<p>Proposition 209 banned the consideration of race in public admissions and public employment. Holistic admissions does not factor in race. Race is not a part of "extraordinary circumstances."</p>
<p>Proposal 2, which passed 58/42 a decade after Proposition 209, also banned the consideration of race in public admissions and public employment. Michigan tried to ignore the voters of their state, but a Circuit Court of Appeals forced them to uphold the law. Michigan then decided to use a system that is designed to increase diversity without looking at skin color.</p>
<p>Racial preference defenders claimed that without their favored system, "URMs" would be discouraged from applying. That has since been shown to be utterly, utterly false. They are still applying and in greater numbers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fabrizio, your focus is constantly on the number of people who applied. How many "made the cut?" How many have matriculated? I would venture to say that those numbers are an embarrassment given the size and "prestige" of these campuses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not see them as an embarrassment. I see them as evidence of the prestige of these campuses. Not everyone can get in.</p>
I bet if AA benefitted Asians instead of Hispanics, Blacks, and Native Americans a few people on CC would be signing quite a different tune than they currently are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not speak for all Asians. I speak for myself. I would never support a system that treated me better than others simply because I have yellow skin. NEVER. It goes against everything I've been taught since I was a child.</p>
<p>You say that if one year there was only one Black freshman at either UCLA or Berkeley, people across our country would cry racism, and the UC system would be buried amidst protests and demonstrations.</p>
<p>According to JBHE, in 2006, there was one Black freshman at Caltech. Yet, I don't see Caltech being picketed for its "racist" admissions policies. Maybe it's because they don't have racist policies and they understand what non-discrimination means? Or, maybe it's because the general public is ignorant of the existence of Caltech?</p>
<p>I'll admit it's a subjective term but when you have only about 300 or so african americans enrolling in your top 3 public schools, I'd say that's embarassing. I prefer the UNC model where the numbers are more significant, almost doubling the 3 Cal schools combined and instate tuition values to boot. Even in your link it alludes to the seriousness of the underepresentation of minorities. Not living in that part of the country and not having read up on it enough, it's hard to tell if it's a problem that's really going to be addressed, or if it is political grandstanding.</p>
<p>I think the main problem that the top UCs are experiencing is a disproportionate enrollment. Ideally, the statistical breakdown of the races in a given class would be somewhat reflective of the makeup within that community. But the UC's hispanic and black numbers do NOT reflect the number of hispanics and black in California. The state's largest ethnic group (32 percent) are hispanics (esp. those of mexican descent). But only 14% of UCLA's incoming class is hispanic versus 45% asian (who are 10% of the state's population).</p>
<p>The 2% black is an ABYSMAL number. Seeing as at elite colleges the typical breakdown is about 7%, and some schools have more (Amherst 10%, Columbia 11%). California's population is only about 7% black. </p>
<p>But one would hope that they could AT LEAST enroll 5%. Somehow.</p>
<p>I haven't mentioned this before, but Kidder's paper doesn't help the "it doesn't do much" crowd.</p>
<p>According to his analysis, after Proposition 209 passed, the makeup of the UC Law School changed dramatically. White enrollment increased, Asian enrollment decreased slightly, and "URM" enrollment decreased heavily.</p>
<p>Doesn't that show that being a "URM" helped a lot?</p>
<p>As I've said before, whether or not you believe it is right to preferentially treat "URM" students is your opinion. But, it is fact that being a "URM" helps quite a bit at schools that use racial preference policies.</p>
<p>It helps urms, and it helps the university as well.</p>
<p>your problem is that you see them as getting an advantage solely based on skin color. Well the only reason the advantage exists is because they are just that, under-represented. At universities where asians are underrepresented, they are a urm and they are more sought after. </p>
<p>The sad thing is that by abolishing AA in california, it hurt all of the underprivileged urms the most. </p>
<p>And yes, i do believe that part of your inability to understand and see the big picture stems from the fact that you are asian and you feel that AA hurts asian students, which it doesn't.</p>
<p>tyler, name one top 50 college where Asians have an advantage based on their ethnicity. I think you're wrong about this. </p>
<p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term urm is defined as being certain ethnicities; it is not defined by whether a minority is under-represented at a particular college. Certain ethnicities are underrepresented in general; the term has been defined based on that, not by whether they are represented at a certain college. </p>
<p>btw, i am surprised that you still won't concede that whites should not have an advantage over asians simply because they are white. I've heard that Asians are held to a higher standard than whites although I have not actually read the studies.</p>
<p>Tyler09 writes: "It helps URMS, and it helps the university as well."</p>
<p>This is an excellent point often missing in the many AA threads in CC. Schools have the right and the obligation to offer the best product to their customers, that is the students and us, the parents. As I mentioned in another thread a pure meritocracy is not only unattainable (because of the lack of reliable metrics) but also may be undesirable. For many people, perhaps even those in the groups apparently affected by URM policies, a diverse student body is key positive element in the college experience.</p>
<p>Caltech was singled out earlier in the thread as an institution that emphasizes merit. I have no problem with that. In fact my son is a student there :-). It is a trademark of the institute and an approach they use effectively to create a very unique student body. For the right student there is no better place than Pasadena but few would argue that Caltech is suitable for every student. They consistently loose students to schools like Stanford or MIT that actively promote diversity. I know this is a stretch, but one could argue that this shows that even those at the top of the merit totem pole prefer environments where the learning opportunities, both academically and socially, are more diverse.</p>
<p>They consistently loose students to schools like Stanford or MIT that actively promote diversity. I know this is a stretch, but one could argue that this shows that even those at the top of the merit totem pole prefer environments where the learning opportunities, both academically and socially, are more diverse.</p>
<p>There's a saying, "ya get in where ya fit in." Many of the elite privates and some publics not strangled by the constraints of voted in initiatives, are far more sucessful in recruiting and retaining talented urm's. These urm's are choosing the college environments that are striving to create environments in which individuals of varied backgrounds can be together. Savvy urms and conciencious counselors know these establishments and target them. Dartmouth for example, is enrolling its largest group of african americans in it's history. I dont forsee a drop off in its prestige. When you read independent publications that speak about the social climates of various schools, often you read how people lament the lack of diversity. It's a good thing for all involved when colleges value diversity on many different levels.</p>
<p>Whether you support affirmative action or not, anyone who denies that URM's are given an advantage in admissions instantly loses credibility with me. What's ironic is that some of the most ardent defenders of AA are the ones who try to deny that it exists. lol</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to JBHE, in 2006, there was one Black freshman at Caltech. Yet, I don't see Caltech being picketed for its "racist" admissions policies. Maybe it's because they don't have racist policies and they understand what non-discrimination means? Or, maybe it's because the general public is ignorant of the existence of Caltech?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cal Tech is a private school. Public schools, like those of the UC and Cal State system, are intended to make a college education available to everyone because their instate tution is lower than that of private colleges. If they were to only have 1 African American student, some people would construe this as racist admissions policies. Cal Tech can do whatever Cal Tech wants because it is a private school run by Cal Tech and not a board of regents. On top of that, Cal Tech accepts less students than schools like UCLA and UC Berkeley (# of freshman according to college board: 214 Cal Tech, 4811 UCLA, 4157 UC Berkeley). The higher the number of applicants a school accepts, the more of a chance that there will be an African American accepted (same goes with other races: more likely that there will be Asians accepted, Hispanics, Whites, Native Americans, etc.) simply because there are more available seats. </p>
<p>You may see the statiscal breakdown of students enrolled at UCLA and UC Berkeley as "as evidence of the prestige of these campuses. Not everyone can get in" but schools within the UC system do not seem to have the same opinion. And they are the ones who wanted to ban AA in the first place. As I said in my previous post, schools within the UC system are growing concerned with the low number of African Americans on campus. Why else would UCLA begin to set up outreach programs that offer assistance and advice when it comes to applying to college at cities like Oakland? Who do you think they are honestly trying to help there? Because according to the 2000 U.S. census, Oakland is predominately Black and Hispanic.
<a href="http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm%5B/url%5D">http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm</a></p>
<p>jissell1013 - I mispelled CAUSAL... and I didn't mean casual.</p>
<p>KittyLow- Just because an institution is private doesn't mean that people * won't * cry wolf, it means that their angry shouting will have little, if any effect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cal Tech is a private school. Public schools, like those of the UC and Cal State system, are intended to make a college education available to everyone because their instate tution is lower than that of private colleges. If they were to only have 1 African American student, some people would construe this as racist admissions policies. Cal Tech can do whatever Cal Tech wants because it is a private school run by Cal Tech and not a board of regents.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now, take this statement, remove Cal Tech and add HYP, the rest of the ivies, Stanford, Duke, the Elite LACs and most of the other private colleges in the country. The only problem is that these discussions end up being pages long is when disussing AA at the ivies and other vry selective schools. What I don't understand is people apply to these schools fully knowing what the schools policy on attracting a diverse class. If anyone feel that what the colleges are doing or their philosphy behind doing it is so egregious, why would you want to attend? The number of applications are not going down, despite people knowing the college's philosophy.</p>
<p>"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term urm is defined as being certain ethnicities; it is not defined by whether a minority is under-represented at a particular college. Certain ethnicities are underrepresented in general; the term has been defined based on that, not by whether they are represented at a certain college."</p>
<p>-yes collegealum314, you are wrong. If asians suddenly became underrepresented at a campus, they would become urms. Then the colleges would recruit them more heavily and accept them more often.</p>
<p>Some colleges do actively recruit asian urms as they are underrepresented at a large number of schools. The problem is that many people only have their sights set on a chosen few.</p>
The sad thing is that by abolishing AA in california, it hurt all of the underprivileged urms the most.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did it? I believe you are ignoring the increased outreach to high schools that are located in economically disadvantaged areas. It just so happens that many of these high schools have a high concentration of Black students. Proposition 209 forbade UC from targeting students based on their skin color. It did not forbid them from reaching out to students of all skin colors who are poor. We see the positive results at both Berkeley and LA, where two out of every five students receive Pell Grants.</p>
<p>Your last paragraph strikes me as interesting. Because I am Asian and believe that Asians are hurt from racial preferences, I cannot see the "big picture." Hmm, not seeing something because of my race, isn't that what we call racism? Nah, it's not possible for a person who advocates the conscious examination of melanin levels in humans to be considered racist.</p>
Public schools, like those of the UC and Cal State system, are intended to make a college education available to everyone because their instate tution is lower than that of private colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Based on the data, we see that Proposition 209 has not made it impossible for the intention of those public schools to be realized. At Riverside, 8% of the freshman class is Black. At CSU-East Bay, 18% of the freshman class is Black.</p>
<p>Oakland is predominantly Black and Hispanic. But, it is not exclusively Black and Hispanic. That's important. UCLA's decision to target all students in Oakland is more inclusive than a policy that targeted some students but not others.</p>