<p>ECONOMIC circumstance are a factor in Regents decisions. Not race. (Same for the UC admissions process.)</p>
<p>I directly implied the existance of that situation by typing::</p>
<p>
[quote]
And she was poor (which helps lots of asians get Regents.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought that race was in factor in so far it is a part of circumstances.</p>
<p>No, race is not a factor as it is against the law for Berkeley to engage in racial affirmative action as regards undergraduate education (it's still OK for grads, faculty and staff.)</p>
<p>What the Regents committe DOES practice (along with the admissions office) is ECONOMIC-based affirmative action that gives all poor students, whether they be white, black, green, or pink, a leg-up over their middle and upper class peers. </p>
<p>The fact that THIS girl got Regents means just that. She triumphed over harsh circumstaces in a manner which VERY few poor people do. The vast majority of both poor and URM admits at Berkeley DO NOT get Regents because their GPAs are simply not as strong as Luz's. Most Regents are white and asian. And to tell you the truth, I don't even know of any hispanic Regents. So this girl deserves it, trust me.</p>
<p>i know 2 people who have gotten the incentive award for uc berkeley....and they are both rich...LIFES NOT FAIR! = ( (im serious...thats bs lol)</p>
<p>Affirmative action the other way around is also crap too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Affirmative action the other way around is also crap too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I just hope you realize that affirmative action based on economic class is the "lesser evil." But if people like you continue to complain about the present system, special interest groups will convince California's massive Hispanic voting block to vote for the reinstitution of race-based AA in UC undergrad matters. So my advice is, learn to live with AA as it is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, race is not a factor as it is against the law for Berkeley to engage in racial affirmative action as regards undergraduate education (it's still OK for grads, faculty and staff.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, according to Prop 209, racial affirmative action is also barred for grads, faculty, and staff at all public institutions in the state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What the Regents committe DOES practice (along with the admissions office) is ECONOMIC-based affirmative action that gives all poor students, whether they be white, black, green, or pink, a leg-up over their middle and upper class peers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think you're talking about the ideal. Whether this is actually happening, or whether the UC's are still practicing *secretive *, albeit illegal race-based affirmative action, is a point of contention among many. The fact is, judgments of somebody's socioeconomic status and assessments over whether they have 'overcome challenges' is a matter of interpretation, and an adcom officer could still be secretly practicing a form of race-based affirmative action by applying subtly different standards of judgement to applicants of different races. For example, if an applicant has a clearly Asian surname, then that adcom officer might just hold that applicant to a stricter standard when assessing the applicant's socioeconomic status. The point is, these are matters of judgment, and on the borderline cases, nobody really knows whether an adcom officer is really following the law or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, according to Prop 209, racial affirmative action is also barred for grads, faculty, and staff at all public institutions in the state.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While that is true on one paper, namely 209 itself:</p>
<p>I believe that, due to some loophole which I am not an expert on, UC campuses continue to openly use racial affirmative action for grads, faculty, and staff.</p>
<p>"Federal affirmative action regulations and University policy require that all campuses develop and maintain a written affirmative action program covering staff, faculty, and all other academic employees."</p>
<p>"UCLA is committed to making every good faith effort towards achieving and maintaining a diverse workforce, at all levels of employment, that is representative of the availability of qualified women and minorities in the relevant labor markets."</p>
<p>"As the Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, one of my important responsibilities is to advocate for the principles that guide and support public education. One such principle is inclusion racial, cultural and economic."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I think you're talking about the ideal. Whether this is actually happening, or whether the UC's are still practicing secretive , albeit illegal race-based affirmative action, is a point of contention among many.The fact is, judgments of somebody's socioeconomic status and assessments over whether they have 'overcome challenges' is a matter of interpretation, and an adcom officer could still be secretly practicing a form of race-based affirmative action by applying subtly different standards of judgement to applicants of different races. For example, if an applicant has a clearly Asian surname, then that adcom officer might just hold that applicant to a stricter standard when assessing the applicant's socioeconomic status. The point is, these are matters of judgment, and on the borderline cases, nobody really knows whether an adcom officer is really following the law or not.[/
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed, I am well aware of the debate but I just don't think admission officers are violating the principle of AA based on economic class. There are some clues which directly imply this. </p>
<p>One, when 209 passed, URM enrollment suffered a great blow. Yet, what didn't? Yup, you've guessed it. Poor student enrollment. Who were these poor students? They were Asian-American and European-American students. The situation continued. In the leadup to the millenium, when URM numbers at Berkeley were still abysmal, poor student percentages and numbers continued to rise. In the vast majority of cases, these were not URMs. Obviously economic AA was at work. </p>
<p>Two, did you know that Berkeley's undergraduate admissions office is DISPROPORTIONALLY made up of African-American workers? If these adcom members were truly and entirely trying to propagate a "liberal," race-based agenda, shouldn't WAY more African-Americans be getting into Berkeley? Now, its definetly true. African-American undergrad student enrollment is rapidly increasing, but Asian-American undergrad student enrollment is still SKYROCKETING. And of course, the % of poor students keeps growing FASTER than the URM population. </p>
<p>How do you explain these tings if not by acknowledging that Berkeley's admission officers do in fact practice AA based on economic background as opposed to race?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Two, did you know that Berkeley's undergraduate admissions office is DISPROPORTIONALLY made up of African-American workers? If these adcom members were truly and entirely trying to propagate a "liberal," race-based agenda, shouldn't WAY more African-Americans be getting into Berkeley? Now, its definetly true. African-American undergrad student enrollment is rapidly increasing, but Asian-American undergrad student enrollment is still SKYROCKETING. And of course, the % of poor students keeps growing FASTER than the URM population. </p>
<p>How do you explain these tings if not by acknowledging that Berkeley's admission officers do in fact practice AA based on economic background as opposed to race?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's very simple. Obviously the admissions officers couldn't be completely blatant about what they were doing, otherwise they would definitely be caught. Hence, they would allow more poor non-URM's be admitted, and fewer African-Americans than before in order to make it seem as if they were fully complying with the law, but not as much as they would if they were truly complying. </p>
<p>I'll give you an historical example. Everybody knows that Brown v. Board of Education legally mandated the desegregation of public schools in the South. That's a well known episode of American history. However, what is far less well known is that most Southern public schools would not actually become desegregated until many years later. Compliance with the law was always grudging and school administrators would throw up obstacle after obstacle, excuse after excuse to delay desegregation for as long as possible. Obviously these school systems could not openly defy the law, but they could slow the implementation of the law. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that I know these sorts of things are happening now in UC admissions. I have not made a decision about this. To me, both sides of the debate have failed to prove their case conclusively. So I don't know that the adcoms are trying to slow and twist the implementation of 209, and I also don't know that they are not. I'm just saying that it's possible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obviously the admissions officers couldn't be completely blatant about what they were doing, otherwise they would definitely be caught. Hence, they would allow more poor non-URM's be admitted, and fewer African-Americans than before in order to make it seem as if they were fully complying with the law, but not as much as they would if they were truly complying.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that here you are implying that URM applicants can't get into Berkeley without race-based AA. While I think that that has been the historical situation, I'm not sure if it applies as much today. The reality of the situation is that after 209, dozens of privately-funded organizations were charted for the sole purpose of providing after school tutoring and "healthy socializing" which would supposedly lead to a UC acceptance. I know for a fact that the majority of Berkeley's non-athletic African-Americans and Native Americans are now coming from such well-run programs. (And it's an absolute absurdity to assume that most if not all of Berkeley's African-Americans undergrads are athletes. Most of our athletes are actually white.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that I know these sorts of things are happening now in UC admissions. I have not made a decision about this. To me, both sides of the debate have failed to prove their case conclusively. So I don't know that the adcoms are trying to slow and twist the implementation of 209, and I also don't know that they are not. I'm just saying that it's possible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While it's true that we can never be entirely certain about what goes on in Sproul Hall, I think it's pretty obvious that Berkeley's biggest form of AA is the one based on economic class. And as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing for everyone.</p>
<p>I don't think of considering something as a factor and x-based affirmative action as the same thing. Perhaps it's a matter of degree- if the factor plays a significant enough roll, then it's "x aa," otherwise I don't consider it x-based aa. Do you guys think that's off? At what point does something become a type of aa? If it seeks to redress past discrimination?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that here you are implying that URM applicants can't get into Berkeley without race-based AA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where'd you read that? I didn't notice sakky implying that at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where'd you read that? I didn't notice sakky implying that at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The end of his post implies it. He is saying that there's something about the increasing URM numbers which probably could mean that Berkeley's adcom is "twist[ing] the implementation of 209." He refuses to believe that the increase in URMs is simply the direct result of comprehensive review which is designed to aid all poor students. </p>
<p>If you must know, I worked for a limited time at the admission office as an intern and there is simply NO WAY to know which race an applicant belongs to because that information, along with names and last names is blocked from the adcom's eyes. The only way we can know is if the essay tells us and surprisingly, few essays do. Instead, poor students usually talk about the harsh environment they faced and such essays could be used by a student of any color.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At what point does something become a type of aa? If it seeks to redress past discrimination?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Types of AA" are created when contemporary social situations are believed to poorly reflect liberally progressive, democratic-socialist rhetoric. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps it's a matter of degree
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course it is. And, due to institution of comprehensive review as opposed to race-based AA, UCs in general and Berkeley in particular are seeing dramatic increases in the number of lower-income bracket undergraduate students. Yet, URM numbers have not risen by any comparable degree. Instead, poor whites and asians make up for the majority of the increase of both general AND lower-income student enrollement. </p>
<p>If I may throw in a bit of anecdotal evidence, my Bay Area high school was extremely diverse. Prior to 209, the school sent about fifty-sixty URMs to Berkeley each year. Of course, asians and whites were rejected in much higher percentages in spite of the fact that they tended to have the highest grades and were just as poor as URMs. After 209, the situation reversed. There was one year when no URMs got in and dozens upon dozens of asians did. The school responded by radically expanding academic tutoring opportunities for all students. The effort was so well coordinated that African-American students soon freed themselves from the Establishment's racial and cultural anti-Black chains and "got" to the intellectual level of me and my asian counterparts. Since this was basically happening at same time comprehensive review was instituted, the school soon began to see a rapid increase in Berkeley acceptances for URMs and a SKYROCKETING increase for Asians. We asked ourselves what could possibly be happening. The answer was obvious, Berkeley had done two things.</p>
<ol>
<li>It had increased acceptance figures. </li>
<li>It had begun to discriminate against the upper-class students. (The % is being driven down every year.)</li>
</ol>
<p>From both anecdotal and statistical evidence I've seen in the past, I think it's safe to conclude that what happened at my high school is a state-wide phenomenon for inner-city high schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that here you are implying that URM applicants can't get into Berkeley without race-based AA. While I think that that has been the historical situation, I'm not sure if it applies as much today. The reality of the situation is that after 209, dozens of privately-funded organizations were charted for the sole purpose of providing after school tutoring and "healthy socializing" which would supposedly lead to a UC acceptance. I know for a fact that the majority of Berkeley's non-athletic African-Americans and Native Americans are now coming from such well-run programs. (And it's an absolute absurdity to assume that most if not all of Berkeley's African-Americans undergrads are athletes. Most of our athletes are actually white.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think I implied anything at all. I am merely stating the position of the opposition. I never said that I AGREED with the opposition, I am just paraphrasing their position.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you must know, I worked for a limited time at the admission office as an intern and there is simply NO WAY to know which race an applicant belongs to because that information, along with names and last names is blocked from the adcom's eyes. The only way we can know is if the essay tells us and surprisingly, few essays do. Instead, poor students usually talk about the harsh environment they faced and such essays could be used by a student of any color.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure there are ways. There may be no way to know FOR SURE, but there are indicators. To give you an example, if somebody's address indicates that he comes from inner-city Detroit, then he is almost certainly African-American, for the simple fact that 90%+ of the people in inner-city Detroit are African-American. It is of course even easier to distinguish international applicants. Somebody applying from a high school in China is almost certainly Chinese. They're aren't a lot of blacks or Hispanics going to high school in China. Teacher rec's can also give it away. If a teacher gushes about how such-and-such applicant was a key contributor in the local chapter of the National Council of La Raza, then you know that something is up. </p>
<p>But let me reiterate. I am not saying that I KNOW or BELIEVE that the adcoms are still using illegal race-based affirmative action. All I am saying is that if they wanted to, they still could. Obviously it's not as easy to figure out somebody's race as it was in the old days when race was a simple checkbox. But there are still ways to do it, if they wanted to do it. That doesn't mean that they are doing it, but it means they could do it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure there are ways. There may be no way to know FOR SURE, but there are indicators. To give you an example, if somebody's address indicates that he comes from inner-city Detroit, then he is almost certainly African-American, for the simple fact that 90%+ of the people in inner-city Detroit are African-American. It is of course even easier to distinguish international applicants. Somebody applying from a high school in China is almost certainly Chinese. They're aren't a lot of blacks or Hispanics going to high school in China.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These may be proper examples to cite as regards non-UC and non-CSU non-CCC admission. But it simply does not happen at Berkeley and Berkeley is what we are talking about. All addresses are withheld from the Berkeley adcom. The only thing the file tells them is residency status. Sure, when the entire process is finalized, the computer discloses the demographics but that happens after the decisions have been posted. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Teacher rec's can also give it away. If a teacher gushes about how such-and-such applicant was a key contributor in the local chapter of the National Council of La Raza, then you know that something is up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not entirely sure how to answer this. Contrary to popular opinion, UCB does in fact have teacher recs. They're online forms which borderline applicants can ask their teachers to submit. From my intership at the admissions office, I know that less than 5% of about 2,000 a year who get this "augmented review" actually go through the trouble of getting a rec. The majority of the kids who turned in recs are rejected. That means that, on average, there are 49 or less freshmen who get into Berkeley each year with the help of teacher recs. Since the number is so small and I seriously doubt that all of those who get in are URMs or even that their teachers praised them for being a "key contributor in the local chapter of National Council od La Raza" (or something similar,) I'm led to conclude that IF the adcom practices racial affirmative action based on teacher recs, it's on such a small level as to be considered a margin of error favorable to economic-based AA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
These may be proper examples to cite as regards non-UC and non-CSU non-CCC admission. But it simply does not happen at Berkeley and Berkeley is what we are talking about. All addresses are withheld from the Berkeley adcom. The only thing the file tells them is residency status. Sure, when the entire process is finalized, the computer discloses the demographics but that happens after the decisions have been posted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think that's entirely true. Again, I believe that all transcripts are provided to the adcom. If the whole transcript is in Chinese (as befits somebody who went to a high school in China), then that applicant is probably Chinese. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not entirely sure how to answer this. Contrary to popular opinion, UCB does in fact have teacher recs. They're online forms which borderline applicants can ask their teachers to submit. From my intership at the admissions office, I know that less than 5% of about 2,000 a year who get this "augmented review" actually go through the trouble of getting a rec. The majority of the kids who turned in recs are rejected. That means that, on average, there are 49 or less freshmen who get into Berkeley each year with the help of teacher recs. Since the number is so small and I seriously doubt that all of those who get in are URMs or even that their teachers praised them for being a "key contributor in the local chapter of National Council od La Raza" (or something similar,) I'm led to conclude that IF the adcom practices racial affirmative action based on teacher recs, it's on such a small level as to be considered a margin of error favorable to economic-based AA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It doesn't even have to be that extreme. I believe that EC's are listed on the application (or at least, it was in the old days). So if somebody lists on his EC's that he was the President of the local student chapter of the NAACP, then you know something is up. If somebody lists deep involvement with the AME Church, then you know that something is up, simply because the vast majority of parishioners in the AME are African-American. </p>
<p>But look, the point is, I don't think the admissions process is truly hermetically sealed from racial information. I am quite confident that some information leaks through. True, it's not like the old days, but if the adcoms really wanted to still practice illegal race-based AA, they could do it. I am not saying that they are doing it, but I am saying that if they wanted to, they still could. Obviously, it wouldn't be as easy as it was in the days pre-209, but it still could happen.</p>