<p>It seems like everyone here (at UCLA) is from East L.A. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>San Jose reppin' here!! :)</p>
<p>To add in my two cents, I agree with symphonyinblack. Race should not really be taken into consideration, but social economics status should be a factor. Kids from low income families are at much disadvantage compared to those whose parents could give them everything. </p>
<p>About using money for tutoring/SAT classes, you're missing the whole point- it's not about how useful those classes are. The thing is, if you have money, you are given the CHOICE to do what you want with that money. Some parents decide to send their kids to those classes, which might or might not be useful depending on each indiviual, and others use that money elsewhere, such as luxury goods or allowances for their kids. </p>
<p>Even if they don't use that money to send their kids to tutoring, just by moving to houses in better areas with better high schools is probably enough. Schools such as Mission San Jose, Monte Vista, and Saratoga (aka "feeders") instead of ones in the ghettos. (btw, I'm from norcal so I'm using examples from up there, I don't know about socal schools.) Low income families won't be able to do that, because they can't afford the houses in those areas.</p>
<p>And about race... (I am NOT picking on anybody or any race, this is just a personal example)
Back in my high school, we had an African American Student Association. Every semester, the kids in that club who gets higher than a 3.0 GPA gets their names mentioned. Kinda like giving them a gold star. At the end of the year, one of them even made it onto our school newspaper, for getting some big scholarship, because she had a 3.5 GPA or something. Wow. And if you're wondering, the people in the African American Student Association aren't those poor socially economically challenged kids from the ghetto. No, they're the ones from families that are well off, that go around sporting their Ecko Red and Sean John (or whatever designer clothes they wear), displaying their bling bling and their grillz. And me, well, I'm just an Asian kid from a family who's income is just about at the poverty line. Of course, no one really cares that I have above a 4.0 GPA because well, I'm Asian. There's a couple hundred other replicas of me running around campus, so I'm nothing special. But that African American girl from a well off family who got a 3.5.... now that's something. Because her skin color is different. I remember back then, I thought, "damn... if only I were black instead of Chinese, I'd be dirt rich from the scholarships that I'd be able to win." Of course I don't know if that would be true, but hey, if a 3.5 GPA can get you a nice fat scholarship, imagine what a 4.0+ would do... </p>
<p>Anyway, what I'm saying is, in these days, race isn't really an issue anymore. It's about money and opportunities. I remember there was a thread a couple months back complaining about how UCLA isn't diverse, because we only have a 4% African American population here or something? People should start thinking WHY, and not go "ok, we're gonna start doing holistic reviews on the apps where we'll take into account your race". Being smart enough to get into a UC has nothing to do with race.</p>
<p>With our income, my parents basically had nothing to give me. But they do what they can with what we have. I remember when I was younger, I wore second hand clothes from my older cousins. I never really had new clothes up until the end of middle school, when I stopped growing. My parents tried their best to allocate money for me to get tutoring/SAT classes when they think I need it. And I do my part by studying my ass off. I worked over the summer, and currently hold a work study job. Do I get to keep the money? No, most of it goes into paying for housing and tuition. Now, if those kids from that African American Student Association did the same with their money and time, instead of using it to buy clothes and bling bling, I am pretty sure they'll be able to achieve higher than a 3.0 easily. Once again, it's not about race- it's about how much resources you have (money), and more importantly, how you use them. </p>
<p>Maybe I'm being a little bitter, but really, some people already work a lot harder than most others to get what they want because of low family income, and holisitc review is basically suggesting that the others who don't work as hard is able to achieve the same with less work. </p>
<p>ok, so I guess that was more than two cents.</p>
<p>bump.</p>
<p>sofakingwangsta made a good point.</p>
<p>word</p>
<p>i feel the same way</p>
<p>"It seems like everyone here (at UCLA) is from East L.A."</p>
<p>^ mememememememe!!! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>With all the criticism that a lot of UCs (and particularly UCLA, I think) got last year about lack of minority representation, I would not be surprised if race was a sort of hidden agenda in the system.
Granted, I think a holistic system is just plain better anyway. People aren't points. Unfortunately it does allow for more subjectivity and/or bias to enter the system... But that's how the "real world" works anyway, right?
Of course, if that one guy is right, and the reviewers can't even see your race on the application, then no worries I guess.</p>