mind. Kant, I. (1960). Selections from the critique of pure reason (abridged). InThe European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche. New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Newton, E. (1950).The Meaning of Beauty. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 10.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nelson, G. (1973).How to See (U.S. DHEW Publication No. 73–10063; SSA). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 15.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boas, F. (1939).The Primitive Mind of Man. New York: The Free Press, p. 199.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wiener, N. (1948). The great ravelled knot.Scientific American, 179:5, p. 17.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bloom, A. (1987).The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster, p. 26.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 191–192.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ibid., pp. 193–194.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Labov, op. cit., pp. 168–169.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ibid., p. 169.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ibid., p. 169.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rebell, M. A. (1989). Testing, public policy and the courts. In Gifford, B. R. (Ed.), Test Policy and the Politics of the Workplace and the Law. A publication sponsored by the National Commission on Testing and Public Policy. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 151.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Simon, H. (1980). Problem solving and education. In Turner, D. and Reif, E (Eds.), Problem Solving and Education: Issues in Teaching and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, p. 81.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
  45. 45.
    Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., and de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In Rogoff, B. and Lave, J. (Eds.),Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 67–94.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Brown, A. L. (1982). Learning and development: The problems of compatibility, access and induction.Human Development, 25:1, p. 95. See alsoGoogle Scholar
  47. 46a.
    Brown, A. L. (1979). The development of memory: Knowing, knowing about knowing, and knowing how to know. In R. Reese (Ed.),Advances in Child Development and Behavior (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press; andGoogle Scholar
  48. 46b.
    Brown, A. L. (1979). The zone of proximal development: Implication for intelligence testing in the year 2000.Intel- ligence, 3, pp. 255–277.Google Scholar
  49. 47.
    Brown (1982), op. cit., pp. 90–115.Google Scholar
  50. 48.
    Ibid., p. 103.Google Scholar
  51. 49.
    Ibid., p. 108.Google Scholar
  52. 50.
  53. 51.
  54. 52.
  55. 53.
  56. 54.
    Campione, J. C. and Brown, A. L. (1978). Towards a theory of intelligence: Contributions from research with retarded children.Intelligence, 2, pp. 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 55.
    Wong, B. (1989). Musing about cognitive strategy training.Intelligence, 13, pp. 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 56.
    Brown et al., op. cit., pp. 106–108.Google Scholar
  59. 57.
    Ibid., pp. 106–120.Google Scholar
  60. 58.
    Barkowski, J. and Milstead, M. (1984).Components of Children’s Metamemory: Implications for Strategy Generalization. Munich, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research, p. 14.Google Scholar
  61. 59.
  62. 60.
    Ibid., p. 16.Google Scholar
  63. 61.
    Bowles, S. and Nelson, V. I. (1974). The inheritance of I.Q. and the intergenerational reproduction of economic inequality.The Review of Economics and Statistics. 56:39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 62.
    Herrnstein, R. J. (1973).I.Q. in the Meritocracy. Boston: Little, Brown, p. 5.Google Scholar
  65. 63.
    Wilson, R. S. (1983). The Louisville twin study: Developmental synchronies in behavior.Child Development, 54, pp. 298–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 64.
    Piaget, J. (1978).The Psychology of Intelligence Testing. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield Adams.Google Scholar
  67. 65.
  68. 66.
    Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  69. 67.
    Chapman, P. (1988).Schools as Sorters. New York: New York University Press, p. 19.Google Scholar
  70. 68.
    Ibid.; and Spearman, C. (1923).The Nature of “Intelligence.” London, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  71. 69.
    Thurstone, L. (1938). Primary mental abilities.Psychometric Monographs (No. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  72. 70.
    Cattell, R. B. (1987). Fluid and crystallized intelligence. InIntelligence: Its Struc- ture, Growth and Action. New York: NHC, p. 97.Google Scholar
  73. 71.
  74. 72.
    Plonim, R., DeFries, J., McLearn, G. (1990).Behavioral Genetics: A Primer. New York: Freeman; see p. 340, for example.Google Scholar
  75. 73.
    Eells et al. (1951).Children and Cultural Differences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 58.Google Scholar
  76. 74.
    Jensen, A. (1980).Bias in Mental Testing. New York: The Free Press, pp. 368–369.Google Scholar
  77. 75.
    Gardner, H. (1983).Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  78. 76.
    Gifford, B. R. (1989). Introduction. In Gifford, B. R. (Ed.),Testing Policy and Test Performance: Education, Language and Culture. Boston: Kluwer Academic Pub- lishers, p. ix.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 77.
    Herrnstein (1971), op. cit., p. 198.Google Scholar
  80. 78.
    Ibid., pp. 189, 198.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela Browne-Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations