<p>xiggi:</p>
<p>I don't want to stray from this thread by turning it into a TA vs Prof at UC vs somewhere else. I already indicated my somewhat limited source (D's experiences - all classes by Profs, institution's statements). I don't know what it'd be like at the HYP... colleges. </p>
<p>Now, back to the the topic of UCLA having under-represented blacks...</p>
<p>Simba:</p>
<p>Thanks. </p>
<p>Actually, I left out the one group that benefits the most from lower standards: faculty kids. I well remember when my H was a graduate student. His department wanted to recruit a full prof from another university. The prof was flattered, it was a very significant move up as well as a substantial increase in salary. Alas, he had to decline, much to the chagrin of all in H's department. It turned out that Harvard did not provide much in the way of tuition help for its fac (though it admitted fac brats at a higher rate than any other groups of applicants); the prof's own university, however, not only admitted fac brats at an even higher rate, but gave them a free ride. And he had ten kids. I've heard faculty at various top colleges saying that their college was their kids' safety school. As well they might.</p>
<p>What I cannot get from the article, though (confessing I've only glanced at it), is how significant is a 230 point vs. a 200 point advantage? As well, are we sure that the 230 points reflect purely the AA boost or do the extra points reflect other attributes as well, such a first-generation college attendeed, some special skills, etc...?</p>
<p>changbj88 - how anyone could consider UCLA a "racist" school is beyond my comprehension. But I challenge you to find any public school system which is more so. If you feel that way, then you definitely don't belong there. I truly hope (with no irony intended) that you find a fit which is to your liking. That's what it's about after all. </p>
<p>As for the whole TA teaching thing, um.....I am a UCLA grad, and, albeit 20 years ago, I had some profs that were terrible, some that were fantastic, and some TA's (grad students who taught the sections) that were just as good, if not better, than some of the full profs. To think that only a Ph.D. is capable of teaching is a myth. It's all subjective, and to have the opinion that "only qualified profs are able to teach" and anything else is shorting the student is just silly. At least in my experience, which does happen to be at UCLA. I know the desirability and competitiveness has increased since I was admitted (nope, I probably would not have been admitted by today's standards), but considering that the UC system "raised" their GPA standards to 3.0 (please!), I can hardly see why anyone can complain about racism or anything else.</p>
<p>I am a diehard Bruin, but I do recognize it is not appropriate for everyone. I have 2 kids approaching college who aren't even looking at the UC's because of the size.</p>
<p>The cost with any UC is the room and board if you don't live at home--it comes to over $1000/month. One way to boost up Af-am representation at UCLA would be to have an outreach program identifies kids earlier and have that same (or another) program offer full rides (including room and board) to kids who get in and have ready help (like tutoring and other help) available. I remember reading about a program at Berkeley like that.</p>
<p>Promise $$$ and support...</p>
<p>10 kids times $150K = $1.5 million saved</p>
<p>Of course, that is if you can get the kids to go to that college...</p>
<p>I'm sure someone else said this and I missed it as I scanned the posts.</p>
<p>Has this thread's focus on how many black students enroll at UCSD and how many Asians may or may not be enrolled at UCI taken into consideration how many Latinos may be enrolling at either of those institutions or at other UC's?</p>
<p>If all the buzz I've heard/read in the press the past few years is true, the Hispanic segment of the West Coast in specific and the US population in general is quickly overtaking any other ethnic group as far as birth rate and has certainly turned the heads of advertisers/politicians/media in recent years. </p>
<p>Here's the question that I can't answer: do Latino admissions at the UC's (or other schools) account for the lower-than-expected enrollment of Afro-Americans?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Here's the question that I can't answer: do Latino admissions at the UC's (or other schools) account for the lower-than-expected enrollment of Afro-Americans?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>According to the article, no. There are two tables in the article, giving % figures for different ethnic groups at UCLA--1985 and 2005.</p>
<p>UCLA 1985: 50% white; 22% Asian/Filipino; 15% Hispanic; 10% Af-Am; 4% other.</p>
<p>UCLA 2005: 33% white; 41% Asian/Filipino; 15% Hispanic; 3% Af-Am; 8% other.</p>
<p>Hispanic % have remained the same.</p>
<p>I personally don't have an Issue with Affirmative Action. I'm neither against it or for it. I'm basically neutral. My previous comment was mainly because you see so many people argue the importance of AA and other who are against it(yet are schocked by UCLA's Statistic)</p>
<p>The thing I see that's an issue with UC Admissions which I think prevents many URM from applying and getting in, rather than AA, is the way they admit people which is the point system. UC Admissions is so statistical that basically people with the highest stats are the ones to get in. </p>
<p>In my opinion the best admissions factor aside from stats are essays and letter of recommendation, because they honestly give the best potential/idea of what a student can contribute to a campus/school.</p>
<p>I say this because I'm in the Honors Program at what is said to be the most diverse(ethnically) art school in the country, whose liberal arts faculty also teach at UCLA and USC, and who come from top 25 schools like UCLA at the PhD and graduate level. </p>
<p>Admissions into the honors program(at my school) is based on essay, which I hold to be true, rather than SAT scores or courses taken. I say this mainly because I didn't have a strong SAT score while a lot of other kids in my school did(I had less than a 1200), and I never had taken any AP classes in high school except one semester of european history which i dropped because it wasn't an interest of mine while many others did. Based on stats, it would be ilogical to put me at the Honors level, because a score less than 600 on the verbal section of the SAT would mean I'm stupid.
But to much of everyone's surprise I happen to get A's on my paper which I start writing the day that they are due(which is not advised), in my Honors English classes one of them being Honors English 202(a sophomore year class) taken in my second semester of my first year. I get A's on paper that other honor students who had 1400's and took numerous AP's get B's Or C's on.</p>
<p>By the way I come from a middle class hispanic family. i did get into UCSD twice(i applied twice once as an economics major and once at an art major), UCSB(once as a business/econ major), UCI(didn't apply but they told me they were holding a spot for me because of ELC) however I got rejected from UCB(pre business) and UCLA(studio art major, admissions based on portfolio). The only reasons I applied to the UC's was in case I couldn't afford the school I go to now, not because they interested me as schools I'd love to attend.</p>
<p>I'm not sure about this, but what fraction of kids applying/matriculating at UCLA refuse to state ethnicity? Is this even an option? I'm wondering if California has more multi-ethnic kids who are uneasy with the ethnic labels of 1950 America. Could this have skewed the results?</p>
<p>^^ Again, according to the article, 7.9% of the 2005 class fell into the "Other" category, which evidently consists of those who decline to state a race or ethnicity plus Native Americans.</p>
<p>According to a recent article, can't site the journal, almost all of those in the other category are white.</p>
<p>coureur: American Indian (Cal residents only) is reported separately, which for UCLA was 188 applied, 45 accepted, 20 enrolled (2005 data).</p>
<p>Chicano/Latino (UC's designaton) numbers for UCLA: 6,513 applied, 1,433 admitted, 683 enrolled.</p>
<p>Also, don't forget that many kids are admitted to both Cal and UCLA, but can only choose one; thus, the UC system is full of duplicate apps. For example, systemwide, there were 12,175 Chicano/Latino individual applications, 10,162 admitted, and 5,212 enrollees. For AfAm's, the systemwide numbers are 2,906 applied, 2,051 admitted, 961 enrolled.</p>
<p>tsdad: according to the University of California reported data, the Other category is ~2% mixed, i.e., the student voluntarily checked 'Other Race/Ethnicity', and 5% declined to state, i.e., did not check any box. btw: I would question how the journal article could track non-reported data, particularly since more and more kids are also declining to state when registering for the SAT.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.publicenemy.com/pb/viewtopic.php?t=12922&sid=1%5B/url%5D">http://www.publicenemy.com/pb/viewtopic.php?t=12922&sid=1</a>
Part of the problem could be that here in California alot of the URM's are not making it through high school.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>According to a recent article, can't site the journal, almost all of those in the other category are white.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Or Asian...some kids feel that checking the Asian box puts you in the hole to begin with--</p>
<p>anad those URMs that do make it dont really want to be in tony westwood. westwood has something of a bad reputation in the black community in LA. USC is much preferred by blacks in the region.</p>
<p>Namaste, replies like yours perplex me. </p>
<p>If someone said "Caucasians don't really want to be on the streets of Compton. Compton has something of a bad reputation in the white community of LA. Westwood is much preferred by the whites in the region."</p>
<p>Wouldn't that be considered stereotyping, if not in bad taste?</p>
<p>I'm not a URM and I don't know whether you are or not, and please don't feel that I'm picking on you personally, because I'm not. It's just that I often see people post things about Caucasians or men or Christians or conservatives that, if the wording were reversed, would be considered discriminatory, sexist or outright racist, yet the reverse is complacently, if not gleefully, accepted.</p>
<p>Am I missing something?</p>
<p>There is no need to dance around the AA issue. </p>
<p>The fact that few blacks are matriculating at one of the three flagship public universities in one of our largest, most liberal states is a terrible indicator--for the public and private school system in that state, for the univeristy, for those who fund the university, for social conditions in that city and state and for social conditions in our country.</p>
<p>Shame for all of us. Says me.</p>
<p>Black median family income in California in the last census was $34,923. A year at UCLA would cost $23k, or 65.8% of yearly income. ccsre.stanford.edu/reports/report_13.pdf Of course, college costs are supposed to be paid out of assets, not income. Only problem is, the average family had less than $2k in assets.</p>
<p>Under these circumstances, what the public system ends up doing (to no great surprise) is exacerbating racial differences within the state. I doubt that is in their charter, but that is the actual impact.</p>
<p>mini: </p>
<p>I highly doubt that a family whose income was $35K would end up paying anywhere close to the $23K costs of the college. I would imagine the expected family contribution from the FAFSA to be very low (but I don't have the figures).</p>
<p>The argument you presented has nothing to do with race - it has to do with socio-economic status. To assume that all blacks are poor or all asians or whites are rich would be incorrect. If one is targeting the poor, then it must be done based on their income, not their race. If one is targeting race, then it'll have to be at the expense of another race. Which race should be discriminated against? I can't think of one.</p>
<p>It is has everything to do with race. In American society, race often (but not always, as we have seen in the H. and P. data) acts as a surrogate for "caste" - a combination of low-income, low-education, low status, low assets, poor access to capital, and prejudice. It is much more than just socio-economic status, and it affects more than just African Americans (groups that come to mind, specifically in California, are subsets of Asian-Americans - Hmong and highland Mien peoples, as well as Native Americans.) To end caste (which has been undertaken in several parts of India - notably in Kerala, and among several groups in Japan) requires a three-generation commitment of inputs - preferential access to capital, education, family supports, and laws. I don't expect that to happen - I'm a realist, but just because I am, doesn't mean I don't recognize race/caste for what it is.</p>
<p>A $35k family at UCLA can expect to get a Pell Grant for slightly under $4k, and maybe some extra money to bring it up to full-tuition ($6.5). Where is the remaining $16.5k to come from?</p>