A Startling Statistic at UCLA

<p>That reminds me, Marite, when I was a lawyer and my oldest was little--I had a lot of friends who were female lawyers. I mentioned once that the husband of one of my friends was a lawyer and my daughter said that he couldn't be one. Why? Because he wasn't a female! We had a talk about how men can be lawyers too.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I grew up surrounded by women who worked in different kinds of jobs requiring different levels of education and different types of skills, but work they did.

[/quote]
Fascinating. How is it that they care for kids? Is the family generally such that the men take a big role here, or are there other structures in place to deal with the issue?</p>

<p>In France, free daycare begins very early. There were also grandmothers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In France, free daycare begins very early. There were also grandmothers.

[/quote]
Ah. Yes. I see. I also see the merits of it.</p>

<p>You know, my daughter has a real love affair with your country-- its music, scholars, more recently its literature. In fact, she has started learning French and, ironically, is in the air right at this very moment to Paris. The kid was about to come apart at the seams because she saved everything she could to get to France before she started college, and she didn't think she'd be able to afford it. But, with a lot of sweat, she's on the way.</p>

<p>"But you can’t just take a physicist in a female body and keep her from being a physicist."</p>

<p>I completely disagree with this statement, at least if your implication is that a woman who loves physics and is capable of doing physics at the very highest levels can only be happy working full-time as a physicist.</p>

<p>Just as Marite indicates that she always assumed that she would work full-time, there are other women who always assumed that they would get married and then either dramatically cut back on their hours or stop working, at least for a considerable number of years while their children are young. I have met such women scientists who enjoy their educations and do extremely well in grad school, but are also very happy when they happen to meet someone and get married and dramatically scale back on their own careers (possibly even PERMANENTLY). There is certainly always the possibility of such a woman never getting married (just as there is a possibility of a woman who only sees herself in a career track delivering a particular special needs child or encountering some other situation that makes her then decides to forego her career) in which case she continues the full-time career.</p>

<p>I understand Marite's posts that it is unfair for a woman who happens to present no greater risk of leaving a company than does a man to not receive equal treatment. I agree with this. </p>

<p>In terms of women's career "choice", I have also seen many successful women who are quite condescending toward other women who are equally bright but who choose to forego a career. Frequently, such women appear to be upset that stay-at-home moms think they have individually made a better choice, but these career women have no problem talking down about stay-at-home moms.</p>

<p>By the way, I only refer to a "career woman" or a "stay-at-home mom" as a short-hand notation for where they are spending the great majority of their time. I intend no positive or negative connotations associated with either one. I personally would very unlikely have married a woman who had always thought she would have a career, but I can easily be friends with one. Just as I have (and respect) a number of married friends who wish to have no children, or one child, or many children. I personally could not imagine NOT wanting to have children, but then again there are many people who cannot understand that I have absolutely ZERO interest in ever having any pets. So I do not judge people for their personal bents about career aspirations, desires to have children, desires to be married, etc., and hope that they do the same for others. Judging women on their career aspirations (or lack of them) is not limited to stay-at-home moms and/or their husbands.</p>

<p>
[quote]
develop enough trust so that when you see me walking down the street you don’t think I’ll kill you. And when I see you walking down the street I won’t want to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>and I'm thinking of your daughter, whose face I've never seen, in a plane on her way to Paris, and somehow I really feel happy about it all,..</p>

<p>Drosselmeier:</p>

<p>I hope your D really enjoys herself in France!</p>

<p>Pafather:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I completely disagree with this statement, at least if your implication is that a woman who loves physics and is capable of doing physics at the very highest levels can only be happy working full-time as a physicist.

[/quote]
So sorry. I didn't mean it as it came out. It was just a weird way of saying that no one can legitimately arrogate to himself the right to suppress the expression of a physicist just because the expression exists in a female’s body.</p>

<p>So, as I assimilate all of the dialogue on this thread in the last few days, the overwhelming conclusion I see is that the low percentage of URMs at UCLA is not due to a fault on UCLA's part. The blame, depending on the poster, is society in general, the URMs themselves, the social aspects frequently associated with some races in America, slavery, immigrants, etc.</p>

<p>On a separate note, people are pointing at the UCs with an accusatory finger and implying or stating that they're racist due to the low percentage of black attendees when in fact what many believe to be the 'problem' is that they aren't racist at all (i.e. that racial preferences aren't being made). People not familiar with the state of California college system need to understand that the schools are tiered by qualification level and are competitive within those tiers. This is one reason why the UCs are at the top end of most college rankings and some of them are at the very top end - quite an accomplishment for a public school system. They're able to achieve this while still providing opportunities for a large number of students of all races and economic backgrounds.</p>

<p>The UCs are targeted for the top 12% of the state's HS graduates - not all HS graduates. The Cal State schools (not to be confused with the Univ of Cal schools) are targeting a tier at a point lower than the top 12% on up. Within this top 12%, due to the competitive nature of the UCs, some of the UCs are more difficult to be admitted to than others (i.e. UCB/UCLA/UCSD are more difficult than UCR/UCSC/UCD, etc.).</p>

<p>The overall tone of this thread when focused on UCLA is that the state of California is failing to provide opportunity to its citizens and others due to the low percentage of some URMs at a specific school - UCLA. Don't forget that California has many other schools including other UCs as well as a large number of Cal State schools followed by a community college system with excellent transfer pathways into the UC/CalState system for those who choose this option. This system doesn't necessarily translate to all other states since not all states have a systsem like this or a population as large as California's. The posters here will have the details on their states.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that the state of California provides a system with opportunity to everyone without regard to race. One can be assured when they see an URM attending a California college or who has graduated from one, that this person was not given any allowances based on their race and that the individual was considered on an equal level with all other races.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and I'm thinking of your daughter, whose face I've never seen, in a plane on her way to Paris, and somehow I really feel happy about it all,..

[/quote]
Me too. I’m also very worried. But – she’s a big girl (<em>ahem</em> about six feet tall!) and very capable. Too bloomin’ fast. My goodness.</p>

<p>In regards to the AA question.. you should probably check out how many URMs that enter top colleges actually graduate... that would probably crush the belief that they are only their b/c of URM status. But anyway, I am a URM with stats that would allow me to attend UCLA but I never even considered any of the UCs. One major reason was the whole hassle of the SATII, I live in the midwest and most colleges on my side of the country never require them and thus high schools dont encourage them too hard.. I never even knew what an SATII even was until the end of my junior year. Also, the UCs dont go very far to recruit minority students. I never even recieved any mail from any of the UCs besides Berkeley let alone a phone call or personal visit. I received visits at school from representatives of many of the top privates and most of the good publics at least gave me a call and an e-mail.</p>

<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad</p>

<p>
[quote]
The overall tone of this thread when focused on UCLA is that the state of California is failing to provide opportunity to its citizens and others due to the low percentage of some URMs at a specific school - UCLA.

[/quote]
I don’t think these schools are racist, not directly. I think they exist in a racist society and that should they do nothing admissions-wise to address this, you would get exactly the result you are getting in California.</p>

<p>Say you get 300 black kids pulling down SAT 1500+ and applying to any one top school with race not being a factor at all. Those kids are going in with upwards of 30,000 whites and Asians. And this 30,000 whites and Asians are vying for a very small number of seats. Basically, it means that no matter how hard these black kids work, the odds of their forming a good black representation at any one school are just very low.</p>

<p>Why is it important that they even form a good “black representation”, you ask? Because of history. In a sea of whites who have historically been associated with the problems of blacks, and with Asians who, by no fault of their own, have historically been detached from the issue, one or two black guys are often just gonna feel lost, probably misunderstood. Plus, at this rate, you aren’t talking about a lot of black participation in the whole school dream thing.</p>

<p>Now, I’m saying all this, but I have to admit that my own kids have vigorously disagreed with me here. In fact, they would totally reject probably everything I’m saying about the solidarity thing. So, it could be that maybe it is not as important as I am making it out to be. But I really do think it is important, at least for me it is!</p>

<p>myheart: "Also, the UCs don't go very far to recruit minority students"</p>

<p>Why should they just based on race? You already said you have the stats to be accepted so you can investigate the school on the internet, go visit the school, attend info sessions, etc. just like everyone else does. Why the need for hand-holding? Of course a state school isn't going to do a lot of recruiting in another state even though the school is open to the other states. </p>

<p>My Daughters (in California) never received phone calls or mail from most state schools in other states except for some neighboring ones even though they would likely have been academically qualified for all of them. They did receive a lot of mail from the privates but this is expected because the privates aren't funded by taxpayer dollars as are state schools. If they'd have been interested in another state's public Uni, we would have simply investigated them on the internet and visited the campus.</p>

<p>Dross:
Don't apologize about the "solidarity thing." I think you've got it exactly right. And my sons - URM's - wouldn't think of going to UCLA.</p>

<p>"Then tell me it's easy.</p>

<p>It's not."</p>

<p>I went to Japanese kindergarten, does that count?</p>

<p>Seriously, though as an adult I lived in Germany for five years - it was much more foreign than I had really expected it to be. But I did what I think most(if not all immigrants do) - I learned to speak the language and got involved in normal German activities. A culture that is truly more removed would be even harder.</p>

<p>I also think we forget that the second generation is almost always nearly completely assimilated. It certainly worked that way in my family. Most of my grandfather's generation lived in the German area of Chicago. His children all went to Harvard and ended up all over the place. His grandchildren had to study German in school.</p>

<p>"Also, the UCs dont go very far to recruit minority students. I never even recieved any mail from any of the UCs besides Berkeley let alone a phone call or personal visit. I received visits at school from representatives of many of the top privates and most of the good publics at least gave me a call and an e-mail."</p>

<p>I think it's more that they just don't recruit out of state period. My son filled out the PSAT questionnaire and we've been inundated with mail. (Especially since he scored so well.) But we haven't gotten a peep from the UCs either.</p>

<p>That said, I think that if a university wants to be more diverse without affirmative action they have to recruit aggressively.</p>

<p>
[quote]
By the time the Poles, Italians, and Germans began to flow in serious numbers, there were already vast numbers of Poles, Italians and Germans ready assimilated and established parts of the existing culture.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And there are millions of assimilated Asians, Latinos, and others who readily move in and out of the ethnic enclaves and the society at large, providing a buffer. What's your point? </p>

<p>The only difference between now and then is that today we're seeing large numbers of NON-WHITE immigrants. That's about it. In terms of sheer numbers, it's not that different.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And I do fear that is not happening and won’t happen with rapid and uncontrolled immigration.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uncontrolled? Don't ignore the marked difference between the past and today. Besides, if you're just referring to illegal immigrants, then it's a different conversation altogether. But don't lump all these browns and yellows into the same group, as they have very different cultural values. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Right now, I suspect vast numbers of blacks still think this idea of America is just a fraud, and this thing about freedom and equality is all a sham. No way these folks are gonna trust you as a fellow countryman when you can’t even closely identify with gross infringement against the values you claim to hold dear.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not immigrants. Somewhat of a poor analogy, don't you think?</p>

<p>
[quote]
No. I don’t realize this. I think it quite depends upon the respective natures of these populations. 42,000 people can profoundly affect 600,000 depending on who they are and how FAST their circumstances change.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me put it this way: Which group is MORE LIKELY to be affect?</p>

<p>mathmom,</p>

<p>My girlfriend is as American as anyone I know; she just has the last name of "Chang." Her mother? Sorta. Fairly American in her thinking, but still very Chinese.</p>

<p>But why should that damn my girlfriend to a life of being told she's not American enough?</p>

<p>
[quote]
That said, I think that if a university wants to be more diverse without affirmative action they have to recruit aggressively.

[/quote]
Can they do even this regarding race? My understanding is that the UC’s aren’t really able to work toward diversity because of their law.</p>

<p>They can recruit as aggressively as they want. They just can't admit based on race alone.</p>