<p>^^don’t forget, that some of those choosing to go elsewhere are ending up at UCLA (and vice versa), or perhaps a lower-tier UC with a Regent’s scholarship.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are going to USC and Stanford (2011 College Navigator numbers):</p>
<p>USC
Asian 23%
Black 5%
Hispanic 14%
White 41%</p>
<p>Stanford
Asian 18%
Black 7%
Hispanic 16%
Multiracial 11%
White 37%</p>
<p>And UCB’s numbers again:
Asian 37%
Black 3%
Hispanic 12%
White 30%</p>
<p>With all of their unfettered freedom to implement affirmative action, California’s two most selective large private schools are using it to promote the white man at the expense of more qualified Asians. And “white man” is not just a figure of speech. Both of these schools enroll 50% or more men, while almost every other university in the US has a higher admission/enrollment rate for women.</p>
<p>My bad, I should have pointed out that I was looking at UC overall (Data table 21 and 22 in UCbalumnus first link). </p>
<p>For UC overall yield (enrolled/admitted)
URM = 43.7%
Asians = 56%
White = 39.8%</p>
<p>For Berkeley:
URM = 36.6%
Asians = 46%
White = 39.3%</p>
<p>For UCLA:
URM = 45.9%
Asians = 36%
White = 37.9%</p>
<p>URM’s seem to prefer UCLA (location?).</p>
<p>Some of the other UC’s have very low yields across all racial types (what’s up with Merced (9%/6.6%/3.1%)?) it must have something to do with the way the UC system handles admissions.</p>
<p>Hmm…Momsquad, I don’t think 41% (USC) and 37% (Stanford) would make these two privates examples of white (male) dominated schools. Harvard is 49%, while Yale is at 47%. </p>
<p>USC is 51% Female/49% male, while Stanford is 48% female/52% male. In Stanford’s case, this is likely due to the mix of major’s offered (Engineering/Computer Sci/pre-med(Biology), which is typically more male dominated, while for example they don’t offer undergrad degrees in education…which is dominated by females. </p>
<p>I think at Stanford we come up with almost 19% white/male. If they are trying to promote the “white man” over everyone else…they aren’t doing a very good job of it! :)</p>
<p>^^^No, certainly no school in California is going to be white male dominated. But USC and Stanford each accept between 40 and 50% of their incoming classes from CA high school graduates. About 60% of UCB admitted students are from CA, so it seems reasonable to compare the profile of admitted students to each campus to infer criteria for holistic consideration.</p>
<p>Stanford freshmen class has only 1700 students. UCB freshmen class has almost 4500 students. UCLA has more than 5500. Furthermore there are 8 other UC campuses and 20 CSU campuses and at least 100 community colleges. So we cannot say Stanford educates more and gives more money to California low income students.</p>
<p>Remember Stanford and USC recruite a large percentage of URM students who are good in sports.</p>
<p>^^^ I’m not sure if using Stanford would be a fair comparison. Only 38% are in-state and it’s URM performance is better than say Berkeley or Harvard. </p>
<p>USC does have 58% in-state, and it’s URM demo is only a bit better than Berkeley’s…5% black, 14% Hispanic (23% Asians).</p>
<p>Either way, these would be two of the schools that white Berkeley admitted students are choosing over Berkeley. I would think ever more are heading out of state to private schools (and publics like UVA). Somewhere from 9 to 14% of students at the IVY league schools are from California.</p>
<p>USC has 38,000 students, 17,000+ undergrads and about 600 athletes. Of these athletes, many are doing sports like women’s Rowing(77) and water polo (40 men, 42 women)…and not all are on full scholarships. So it may increase URM, but I think the effect is a bit less than you may think.</p>
<p>Looking at Stanford’s breakdown (Colllege Navigator), it’s full of sports like Water Polo, Rowing, fencing, and even Synchronized Swimming. (really? Synchronized swimming is a sport?).</p>
<p>
Looking at the sports list at Stanford, most of them appear to sports in which minorities are usually underrepresented. I expect they recruit in these less popular sports, as well as the most popular ones that generate more income, since Stanford has won the Sears Director’s Cup for the best overall ranking across 20 sports (10 men + 10 women) in each of the past 19 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, this may not be a campus-specific phenomenon. General surveys indicate that black people tend to perceive a lot higher level of racial discrimination in US society than white people, for example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given hesitancy of some white students on these forums to considering other universities where white students are a minority group, I would not be surprised if this were true for some. Perhaps some white students are not accustomed to being members of a minority group, and have a relatively high “minimum percentage of own ethnic group” as an unstated criterion for choosing a university. Non-white students may have similar criteria, but their threshold percentages seem to be much lower (i.e. no expectation of being a member of a plurality or majority group).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The bolded statement and the implication of that big a financial aid “cliff” at $80,000 family income is not true. You can check the net price calculators.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Note that Los Angeles has a very high population of Latinos. For example, the huge Los Angeles Unified School District is about 75% Latino. So if students tend to prefer their hometown schools, that could be a reason. Note that the much less selective CSU Los Angeles is 62% Latino.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Merced is generally seen as the least desirable UC campus. So it would not be surprising if most students who got into any other UC campus (or a desirable enough CSU or desirable and affordable enough private or out-of-state public university) choose the alternative. Merced may also have admitted some students under ELC who did not specifically apply there, but were shut out of the UC campuses that they did apply to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Biology is actually a female-dominated major (58% according to <a href=“Where the Women Are: Biology - The New York Times”>Where the Women Are: Biology - The New York Times; ). UCs don’t offer undergraduate education degree either (in California, a teaching credential is a post-bachelor’s degree credential, although some bachelor’s degree programs in subjects like math include options of interest for prospective teachers). But comparing percentages in section J of the common data sets…</p>
<p>Biology: S 7.1%, B 13%
Psychology: S 4.1%, B 4%
English: S 3.6%, B 5%
Social Sciences: S 20.6%, B 20%
Communication/journalism: S 2.5%, B 2%</p>
<p>Engineering: S 15.1%, B 12%
Engineering technologies: S 3.7%, B 0%
Computer science: S 5%, B 1% (B probably for L&S CS only; EECS probably included in engineering)
Math/statistics: S 3.3%, B 3%
Physical sciences: S 4.7%, B 3%</p>
<p>lol my advice to check teh urm box still stands</p>
<p>
I expect Stanford is lower in Biology because Human Biology is not being included in this Biology category. Prior to 2012, Human Biology was the most popular major at Stanford. It recently dropped to 2nd after CS. It gets grouped into Interdisciplinary Studies instead of Biology on the CDS. CS also has increased substantially from the 5% in the quote. It was more than 8% in the 2012 CDS and should increase further when 2013 comes out since the number of students declaring majors in CS has increased to record levels.</p>
<p>What else besides human biology is included in interdisciplinary studies at Stanford? That category is 15.2% in the Stanford common data set that I looked at (versus 5% at Berkeley, where it is mainly humanities and social studies).</p>
<p>Lots of comments that state "The Prof doesn’t seem to understand that she was hired to read essays HER JOB WAS TO FIND THE TALENT AND FLAG IT, NOT TO QUESTION WHY TALENT ISN’T RANKED HIGHER! "</p>
<p>How wrong you are! The most important think is to question the metrics used by admission office. AO isn’t saint. It’s just a group of administrators, nothing else. Why do you trust their admission criteria? </p>
<p>Please notice, USA is the only country that has “holistic approach”. All other institutions in the world use merit, only.</p>
<p>Why trust them? Because the pros don’t walk in off the street, so to say, as the author did. They know their U and it’s needs (unlike the author) and how to filter.</p>
<p>She comes across as a bit obsessed with details that a qualified reader should be able to pick up and work with. There’s a reason the common media prints this sort of article and it has little to do with informing you and me.</p>
<p>The most important thing isn’t for a newbie to come in and question- a rookie hired for one temp job. The most important thing to the U is for a reader to get with the plan. </p>
<p>These top schools get tens of thousands of qualified applicants and have a very narrow window for review. She offers no unique savvy, no experience, nothing tells us how she especially “knows” Berkeley and what fosters success. She’s just full of questions. I was surprised she implied she was invited back.</p>
<p>Riverside won’t accept your S after Santa Cruz did. Riverside is not stupid, they know that kid would prefer Santa Cruz. They see admission results, they can do math.</p>
<p>Same thing goes for UCLA/Berkeley. A kid would never be accepted to both colleges. AO don’t want to compete with each other.</p>