<p>A follow-up to an earlier thread about declining numbers of African Americans enrolling at UCLA:</p>
<p>So UCLA is going to a more holistic approach, like UC Berkeley's? Q: How successful is UCB at attracting Af-Am matriculants?</p>
<p>Latest reported data for UC Berkeley:
* <1% American Indian/Alaskan Native
* 47% Asian/Pacific Islander
* 3% Black/Non-Hispanic
* 10% Hispanic
* 30% White/Non-Hispanic
* 2% Non-Resident Alien
* 7% Race/ethnicity unreported</p>
<p>The football team, OTOH, is probably ~80% Af-Am.</p>
<p>From the article itself...</p>
<p>
[quote]
But each UC campus, though required to stay within the broad guidelines, also was free to interpret the policy in its own way. UC Berkeley allows individual readers to review all parts of an applicant's file.</p>
<p>At that campus, 140 black students, 10 more than in 2005, have said they will enroll this fall, making up 3.3% of the class of about 4,200. The number of Latino students also rose.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, it looks like Berkeley had a 7% increase in Af-Am students from 2005 to 2006.</p>
<p>^^^interesting use of statistics^^^</p>
<p>140 out of 23000 undergrads...sounds like both Berkeley and UCLA need to do something differently...not sure the "holistic" approach is going to get you far.</p>
<p>They shouldn't do anything differently.</p>
<p>People should be admitted based on competence, not race.</p>
<p>"They shouldn't do anything differently."</p>
<p>Maybe, they should have done PLENTY differently to avoid being what they are today.</p>
<p>i'd rather have fair admissions than AA. good for you UCLA, don't change a thing.</p>
<p>I'd like fair admissions too. Unfortunately, such a thing has never existed - and because of the ramifications of this fact alone, I suspect it never will.</p>
<p>ellem: I am rather surprised that your data is more than a bit shaky; only ~4,100+ Frosh enroll at Cal each year.....please, feel free to take shots at our State, but at least get the denominator correct! 21k was the applicant pool for last year's class, of which, some also applied and attend UCLA....</p>
<p>Do you understand the difference between enroll and apply?</p>
<p>96 black freshmen enrolling at UCLA and 140 at UC Berkeley. Really small numbers. My question is, how many were admitted? Is the problem entirely one of admissions or are black students reluctant to attend these campuses?</p>
<p>Basically, to mirror California's AfAm population, which is 7%, Cal needs to double its numbers of blacks. This is tough when highly qualified black students are wooed out of state by the Ivies, Top 20 universities and LACs, the historically black colleges, etc... </p>
<p>Anecdote: Really good friends of ours are African American. Mom's a teacher and dad is a city financial analyst. Both of them were born and raised in California and attended state colleges. They have one son and two daughters. Their son, now in his 20s, was a good student with okay grades and was a good but not great athlete. He attended Morehouse as a full payer. Oldest daughter, gifted, straight-A's, phenomenal soccer player. Attended Emory on scholarship (part financial aid, due to older brother in college, part athletic scholarship). Youngest daughter, even more gifted, even better grades and test scores, also a very good soccer player. Attended Northwestern on full-ride scholarship. Both daughters were flown all over the country for free by private universities and offered special incentives to attend. </p>
<p>I'm not sure how our state universities can truly compete with privates that have lots more money and resources to spend on achieving racial balances.</p>
<p>Simply another end around court decisions limiting color coding, with the ultimate result of permanently stigmatizing further the alleged victimized class - by in effect creating a permanent "unable to compete on the merits" underclass.</p>
<p>I applaud the UCLA change on procedural grounds. (It may or may not result in an appreciable change in racial balance.) The previously bifurcated method of review does not provide the consistency that the article notes is truer for other U.C.'s & for many privates.</p>
<p>There is not a lot of hand-holding at the U.C.'s, period. As the committees are aware of this, I doubt that a change in procedure will result in admitting a lot of underqualified students (of any race) who need heavy levels of support. It may just make UCLA a more predictable choice for an applicant, whereas it is now less predictable than Berkeley. (It is not uncommon for very top students to be accepted at Berkeley, rejected at UCLA.)</p>
<p>momof2inca hits on the head as to the OOS recruiting, etc. Note, too, that the family she describes (a) was living a very mainstreamed middle-class lifestyle, unlike most of their urban counterparts in the large metro areas, (b) features educated parents -- a critical component, overwhelmingly, of student success. (Also a feature not necessarily the norm.)</p>
<p>So again, while I applaud the change, I do not expect dramatic & immediate changes in <em>racial</em> balance, even if it results in a broadened profile of student body qualities generally.</p>
<p>momof2, what kind of middle & high schools did the 3 students you describe attend?</p>