<p>You are right we do not have the number of applicants. I am focusing on the numbers of matriculants because they will be the ones who will contribute to making the campus comunity what it is.</p>
<p>UCLA: 96/4852.
Harvard: 130/1684</p>
<p>For Hispanics, the percentage is lower: 8.8% vs. 9.3, but still adds up to over 100 matriculants. </p>
<p>USCD Dad:<br>
I have no reason to believe that Harvard lowers its standards more for Af-Ams and Hispanics than for other "hooked" applicants; as well, I understand that the UCs have a system of points which can help applicants with lower stats. </p>
<p>More to the point, from my perspective, is how does it affect the experience of all students in the classroom and in the college community more generally.</p>
<p>Anecdotal of course, but many of the California black kids I speak of are middle class and the children of professionals. Their parents would love the UC price, but they chose to go elsewhere because of lack of diversity and a few other problems.</p>
<p>Guess I was wrong about Irvine, someone told me 70%.</p>
<p>I'm not sayig that all URMs at H and similar schools (there's way too much focus on H) have had the standards lowered in order to admit them but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't the case for many of them. The whole point of AA is include race as a factor. If there was no lowering of standards based on race, there'd be little purpose to AA except for outreach programs. Do you really think the ethnic makeup of these schools is just coincidental? </p>
<p>The UCs do have a point system that allows points for certain "life challenge" attributes such as first generation to attend college, socioeconomic group, disadvantaged neighborhoods, etc.</p>
<p>People not familiar with the UCs may read this thread and think that the UCs lack any diversity and are filled with a single race. That's not true at all although certain races are in low proportion demographically but not academically.</p>
<p>The only reason I focus on Harvard is that I read the Harvard forum (my S goes there, after all) and Byerly has posted statistics for the 2006 class, which makes it easy to compare with the stats provided so far for UCLA and UCSD.</p>
<p>Again, I have no reason to believe that AA at Harvard works differently from the point system at the UCs. Until someone can actually point to URMs who have been admitted with way lower stats than donors's kids, recruited athletes or legacies, I will remain skeptical of claims that Harvard (of for that matter, YPSM) lower standards significantly for Af-Ams. </p>
<p>Suze's point is an interesting one. Middle-class Af-Ams choose not to attend UCLA "because of the lack of diversity and a few other problems." It is a vicious cycle. One of my first memories upon coming to this country concerns the Watts riots. Until then, I had thought that LA meant Hollywood.</p>
<p>"Marite--only at 71% yield at H? That lower than their usual 80+% yield for other students..."</p>
<p>In my limited experience, a limited number either attend HBCU's instead, or accept scholarships where they don't have to pay anything closer to home. If H. is like P., the percentage of African-American students receiving ANY financial aid is substantially lower than it was 20-30 years ago. It's not like there is large number of middle-income minorities at HYPSM - in fact, I'd bet that statistically, the number is rather tiny. </p>
<p>In-state residential costs at UCLA are roughly $19k/yr. Pretty daunting for a middle-income Black family (30% below white families) with an annual income of $49k (and then having to pay California rents out of it.) I expect that a far greater number of highly qualified students who are not among the very few at HYPSM etc. can be found at the community colleges.</p>
<p>I disagree with most of your points concerning the UCs. There's a large financial diversity on the UC campuses ranging from poor to well-heeled. Not every student wants to opt for a small, elite (or otherwise) college atmosphere. Many students enjoy the large research universities for many reasons. </p>
<p>The classes are not taught primarily by TAs - they're taught by professors.</p>
<p>No UC campus is "as much as 70% Asian". UCI has the highest percentage and it's < 50%.</p>
<p>Both Cal and UCLA are well over $23k per year, if living in a dorm which most Frosh do. Frats and sororities and off campus housing is cheaper. Moreover, even for the poor-poor, the UCs require a lot of self-help in the form of loans, work study and summer earnings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"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."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My jaw dropped when I read this statement. Of course, a following statement yielded a similar result, "People not familiar with the UCs may read this thread and think that the UCs lack any diversity and are filled with a single race. That's not true at all." </p>
<p>I believe that most posters are familiar with the "diversity" within the UC system, and know how to interpret the figures for what they are. Where you may see diversity, others may see a different image. As far as I am concerned a school with 27% Caucasians, 1% Blacks, 11% Latinos, and 44% Asians (not including any of the 10% undeclared) is not diverse when compared to the population distribution of the state or the country. There might be a "small" element of subjectivity at play. </p>
<p>However, where is little subjectivity is for which school does possess more flexibility in lowering standards and offering "special" financial aid. For instance, athletic recruiting at Harvard is restricted by AI variance guidelines, and the ABSOLUTE prohibition of merit aid. Could UCLA admit a student with 900 SAT? Could Harvard?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I expect that a far greater number of highly qualified students who are not among the very few at HYPSM etc. can be found at the community colleges.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>This is a good point that I hadn't considered. I know many who start at the CC level and transfer to UC/Cal State because of financial restraints. It would be interesting to know if the upper levels of UC contain more Af-Am students than the freshman year.</p>
<p>I'm not sure I understand the financial aspect of the choice between UCLA and HYPSM. Instate COA is $23k. Posters are assuming that URMS are expected to pay COA in full.
HYPSM COA is $44k. Even if they are eligible for finaid, if they can pay $23K for UCLA, they must be deemed capable of paying $23K for HYPSM.
And if they are eligible for more at HYPSM, then why can they not get some finaid at UCLA and reduce their COA.
Does this mean that for URMs, it's either cc because they're cheaper or HYPSM because, for the same money, students get more bang for the buck, so to speak?</p>
<p>"The classes are not taught primarily by TAs - they're taught by professors."</p>
<p>Oh, do we need to wait for the old line, "Professors teach the classes. All the TA do is lead the lectures, grade the papers, and make sure students learn something." </p>
<p>For the record, I believe that the record at the UC is that TAs are responsible for about 65% of all teaching contacts with undergraduates.</p>
<p>I'm basing my statements regarding Prof vs. TA on info conveyed by the institutions (which I take with a grain of salt) and the experience of my D at UCSD who's at the end of her 3rd year in engineering. All classes except the single required writing class were taught by Professors/Lecturers rather than TAs. The TAs do lead discussion groups outside of the classes. Do you have evidence to the contrary?</p>
<p>lmnop: UCLA had an increase in Af-Am admits at the transfer level. The decrease was at the freshman level. </p>
<p>I still haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest what they think the solution to the 'problem' is.</p>
<p>The problem is a complex one. Short of giving allowances (i.e. reduced requirements) based on race, outreach programs may be the best solution. If more URMs can become qualified and apply/accept, then admissions of URMs will undoubtedly increase. There are bound to be many side-benefits to these outreach prgrams as well even if they choose not to go to the UCs.</p>
<p>Here's a link showing UCLA's position on the issue and the approach they're taking to mitigate it -</p>
<p>"Until someone can actually point to URMs who have been admitted with way lower stats than donors's kids, recruited athletes or legacies, I will remain skeptical of claims that Harvard (of for that matter, YPSM) lower standards significantly for Af-Ams."</p>
<p>Espendhade, Chung and Walling examined the admission preferences for URMs, athlets and legacy kids at three highly selective Universities in US. The data from 124,000 applicants showed that being an African American is worth extra 230 point, Hispanics - 185, Athlets 200 points and Legacy 160 points (Old 1600 scale).</p>
<p>"Does this mean that for URMs, it's either cc because they're cheaper or HYPSM because, for the same money, students get more bang for the buck, so to speak?"</p>
<p>It's CC because they can contribute to the income of their families, because they are close by if there is a sick parent, or a sick sibling, or because the gap at HYPSM turns out to be greater than the colleges assume. Or simply because the cultural differences are perceived to be so great they don't even apply. </p>
<p>I am a white middle class person on the higher end of the middle income quintile ($43k-$67k), and the state university would have been a stretch. We could have done, but luckily, better options present themselves. But we knew where to look for them, and were comfortable with them.</p>
<p>Remember, if 6-9% of the student body is African-American at HYPSM or AWS or at the women's colleges or any of the Ivies, a signficant proportion may be from wealthy families, from Caribbean-American families, etc. If I am from a middle-income African-American family, the number of "people like me" is likely to be very small indeed, and for some, too small to make the cultural leap, even if I get in, and even if (objectively) the financial situation is reasonable.</p>
<p>This is stupid. Why is anyone complaining about a lack of AA? The whole point of AA is that minority students dont get the start in life that white people do. At state schools like UCLA, public school students have a stronger chance of being accepted than private, out of state students.</p>
<p>Also, if you're complaining about the cost of UCLA, it is 6,500 a year. Assuming the average student works 20 hours a week at 6.50 and hour, this is 130 dollars a week, for 42 weeks (excluding 2.5 months of summer) this is 5460$, plus 10 weeks at 50 hours a week (summer), which comes to a total of 5960$. Isn't a 700$ a year loan fairly reasonable.</p>
<p>So there is no justifiable reason for AA at UCLA</p>
<p>Ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad, the discussions on CC about the impact of TAs or Teaching Fellows usually end up being inconclusive because of subtle semantics. My feeling Tis that every school that employs TAs should publish -at a minimum</p>
<ol>
<li>Total number of intruction** hours taught by professors</li>
<li>Total numbers of hours taught by non-professors</li>
</ol>
<p>Instruction hours are to be all-inclusive (labs, section classes, eveything a student has to attend.) </p>
<p>Do you have any evidence that undergraduates at the UC system listen to more classes (in hours) taught by a professor?</p>
<p>ucla is racist and so random, they lucked out by not accepting me, whats with this onslaught of whites that theyre recruiting? minorities > whites these days yet ucla tends to</p>