• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

What should differentiate a high school hopeful wearing a UCLA sweatshirt from an accepted UCLA student? The answer should be obvious: a competitive minimum competency and a highly visible determination for success.

In UCLA’s oft-disputed admissions process, too much weight has been put on factors such as grades, test scores and personal achievements, without enough concern for student motivation. Comprehensive review as it currently works, is not enough to take this crucial factor into account.

The entire concept of the admissions process was designed in order to ensure a student body which would be “successful” in college and in life. But, the current admissions criteria falls short in being able to choose students who really add to the life of the campus.

The common factor the most successful UCLA students share is their determination to better themselves and the environment around them.

A will to succeed is the all-encompassing general attribute which will make up for other deficiencies of a potential student.

Of course GPA and class rank are important, but to what degree is it useful in determining which students are more qualified than others? Does anyone believe that his or her high school GPA means anything at this particular institution? Keep in mind that every year, there are enough applicants to fill the freshman class with 4.0 students more than four times over.

The SATs are similarly flawed. The difference between a 1600 and the UCLA average of 1332 may be significant, but is likely the result of inane memorization and hours at SAT training centers. At a certain point, the numbers cease to be useful in their relation to students’ natural aptitude, instead being a measure on a prepared performance test. At least this much is clear – as UCLA has stated, “SAT I scores are the least predictive of first-year success at the UC’s undergraduate campuses.”

Academic qualifications should only be used as minimum requirements to attend UCLA. Beyond that, applicants are too similar to delineate in a meaningful manner. Furthermore, it is hard to see how an actual difference in natural intelligence as measured by half a GPA point would be relevant to success in a university environment. Extreme “intelligence” or the crude version of it gauged by GPA and SATs has never been shown to be a common characteristic of successful students.

The difference will be that the motivated student will go to class, seek out extra help in seldom-used office hours, and perform beyond the normal call of duty.

In some respects, the UCs – and especially UCLA – have done a good job in considering admissions factors other than academics. While their policies are criticized, their results can only be commended. As the regents have stated, no students admitted with comparatively lower scores “are facing any more academic problems than any of their counterparts.”

Comprehensive review is working but it must be expanded to incorporate motivation and allowed to carry far greater weight if UCLA wants a truly qualified and diverse student body.

Moon is a second-year psychology student. E-mail him at jmoon@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.