As regulars know, I’ve written about holistic review a few times. In this post from last year, I told you that the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) adopted a holistic review admissions process. I made the simple and obvious point that holistic review, if used consistently across all races, would increase the number of white and Asian students, not black and hispanic, as intended.

Last month, I reported that UCLA indeed had admitted more black and hispanic students under holistic review. I opined that the whole thing was a sham, a thinly veiled disguise for race preferences, which are illegal in the state (so say 54 percent of the voters.) If the school holistically reviewed all applicants, without regard to race, and academics were “given the greatest weight,” how in the world did the school end up with more blacks and hispanics? Did high achievers suddenly emerge when they learned about the new process?

Of course not.

It was just as I expected. Scores for holistically admitted black and hispanics students were significantly lower than holistically admitted whites and Asians. From The Daily Bruin (emphases added):

And while the number of underrepresented minorities admitted did increase overall, there is still a significant gap between the SAT scores and high school GPAs of black and Latino students compared to white and Asian students…In fall 2006, before UCLA switched to holistic admissions, black and Latino applicants’ average SAT scores were 255 and 246 points lower than the average for their white and Asian counterparts.

That gap seemed largely unaffected by holistic review – in fall 2007, black applicants’ SAT scores were on average 293 points lower than those of white and Asian students, and Latino applicants’ scores came up 249 points short.

You don’t have to be particularly smart to see what’s going on. Under holistic review, a politically correct label for race preferences, reviewers are putting more weight on black and hispanic applicants’ skin color (against the law), so-called leadership skills, hard-luck stories, and other “non-academic” factors than they do for white and Asian applicants. Because the scores and grades of whites and Asians are perennially higher than blacks and hispanics, reviewers are virtually forced to de-emphasize hard numbers and overemphasize non-academic qualities.

That’s contradictory to the school’s claim. “Academic achievement still will be given the greatest weight. But added emphasis will be placed on the school context and the resources available to the student.”

If academic achievement had been given the greatest weight, which I don’t believe it was for blacks and hispanics, there’d be fewer blacks and hispanics admitted for that admissions cycle, not more, and the score gap between admittees would be narrower, not wider. In a previous post, I argued that since more whites and Asians apply to UCLA than blacks and hispanics, there’d be more whites and Asians admitted under the lowered standard. Again, assuming white and Asian applicants were subject to holistic review to the same extent (if at all) as blacks and hispanics.

The worst thing about PC BS is the way bureaucrats have to engage in double-talk. Anyone of reasonable intelligence knows what’s going on, so who, exactly, is buying this holistic crap?

Here’s something only an idiot would come up with: Because blacks and hispanics have less access to Advanced Placement classes, good schools, and SAT prep classes, they should be admitted to selective colleges and universities for which they’re underqualified and face a rigorous curriculum for which they are woefully unprepared, all in the name of diversity and “social justice.” Meanwhile, you’ve got a score gap you could drive a Humvee through, but the disparity and mismatch give students “a true college experience … where they’re learning from each other.”

Does that make sense? Of course it doesn’t. In order for PC BS to “work,” we’re not supposed to look at evidence, ask questions, and expect sound and reasoned responses. That complicates things. On the one hand, we’re supposed to pretend the academic achievement gap means nothing, while on the other hand accept the caused-by-racism explanation for why it exists in the first place.

You know, it wouldn’t be the worse thing in the world to match students to colleges and universities according to their abilities. And the sky certainly wouldn’t fall if so-called selective schools ended up with far fewer blacks and hispanics. Where did people get the idea that black and brown faces must be present on a campus at all costs, especially when those costs are borne by the students themselves, as proven by lower achievement and lower graduation rates?

Again, we’re not to supposed to ask questions, so nevermind.