Day 84

* woke up at 2:34am, 6:30am
* o系amazon prime deal day 買左個baby monitor， 連simon都笑我，其實屋企咁細， 點會聽唔到bb 喊。我仲開埋monitor 個speaker， 佢gei 喊聲係環迴立體聲，應該會退ga la， 我仲同simon講，如果我地住大屋， 咪要lor
* 其實jasper 真係要訓早d， like 8ish， 咁我夜晚就可以做多d 野

Day 82

saved

又寫了

因為想記錄jasper 成長經過，我又想再寫日記

會last 得耐嗎？ 我唔知道，畢竟以後返工會好忙

加油！

佛教黃允畋中學校長 歸園「畋」居 活在當下

2013年8月26日(星期一) 信報 佛教黃允畋中學校長 歸園「畋」居 活在當下

中學的時光總是難忘的，那是由小學雞變成熱血青年的重要階段，也是告別無憂無慮的日子，首次體會到殘酷競爭的階段。去年八萬多DSE（中學文憑試）考生爭奪一萬多的大學學額，banding低的學生要圓大學夢更渺茫了。 佛教黃允畋中學校長郭耀豐希望師生們懂得活在當下，在中學時建立目標，培養好的人生態度，為自己尋找踏腳石，而大學僅僅是其中之一。「人生路上，事無大小都踏實去做，放下過去，放眼將來，自然會有愜意的人生。」這只是郭校長其中一個人生格言。 三十年前，郭校長來黃允畋中學面試前，在舊校當了三年主任，時任校長劉顯奇問：「進來升職的機會不大。」郭校長回答：「主任的職位是教育過程的必然報酬，但教育才是我的使命，是一生一世的。」一晃眼三十年過去，郭校長今年五十九歲，明年就要退休了，「那只是崗位上的退休，我將繼續教育的事情。」 十年前成為學校的第二任校長，2006至07年度學年推行教育改革，改行三三四學制，郭校長頗支持改革，但覺得第三組別的學校最重要的是，讓同學們學會規劃自己的未來。 「我們中一至中三已經教他們建立目標，培養良好的人生態度，讓他們明白自己是未來社會的人才，中四就知道該走那條路。」 「我總跟學生說規劃不是單一的，有很多不同的選擇，一定要給自己找踏腳石，不能直接上大學就讀基礎文憑，繞一圈也能上大學，問題是你願不願意踏上去而已。去年，我們有四十多位學生讀基礎文憑、副學士，九位上本地大學，七八位上內地大學。我要他們明白社會不同了，將來一定要不斷進修。」 為學生找踏足點 郭校長承認學校或培養不出狀元來，但進入社會的學生都是見得人的。上周六訪問時剛好是中一迎新日，「我跟他們說過去的事情，你們不能要回來，未來的你也能規劃，但最重要是活在當下。我對老師也這麼說，不要告訴我你過去多威風，不要告訴我有什麼宏願，有什麼理想請在這裏實踐。其實只要每個人活好每一天，其實就很好了。我為社會帶來更多正能量，如果我踩低自己的學生，不肯定他們，社會會很麻煩。」郭校長說。 在郭校長眼裏每位學生都有亮光點和加強點，學校和老師的責任就是發揮亮光點，改善學生的加強點。 「我跟老師說一定要相信學生是可以改變的，如果沒有這個心，就不可能做到任何東西。有的老師會說：這幾個小孩怎麼突然轉性，無端端交齊功課？衰仔平時那麼頑皮。其實我知道他們心裏是甜甜的。」 學校大多收成績較差的學生，郭校長想起第一年當校長遇上幾位大阿哥。「他們來自區內同一小學，打爛燈掣、粗口罵老師的都有。最好笑是第一天開車出去，在路口看到其中一位抽煙，翌日集會我四處找人，他第一個站出來自首。他說我從小學就抽煙，我說那是小學的事情，你進來就是新生，你也想自己開心，你不戒掉，它拿走你的身體和錢，很傻！」 「我後來跟校工說要擴大義工團隊，讓全校都是義工，校外探訪老人院，校內做班長、聖約翰救傷隊等，通通計算服務時數。他們以前沒有自信，找不到落腳點，不知道自己也能幫別人。他們做得很開心，其中一位姓李的同學，累積了一千小時，後來班主任還讓他當班長，說他一定能收齊班費。後來他不想破壞班長形象，粗口少說了，脾氣也小了。」 義工服務改變學生 李同學中五畢業時拿到社會服務署的金獎，會考拿到一分去讀中專學校。「後來竟然有法國環保公司請他，老闆問有什麼理由要請他，他拿出義工的資料說：『第一我肯為別人服務；第二我很真誠，生氣就生氣，開心就開心，但我很少發脾氣啦！』後來公司要他讀IVE課程，合格則公司給錢，不合格要自費。後來我們相遇，他說一定要在學校裏拿到獎狀送給我。」 兩個月前，李同學影印了獎狀送給郭校長，還親手設計了一個表框。「打爛燈掣那位呢？後來說小學時代有事情就怨他，才打牆發洩，又是義工服務改變他；他最想做警察維護法紀，可惜他身體有毛病當不了，不過我很開心。那位抽煙的學生現在跟人家一起開餐廳。」 看到學生的上進，讓郭校長很滿足，老師也更有工作動力，「所以不只是老師用生命影響學生的生命，學生的生命也能影響老師，是立體的。」 郭校長稱黃允畋學校是「畋園是我家」，「老師六點出門口，有的做到晚上八九點下班，如果學校沒有家的感覺，會很痛苦的。」 教員室的設計也很特別，每位老師都有自己的間隔空間，每個位子都布置得很生活化，有的主題是海洋，有的放滿高達模型或毛公仔，儼如商場裏的小商店。學生看到老師的桌子，肯定更把老師當朋友。 每年三月第一個禮拜六是學校的校友日，讓校友重返母校與老師話舊，「我在這裏三十年了，有的學生都帶着自己的孩子回來，最高紀錄有五六百人，每層樓都擠滿人，還會播放當年的片段，很熱鬧。第一年教的學生快五十歲了，我有時跟年輕的老師說學生比你還老。他們回到以前的課室，有頑皮仔還叫我郭Sir：來，講堂課來聽聽。哈哈！」 郭校長還是很有膊頭的「領導人」，當老師擔心某些課外活動需要很多錢，他會說：「錢的事情我去找，只要把錢花在學生上就好，你只管教好學生，其他的事情我想辦法。」該校今年第二次奪得教育局和青年學會合辦的創意思維比賽冠軍，有機會去美國參加世界賽，「老師說出去比賽要十多萬，行嗎？我說你不要想這些問題，最後我們拿到全世界的第五名！我不希望學生因錢的問題，錯過一些體驗的機會。」 積極推動課外活動 今年學校也參加九龍倉的起動計劃（Project WeCan），學校的合作夥伴是有線電視。「我當時跟九倉說：我們都經歷過中學生活，人生只有一次機會。如何讓經歷變得豐富，讓學生裝備好，更有自信？」郭校長把計劃的資助放在提升學生的英文能力，以及幫助學習能力較差的學生。 郭校長希望同學更積極參與課外活動，於是半學期調整一次活動，希望參與的同學和老師能發燒地玩，難怪他們的中國舞、校園電視台、街舞等都很成功。 「我跟老師說失敗乃成功之母已經out了，要說成功是建築在成功之上，每一個小小的成功都能讓學生有更豐盛的人生。」 郭校長有很多格言和管理智慧，比如法理情和三角領導的概念。 「處理任何事情，都要考慮三個角度：情理法。單看情不行，只看法則會硬梆梆。學生哀求我們給機會，這個就是情，但我罰你是應該的，這是法，但之後我也會給你講理。」記者問情理法有沒有先後次序，郭校長頓一頓說：「沒有，要看個別情況，只能說因應不同事件，三者的比例不同而已。」 「掌握好的話，每件事就能處理得好。比如最近有一位學生過身了，是骨癌。他讀了兩年中四，由於出席率不足必須留班，後來要求升讀中五，同學也很照顧他。我說沒有問題，在這種特別例子就不用考慮法例。我教自己的兒子也這麼教，做任何決定都要考慮這三個角度。」 校長的三角關係 說畢，他拿起筆在記者的筆記本上畫一個正三角形和倒三角形，「校長在考慮發展和資源分配時，位置應該在尖頂上，那樣才能看得遠，能照顧學校不同的部分。不過當學校出了事情，校長就是倒三角形下面那點，要一個人挑起所有責任，校長一定不能絲毫推卸責任。把這兩個三角合起來，你看看是什麼？……星星！這就是校長的角色。」 郭校長1979 年畢業於中大，還是學生會的會長，閣員包括一些現任政府的官員和政黨主將。不過，他選擇了透過教育服務社會，「我自己的定位是管好一家學校，這就是我畢生的理想。我跟老師說理想不用太大，一生一世做好本份，那樣貢獻就很大。一個國家只有一個總統，管好學生影響力不大嗎？會不如政黨嗎？」 「有老師說有的家長很麻煩，我說麻煩的讓我去處理，他們已經活了四五十歲，要改變很難，我們何不把家長的範圍擴大？你們看不到現在就有一千多位未來家長嗎？這就是你們要改變的，六十多位老師教好一千多學生，將來就有一千多位好的家長，千萬不要小看自己。我們學校很少掛橫額，這些學生和家長就是我們的橫額。」 郭老師不愧是服務三十載的教育人士，他這番話是給教育同仁的最佳鼓舞，千萬不要小看自己的社會角色和重責。 穿短褲的校長 郭校長是喜歡笑的校長，對老師和學生都體貼，「校長不用板起臉，那個職位已經給了你權威，讓自己親切一點吧！」他每個月都會寫校長家書，分別給老師、學生、家長、舊生。 老師生日那天桌上都會有張卡和即食燕窩，那是他做副校長時開始的，一開始老師不知道是誰，後來才知道是校長的心意。有人戲稱校長錢真很多，他卻說：「人需要的東西不多，最花錢的是你想要的東西。不過，我太太總說我不善理財。哈哈！」 校長室門後掛着他和太太的合照，那是最不矚目的位置，座位面向的牆壁掛滿獎狀，還有李同學的黑白獎狀。郭校長對師生的慈悲來自父母的身教，他小學住油塘，後來在慈雲山的屋邨一直住到大學畢業。「就是慈雲山十三太保那裏。」他說。 「五兄弟姐妹，兩個姐姐，與爸媽擠在兩百呎的家裏。我爸爸小學畢業，媽媽小一畢業幾近文盲。我從他們身上學到很多東西，我爸爸很勤奮、很節儉，但相信一個人要不斷追求知識。我弟弟也是大學畢業，妹妹也是中學畢業，那個年代不容易了。」 深受父母影響 爸爸年輕時是清道夫，我和妹妹課餘幫人家倒豬餿，「後來爸爸覺得這樣下去不行，到我小六時候，他跟人家合資開屋邨小酒樓。」就這樣，家庭的情況有改善，郭校長也考入中文大學，畢業後投身教育，這對於重視教育的父親來 ，肯定倍感安慰。 「媽媽很慈祥，心地又好，總想着別人的好。所以我總在學校說，為何重視義工活動？就是希望他們學會回饋社會，人生必須有部分時間是服務社會的，就算離開了學校，有機會也要幫忙別人，這是從媽媽那學來的。」 基層的出身也令郭校長更加與眾不同，「有一回周末，我穿着短褲在旺角走過，突然聽到有人大喊：校長！那次我去附近作運動，當然是穿短褲啦！每次家教會旅行，我都帶太太和兒女出席，現在兒女大了不想去，但我太太仍然陪我一起參加。」 然而，他也有嚴厲的時候，比如遇上不負責任的老師，「我要他們想當初為何進這行。有孩子的，我問他們如果你的孩子遇到這樣的老師，你會怎麼想？」 很多人誤解了活在當下的意思，覺得要Hea對眼前事，不要那麼執着，其實意思是放下過去，好好把握這一刻。 撰文︰吳雄 攝影︰郭錫榮 部分圖片由受訪者提供

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57592028/7-college-application-mistakes-to-avoid/?fb_action_ids=10102340278654623&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=fbrecT&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210102340278654623%22%3A558912600835690%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210102340278654623%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=%7B%2210102340278654623%22%3A%22fbrecT%22%7D

7 college application mistakes to avoid

• Comment
  /
• Shares/
• Tweets/
• Stumble/
• Email
• More +

(MoneyWatch) The college application season has officially begun. 

The newest version of the Common Application, which more than 500 mostly private colleges and universities use, is now available to high school students who are eager to get a jump-start on their applications. Whether teenagers begin now or wait till the fall, it's important that they make an excellent impression with their applications. It's all too easy, however, to make mistakes. 

With that in mind, here are seven application mistakes that the California Institute of Technology advised teenagers attending its summer academic camp to avoid.

1. Leaving any section of the application blank

Failing to provide information about why the applicant wants to attend a particular school paints him or her in a negative light. An applicant claims to be interested in the school, but has nothing to show for it. 

• Study: best students travel the farthest for collegee
• 11 ways to fix what ails colleges
• What's wrong with America's dream colleges?

2. Not sharing activity details

Teenagers need to share details about their activities. For instance, don't assume that an admission rep will know what being president of the math team entails. A math team president could share that he led daily practices and facilitated local and regional competitions. The more detailed the description, the more useful the information.

3. Expecting your stats to do all the talking

Applicants shouldn't assume that a school will be eager to accept them because they have great standardized test scores, grade point average and class rank. Beyond academic profiles, colleges want students who will become a part of the community. 

Here is what Caltech says on this point:

Applicants should take special care to address how they will take advantage of the college's resources to develop themselves both in the classroom and in the community.... Admissions committees cannot derive your potential community impact from GPAs or class ranks, so applicants must make cases for themselves as people as well as students.

4. Submitting application materials under more than one name 

Only use your legal name when completing a college application, and instruct your counselor and teachers to do the same. By using variations of a legal name, your materials might be filed in different places. 

5. Asking unfamiliar teachers to write recommendation letters

Teenagers should only ask teachers who know them well enough to write about their specific abilities. The more a teacher knows and respects a student, the better the letter is likely to be. What's important is for the teacher to be specific about what he or she likes about the students. Details, details, details. 

Students should also give teachers plenty of advance notice about the recommendation request.

6. Submitting late application materials, or failing to submit them at all

Applicants won't be considered a good admission candidate until a school has all the necessary paperwork. The documents typically include: 

- College application
- Application fee or waiver
- Supplemental application (if applicable)
- Letters of recommendation
- Secondary school report
- Official college transcript (if applicable)
- Official SAT/ACT scores
- SAT subject test results (if applicable)

7. Writing a short or hastily written supplemental essay

Students applying for schools using the Common Application will typically have to complete secondary essays that might include answering some variation of this question: Why are you applying to this school? They need to provide well thought out answers. 

These essays also provide applicants with an opportunity to share more information about their extracurricular activities and their passions.

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.

Confessions of an Application Reader

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/lifting-the-veil-on-the-holistic-process-at-the-university-of-california-berkeley.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

A HIGHLY qualified student, with a 3.95 unweighted grade point average and 2300 on the SAT, was not among the top-ranked engineering applicants to the University of California, Berkeley. He had perfect 800s on his subject tests in math and chemistry, a score of 5 on five Advanced Placement exams, musical talent and, in one of two personal statements, had written a loving tribute to his parents, who had emigrated from India.

comprehensive, review, an admissions policy adopted by most selective colleges and universities. In holistic review, institutions look beyond grades and scores to determine academic potential, drive and leadership abilities. Apparently, our Indian-American student needed more extracurricular activities and engineering awards to be ranked a 1.

Now consider a second engineering applicant, a Mexican-American student with a moving, well-written essay but a 3.4 G.P.A. and SATs below 1800. His school offered no A.P. He competed in track when not at his after-school job, working the fields with his parents. His score? 2.5.

Both students were among “typical” applicants used as norms to train application readers like myself. And their different credentials yet remarkably close rankings illustrate the challenges, the ambiguities and the agenda of admissions at a major public research university in a post-affirmative-action world.

WHILE teaching ethics at the University of San Francisco, I signed on as an “external reader” at Berkeley for the fall 2011 admissions cycle. I was one of about 70 outside readers — some high school counselors, some private admissions consultants — who helped rank the nearly 53,000 applications that year, giving each about eight minutes of attention. An applicant scoring a 4 or 5 was probably going to be disappointed; a 3 might be deferred to a January entry; students with a 1, 2 or 2.5 went to the top of the pile, but that didn’t mean they were in. Berkeley might accept 21 percent of freshman applicants over all but only 12 percent in engineering.

My job was to help sort the pool.

We were to assess each piece of information — grades, courses, standardized test scores, activities, leadership potential and character — in an additive fashion, looking for ways to advance the student to the next level, as opposed to counting any factor as a negative.

External readers are only the first read. Every one of our applications was scored by an experienced lead reader before being passed on to an inner committee of admissions officers for the selection phase. My new position required two days of intensive training at the Berkeley Alumni House as well as eight three-hour norming sessions. There, we practiced ranking under the supervision of lead readers and admissions officers to ensure our decisions conformed to the criteria outlined by the admissions office, with the intent of giving applicants as close to equal treatment as possible.

The process, however, turned out very differently.

In principle, a broader examination of candidates is a great idea; some might say it is an ethical imperative to look at the “bigger picture” of an applicant’s life, as our mission was described. Considering the bigger picture has aided Berkeley’s pursuit of diversity afterProposition 209, which in 1996 amended California’s constitution to prohibit consideration of race, ethnicity or gender in admissions to public institutions. In Fisher v. the University of Texas, the Supreme Court, too, endorsed race-neutral processes aimed at promoting educational diversity and, on throwing the case back to lower courts, challenged public institutions to justify race as a factor in the holistic process.

In practice, holistic admissions raises many questions about who gets selected, how and why.

I could see the fundamental unevenness in this process both in the norming Webinars and when alone in a dark room at home with my Berkeley-issued netbook, reading assigned applications away from enormously curious family members. First and foremost, the process is confusingly subjective, despite all the objective criteria I was trained to examine.

In norming sessions, I remember how lead readers would raise a candidate’s ranking because he or she “helped build the class.” I never quite grasped how to build a class of freshmen from California — the priority, it was explained in the first day’s pep talk — while seeming to prize the high-paying out-of-state students who are so attractive during times of a growing budget gap. (A special team handled international applications.)

In one norming session, puzzled readers questioned why a student who resembled a throng of applicants and had only a 3.5 G.P.A. should rank so highly. Could it be because he was a nonresident and had wealthy parents? (He had taken one of the expensive volunteer trips to Africa that we were told should not impress us.)

Income, an optional item on the application, would appear on the very first screen we saw, along with applicant name, address and family information. We also saw the high school’s state performance ranking. All this can be revealing.

Admissions officials were careful not to mention gender, ethnicity and race during our training sessions. Norming examples were our guide.

Privately, I asked an officer point-blank: “What are we doing about race?”

She nodded sympathetically at my confusion but warned that it would be illegal to consider: we’re looking at — again, that phrase — the “bigger picture” of the applicant’s life.

After the next training session, when I asked about an Asian student who I thought was a 2 but had only received a 3, the officer noted: “Oh, you’ll get a lot of them.” She said the same when I asked why a low-income student with top grades and scores, and who had served in the Israeli army, was a 3.

Which them? I had wondered. Did she mean I’d see a lot of 4.0 G.P.A.’s, or a lot of applicants whose bigger picture would fail to advance them, or a lot of Jewish and Asian applicants (Berkeley is 43 percent Asian, 11 percent Latino and 3 percent black)?

The idea behind multiple readers is to prevent any single reader from making an outlier decision. And some of the rankings I gave actual applicants were overturned up the reading hierarchy. I received an e-mail from the assistant director suggesting I was not with the program: “You’ve got 15 outlier, which is quite a lot. Mainly you gave 4’s and the final scores were 2’s and 2.5’s.” As I continued reading, I should keep an eye on the “percentile report on the e-viewer” and adjust my rankings accordingly.

In a second e-mail, I was told I needed more 1’s and referrals. A referral is a flag that a student’s grades and scores do not make the cut but the application merits a special read because of “stressors” — socioeconomic disadvantages that admissions offices can use to increase diversity.

Officially, like all readers, I was to exclude minority background from my consideration. I was simply to notice whether the student came from a non-English-speaking household. I was not told what to do with this information — except that it may be a stressor if the personal statement revealed the student was having trouble adjusting to coursework in English. In such a case, I could refer the applicant for a special read.

Why did I hear so many times from the assistant director? I think I got lost in the unspoken directives. Some things can’t be spelled out, but they have to be known. Application readers must simply pick it up by osmosis, so that the process of detecting objective factors of disadvantage becomes tricky.

It’s an extreme version of the American non-conversation about race.

I scoured applications for stressors.

To better understand stressors, I was trained to look for the “helpful” personal statement that elevates a candidate. Here I encountered through-the-looking-glass moments: an inspiring account of achievements may be less “helpful” than a report of the hardships that prevented the student from achieving better grades, test scores and honors.

Should I value consistent excellence or better results at the end of a personal struggle? I applied both, depending on race. An underrepresented minority could be the phoenix, I decided.

We were not to hold a lack of Advanced Placement courses against applicants. Highest attention was to be paid to the unweighted G.P.A., as schools in low-income neighborhoods may not offer A.P. courses, which are given more weight in G.P.A. calculation. Yet readers also want to know if a student has taken challenging courses, and will consider A.P.’s along with key college-prep subjects, known as a-g courses, required by the U.C. system.

Even such objective information was open to interpretation. During training Webinars, we argued over transcripts. I scribbled this exchange in my notes:

A reader ranks an applicant low because she sees an “overcount” in the student’s a-g courses. She thinks the courses were miscounted or perhaps counted higher than they should have been.

Another reader sees an undercount and charges the first reader with “trying to cut this girl down.”

The lead reader corrects: “We’re not here to cut down a student.” We’re here to find factors that advance the student to a higher ranking.

Another reader thinks the student is “good” but we have so many of “these kids.” She doesn’t see any leadership beyond the student’s own projects.

Listening to these conversations, I had to wonder exactly how elite institutions define leadership. I was supposed to find this major criterion holistically in the application. Some students took leadership courses. Most often, it was demonstrated in extracurricular activities.

Surely Berkeley seeks the class president, the organizer of a volunteer effort, the team captain. But there are so many other types of contributions to evaluate. Is the kindergarten aide or soup kitchen volunteer not a leader?

And what about “blue noise,” what the admissions pros called the blank blue screen when there were no activities listed? In my application pile, many students from immigrant households had excellent grades and test scores but few activities. I commented in my notes: “Good student, but not many interests or activities? Why? Busy working parents? And/or not able to afford, or get to, activities?”

IN personal statements, we had been told to read for the “authentic” voice over students whose writing bragged of volunteer trips to exotic places or anything that “smacks of privilege.”

Fortunately, that authentic voice articulated itself abundantly. Many essays lucidly expressed a sense of self and character — no small task in a sea of applicants. Less happily, many betrayed the handiwork of pricey application packagers, whose cloying, pompous style was instantly detectable, as were canny attempts to catch some sympathy with a personal story of generalized misery. The torrent of woe could make a reader numb: not another student suffering from parents’ divorce, a learning difference, a rare disease, even dandruff!

As I developed the hard eye of a slush pile reader at a popular-fiction agency, I asked my lead readers whether some of these stressors might even be credible. I was told not to second-guess the essays but simply to pick the most worthy candidate. Still, I couldn’t help but ask questions that were not part of my reader job.

The assistant director’s words — look for “evidence a student can succeed at Berkeley” — echoed in my ears when I wanted to give a disadvantaged applicant a leg up in the world. I wanted to help. Surely, if these students got to Berkeley they would be exposed to all sorts of test-taking and studying techniques.

But would they be able to compete with the engineering applicant with the 3.95 G.P.A. and 2300 SATs? Does Berkeley have sufficient support services to bridge gaps and ensure success? Could this student with a story full of stressors and remedial-level writing skills survive in a college writing course?

I wanted every freshman walking through Sather Gate to succeed.

Underrepresented minorities still lag behind: about 92 percent of whites and Asians at Berkeley graduate within six years, compared with 81 percent of Hispanics and 71 percent of blacks. A study of the University of California system shows that 17 percent of underrepresented minority students who express interest in the sciences graduate with a science degree within five years, compared with 31 percent of white students.

When the invitation came to sign up for the next application cycle, I wavered. My job as an application reader — evaluating the potential success of so many hopeful students — had been one of the most serious endeavors of my academic career. But the opaque and secretive nature of the process had made me queasy. Wouldn’t better disclosure of how decisions are made help families better position their children? Does Proposition 209 serve merely to push race underground? Can the playing field of admissions ever be level?

For me, the process presented simply too many moral dilemmas. In the end, I chose not to participate again.

Ruth A. Starkman teaches writing and ethics at Stanford and, from 1992 to 1996, taught writing at the University of California, Berkeley.

BERKELEY ON BERKELEY ADMISSIONS

“In general, we have an incredibly successful story to tell about our process,” said Amy Jarich, who has been director of admissions at the University of California, Berkeley, since September.

In an interview, Ms. Jarich responded to some of the issues raised by Ruth A. Starkman in her essay on the training of outside application readers and Berkeley’s admissions process — a process Ms. Jarich calls transparent. (Freshman selection criteria and reports on comprehensive review can be found on Berkeley’s Web site.)

“The training process is tried and true,” she said. “We try to do consistent training that helps people understand the policies and also the practice.”

On the application examples used in training, she said, “we intentionally pick the trickiest cases to norm with, aimed at generating discussion,” after which many new readers have to adjust their scoring.

Noting that reading applications is “an art,” she said that Proposition 209 was a challenge that created the need for readers to separate out in their minds race, ethnicity and gender. “Other factors, like reported family income, do not make the decision for us, but they do inform us as we read in context.”

“We’re very sensitive to the fact that we want to pull in a socioeconomically diverse group,” she said, naming several programs in place to help students graduate.

To further diversify, the chancellor has set a goal that 20 percent of students come from outside California, she said. Calling the in-state/out-of-state argument “so political,” she added: “It’s hard to close your mind to it, but in the review process it’s not a factor.” Nor are candidates compared, she said. “Nobody should say we have too many of one and not enough of another.”

“The student reports to us their G.P.A., and shows us every strength and every marker,” she said. Readers in the application-review stage should not consider “anything that’s out of that student’s control.”

A version of this article appeared in print on August 4, 2013, on page ED10 of Education Life with the headline: Unnatural Selection.

How to deal with bullying

I read this book today. This is not just a story about bullying, but it also tells reader to learn about bullying. Why does it happen?
How to deal with it?
How to help kids being bullied.

http://www.trudyludwig.com/mybook_kidding.html