<p>What's the point? UCLA (and other UC/CalState colleges) aren't discriminating. They're not allowed to by law which is as it should be. Does anyone really think any student is not being accepted due to the color of their skin? This just isn't the case but the converse is true - no student is being accepted just due to the color of their skin. African Americans and any ethnicity can be assured that if they were accepted at a UC or CalState, they were accepted based on their own merit on a level with everyone else and weren't 'made allowances' simply due to their skin color.</p>
<p>Visit any UC campus and you'll see a lot of diversity. Whites as a group are in a minority at many of the campuses with Asians now becoming a majority.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And 20 of the 96 are recruited athletes...</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>One of them actually goes to my school. He got recruited for football, but he also plays basketball and track. He's a good student, has a 3.4 (according to our school newspaper). His parents are from Nigeria and expect a lot out of him.</p>
<p>Another part of the problem is probably "poaching" by top universities like HYPSM. Their affirmative action policies result in URMs who might otherwise not be accepted to HYPSM, but still be strong enough for top UC's like UCLA, not attending the state schools. Since the UCs cannot practice affirmative action, they have no way of making up for this loss of good URM students, thus leaving URMs to be even more underrepresented than they would be.
Another thing to consider is that every racial/ethnic group except Asians is underrepresented at UCLA. Thus, any AA program designed to create a university whose student body reflected the makeup of society would actually hurt a minority group (Asians) while helping the plurality group (whites, as they no longer make up more than 50% of the population).</p>
<p>"Another part of the problem is probably "poaching" by top universities like HYPSM. Their affirmative action policies result in URMs who might otherwise not be accepted to HYPSM, but still be strong enough for top UC's like UCLA, not attending the state schools."</p>
<p>Evidence? From what I read, AA enrollment at top colleges is down, and enrollment of low-income minorities is far lower than it was 20-30 years ago. AA enrollment at Princeton peaked in 1970, with over 90% of them receiving financially aid. Today, that number is a small fraction of what it was then.</p>
<p>CA suffers. Those of us with a choice look at the UCs and see no diversity, not just racial, but all around. The financial diversity tends to go from poor to middle class as those who can afford to flea for smaller classes, better maintained campuses, no TAs, etc. Some campuses are as much as 70% Asian. That's really teaching CA kids to work with each other. All of the really bright black kids I went to middle school with are going to great private colleges. My guess is that many won't return to CA (I know I won't).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some campuses are as much as 70% Asian
[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that is true.</p>
<p>Theoretically, the lack of diversity should hurt the UC's. However, from what I've seen, at most schools ethnicities tend to hang out with each other, and the diversity colleges strive to achieve goes to waste: with most black people hanging out with black people only, most asian people only hanging out with asians, etc.</p>
<p>It's a sad situation- the incredibly low enrollment of african americans at ucla. However, this is just a result of admission committees following the law in not practicing AA(which is a whole other debate and a dead horse).</p>
<p>"All of the really bright black kids I went to middle school with are going to great private colleges."</p>
<p>Bingo !!!</p>
<p>That is the problem many state Us face. It is not the poaching by HYPSM, but poaching by other private Us with $s. If one compares the data of African American students at private Us 10 years ago with today they will find lot more black presence on those campuses. For bright black kid it is often cheaper to go to those places than state Us.</p>
<p>Basically Private Us are drying up the black talent pipeline for state Us.</p>
<p>suze said "Some campuses are as much as 70% Asian." huh? Please post your source. </p>
<p>Ten years ago, Irvine was 59% Asian, but today the entering class is ~53%. (It has the highest proportion of Asians in the UCs). </p>
<p>jmmom: according to last year's data, 1665 AfAm's applied to UCLA, 270 were accepted (17%), and 116 chose to enroll, for a yield of 43%. AfAm's comprised 4.5% of UCLA's in-state applicant pool.</p>
<p>"However, this is just a result of admission committees following the law in not practicing AA"</p>
<p>This isn't the root issue. The small percentage of blacks at UCLA and other UCs is not due to a fault at those colleges as some articles imply. It's related to the number of academically qualified blacks who are applying and accepting admission to those schools. As stated by other posters, many academically qualified blacks might find a better deal elsewhere. Those not academically qualified shouldn't be admitted any more than any other ethnic group. </p>
<p>The focus on this thread is on blacks but look at the numbers for hispanics - it's a lot worse. Hispanics are now the majority in California but are a very small % of the students on the UC campuses. This also isn't the fault of the UC admissions. </p>
<p>Should Asians start being refused admission to the UCs because the % of Asians at those schools is way out of proportion to their % in society? If so, who will decide which hard-working fully qualified applicant should be denied admission because they happen to have been born a certain ethnicity? It's no more correct to deny asians, whites, and other groups admission based on their ethnicity than it would be to deny blacks or hispanics.</p>
<p>Anecdotally, again, the bright URMs from our local hs who are also socio-economically disadvantaged (single parent, not much income) are the ones who get accepted to and go off to private colleges with full financial aid. Middle class URMs from intact families didn't seem to get much admissions boost from their URM status. They are the ones who go off to the UCs.</p>
<p>Maybe we won't see an increase in the numbers of URMs who attend UC until more make it into the middle class. Then they won't be able to afford to send their kids to a private college just like many of the middle class and will choose the very credible option of a UC education.</p>
<p>These are preliminary figures oposted by Byerly on the Harvard forum. The first percentage is for admits, the seond is for matriculants and the last one is yield :
Af-Americans: 10.5% - 9.3% - 71%
Given that Harvard's matriculating class is 1684, 9% come to about 131. More than twice the numbers of matriculating Af-Americans at UCLA for an entering class which is about one third of UCLA's.</p>
<p>That's right. It the same yield for Hispanics and lower yield for Native Americans. But the yield for Asians and Asian-Americans is a whopping 86%! I am still struck by the fact that Harvard will have a far more visible Af-Am presence than UCLA.</p>
<p>we're missing one data point from H....the number (or %) of AfAm's that applied to Cambridge in contrast to the total.</p>
<p>ellem: it may be the middle class URMs who are not accepted into the flagship campuses now....1) Under comprehensive review, low income kids, and others who overcome adversity receive an admissions boost; middle class URMs do not receive such a boost. 2) state/UC policy dictates few free rides, so even no income kids have self help of ~$6-8k per year, including loans, whereas they would receive a full ride at some Ivies.</p>
<p>I don't know why you'd be 'struck' by the delta. H has a few things going for it that UCLA doesn't have - the ability to lower standards as much as they want to in order to attract a particular applicant, the ability to offer financial incentives based anything they want to which could include race, and the prestige of being H which is likely to attract candidates who were accepted to both. How many do you suppose would choose for example, a full cost at UCLA versus a full ride at H? This is an extreme example but it illustrates the point.</p>
<p>Many posters are expressing surprise and shock at the statistic but what exactly do they think should be done about it - accepting lower qualified blacks to the exclusion of higher qualified students of other ethnicities - paying blacks to go there because they're black when a student with similar qualifications of another race wouldn't be paid?</p>