<p>Stanfordhopeful05 - It actually is a GOOD THING to complain about the admissions standards at UCLA. People complained about affirmative action policies for many years, and finally it did some good because they had to, by law, get rid of that horrid system. Now the UC's, and left wing colleges everywhere are trying to get around the fact they are not supposed to play favorites with any race, and right now they are successful, but if people keep complaining, they will eventually have to change their pathetic admissions policies again.</p>
<p>peter kelly, why are you so angry? Were you adversely affected? I think you're trying to tackle the issue of afirmative action and putting all your frustrations on UCLA. I don't think that's fair.</p>
<p>albywalby, not sure why you think i'm angry? i mean, just because i have an opinion about affirmative action doesn't translate to anger...i am just using UCLA as an example as i am responding to comments on this thread from people who are frustrated by such liberal policies, as well as people who support UCLA's policies. I am a third generation Californian, and there are so many people at my high school with majorly high stats and EC's that got turned away and it is wrong.</p>
<p>Sample selection bias leads to biased estimates of a population parameter. Anecdotes provide a weak foundation for making sweeping generalizations.</p>
<p>im an intl so my gettin in definitely has nth to do with affirmative action or whatsoever</p>
<p>but cmon, you get rejected and you get rejected. full stop. suck it up and pull yourself together, stop complaining abt sth that nby knows if its true or not. i personally think its silly to try to find out some kinda reason behind why some so-called qualified ppl get admitted n some not-as-qualified dont, esp when you guys dont have any kinda valid proof or anything even close to that. im sure the admission office ppl pick the ppl they think would be suitable for ucla and reject those who they think would be better off in other schools.</p>
<p>if you get rejected and you simply go on making generalizations about how unfair the admission process is and blablabla, its pretty damn clear why you get rejected. <em>shrug</em></p>
<p>and liberal bias is liberal bias, and UCLA has been guilty of it for years.</p>
<p>and there are so many people at my high school with majorly high stats and EC's that got turned away and it is wrong.</p>
<p>wait, how is this wrong?</p>
<p>
[quote]
...there are so many people at my high school with majorly high stats and EC's that got turned away...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>it happens everywhere. the college admissions process is not perfect.</p>
<p>Yes, affirmative action is the root of all evils in admissions nowadays, isnt it? <em>rolls eyes</em></p>
<p>I have no qualms with the promotion of diversity, no matter how colleges do it. And of course many of your friends "with high stats and EC's" are going to get turned away because many whites (but not all, of course) have the resources and opportunities to achieve. </p>
<p>Besides, god, who knows what else they take into consideration during the admissions process besides Stats and ECs anyway?</p>
<p>" ...there are so many people at my high school with majorly high stats and EC's that got turned away..."</p>
<p>you're talking about harvard, stanford, princeton, etc. right? but really, many people with majorly high stats and EC's at many high schools get turned down from any top 25 university.</p>
<p>peter kelly, what I meant was that URMs may work just as hard as someone else more fortunate, but their stats are still not going to be as great. Going to competative school is a good thing. It's not like you're surrounded by people that don't care about school. My parents are migrant workers, they have absolutely no idea about how the college process work. They wouldn't care if I got straight D's. It's hard to stay motivated when no one else cares. My dad even told me that he didn't care if I graduated from high school. I busted my ass off these last 4 years, but someone like you wouldn't think so because I only have a 3.6 gpa and 1230 sat. I know that's low, but AP teachers at my school won't give out A's no matter what, and only 8% of students score over 1000 on the SATs. So is it my fault that I got to a non competative high school and that no one ever gave me any support? Does it mean I should go to UCR because I wasn't as fortunate to go to a good school like you? It isn't fair that people with high stats get rejected, but I'm sure they'll still go to a great school and will excel at whatever they do.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and I'm not saying that people with high stats had no hardships. I think people like that definitely deserve to go to UCLA. Don't blame me for UCLA's admissions policies.</p>
<p>Peter Kelley, I really DO NOT believe Affirmative Action played a role in my son's rejection because he goes to a predominantly asian & Caucasian high school and many in those groups with lower gpa's and comparable to lower test scores were accepted over him. People reading this thread can be assured that there is no covert affirmative action operation at the UC's. More likely, socioeconomics play a major role, regarless of skin color.</p>
<p>newspwahine...i am sorry you are feeling attacked by me. i most certainly never meant what i said to be taken that way. my moral and political beliefs have nothing to do with you. they have to do with policy and politics. just to respond to two of your points:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>you erroneously assumed i would assume scores and gpa of a minority would be low. i would never do that. that would be bigotry and i am not a bigot.</p></li>
<li><p>i am not blaming you for your scores and gpa. i do not understand where you come from when you say something like that. i am blaming UCLA (and the entire UC system) for their subjective admission policies that excludes way too many DESERVING students, because they insist on making their decisions based upon one student's hardships versus another's. that is dispicable.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>buzzwick, how do socioeconomics play a role?? pls explain...</p>
<p>Of the people at my son's school who were accepted with lower stats--they have a financial hardship. Yes, there are people besides African-Americans with financial hardship. Those applicants are given a second look in the UC system.</p>
<p>"1. you erroneously assumed i would assume scores and gpa of a minority would be low. i would never do that. that would be bigotry and i am not a bigot."</p>
<p>im pretty sure you are assuming low scores and gpa otherwise you would have no argument regarding AA at all unless you believe UCLA should accept more students.</p>
<p>The UCs use subjective criteria for admission, whereas Cal Poly SLO uses more objective criteria. It is much more cut and dry. I'll take Cal Poly's system any day. (Fair disclosure: my son was admitted to UCLA, but I think that the Cal Poly system of admissions is much more fair.) The complaints about UC admissions are legion, but Cal Poly gets far fewer complaints because they use a more fair system.</p>
<p>affirmative action is good!</p>
<p>i think that discussion assumes alot and that it can be clearly summed up by the mistakes both sides have made:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>There are negatives and positives of Aff Action (AA) including the alienation of AA candidates once they reach college because people like "peter kelly" believe such students were accepted only on the basis of race or URM titles.</p></li>
<li><p>There are credible arguments supporting the idea that we ought to accept the most qualified. However, UCLA is not a school looking for homogeneity (sp?). While MIT is looking for the next math/science geniuses, UCLA is looking for a class with perspective.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The most important word that refers to pinnacle of UC admissions is "perspective". I agree, there are PLENTY of highly qualified candidates many who were rejected while those with poorer stats were accepted(including myself with a 1270), but the reason for this stems from the objective that the UC attempts to fulfill -- a class that has perspective. Selecting a class on this basis attempts to draw from ethnic, social, economic, and educational backgrounds that complement each other. An African American with parents that don't care about his education and a white student with parents that sent him through the Princeton Review have A LOT more to learn from each other than two of each. UCLA isn't looking to diversify and they aren't looking to revive Bakke v. UC Davis, they're looking to attain perspective: people who know what its like to be sheltered and people who know what its like to go without a meal or have parents who can't read.</p>