LA Times: "UCLA accused of illegal admissions practices"

[s_dragon]

<p>To Mr Moo, I thought it is “Ga giu nang” right ?</p>

[mrMOO]

<p>Ga gi nang.</p>

<p>[Gaginang.org</a> | a Teochiu | Teochew | Chiuchow | Chaozhou | Nonprofit Organization |](<a href=“http://www.gaginang.org%5DGaginang.org”>http://www.gaginang.org)</p>

<p>Don’t fuss about gi vs giu, just some rough translation. Not like we have some formalized pinyin system.</p>

<p>You teo chew by chance?</p>

[arklogic]

<p>well if you consider the face that a good percentage of those who apply to UCLA also apply to berkeley, and how the percentage of asians accepted at berkeley is so much greater than that at UCLA, there has to be something going on? just a thought.</p>

[s_dragon]

<p>I see, but still feel a little bit different between gi and giu haha. I have lived in a place that has many teochew family around, but they didn’t talk by teochewese much that I only learned very little of their language.</p>

[sunfish]

<p>Talk about stacking the deck: it’s now been disclosed that 25% of the readers are black. I bet the remaining 75% are all Democrats.</p>

[s_dragon]

<p>but I can’t quite get what the author want to say! want to increase to acceptance rate for black student? but didn’t the acceptance rate increase from about 11% to 16% already ?!!!</p>

[mrxalleycat]

<p>s_dragon… what the author is implying, under the holistic admissions approach is that they admitted more African-Americans simply because they were black [due to outside political pressure] at the expense of rejecting more qualified disadvantaged applicants. That is called “reverse discrimination”… which is unlawfully and unfair. </p>

<p>The author noted Admissions to black applicants went up while admissions to other disadvantaged races: Latino/Chicano, Vietnamese, Native American students went down. </p>

<p>

The number of low-income black freshmen soared this year but the OVERALL number of low-income freshmen fell

Under the holistic approach, many people got screwed over badly…reverse discrimination.</p>

<p>They need to get rid of the holistic approach and stick with the more fair, original system.</p>

[mrxalleycat]

<p>Leonhardt concluded: </p>

<p>

The big question that hangs over U.C.L.A.’s success, of course, is whether the university broke the law. Looking at the numbers, it’s hard not to conclude that race was a factor in this year’s admissions decisions. The average SAT score for admitted African-American students fell 45 points this year to 1,738. For Latino, Asian, and white students, the averages were much more stable. “I’m quite confident that U.C. factors race in, in various ways,” said [Richard] Sander, UCLA law professor and affirmative action critic. [end of Pg 6]

</p>

<p>Lowering the admissions standards for certain applicants to get a free pass at the expense of rejecting more deserving applicants is wrong.</p>

<p>

As Chancellor Abrams and many others admitted, the main reason for the switch to a holistic system was to increase the number of African American students. Judged by this standard, the switch was successful. In 2006, last year of old system, a randomly chosen African-American applicant had an 11.5% probability of being admitted. In 2007, the first year of the holistic system, the probability increased to 16.5%. Meanwhile, the comparable probabilities dropped for other disadvantaged races. Native American students’ chances dropped from 18.6% to 17.4%. Chicano/Latino students’ chance dropped from 18.3% to 16.8%. The holistic system decreased Vietnamese students’ probability of being admitted from 28.6% to 21.4%. [Pg 7]

</p>

<p>It seems like UCLA is practicing a hidden form of reverse discrimination.</p>

<p>Admissions to black applicants went up while admissions to other disadvantaged races: Latino/Chicano, Vietnamese, Native American students went down.
Yet, there is a big drop off in SAT scorers for African-American students under the holistic approach. </p>

<p>Do you think this is fair or not? Discuss…</p>

[qipao]

<p>

They need to get rid of the holistic approach and stick with the more fair, original system.

So tell me what’s fair - identifying socioeconomic discrepancies with “under-represented minorities” to pursue a more politically correct system? Something that identifies not just the problem of Affirmative Action but the eventually problems of stratifying society and creating a social stratification? Easily, these URMs could attend lesser competitive schools or community college - why does it have to be Berkeley, LA, and SD? Because they’re the cream of the crop and to separate races by school, to identify Whites and Asians at the elite schools is not just a pseudo-racism but again a discrimination. </p>

<p>So the issue we face is separation of races by educational system and the debate rages over 1) whether or not these URMs would be successful in the elite universities and 2) whether or not the investment would be worthy at all. It’s an experiment. Sure the schools might sound socialist but the political repercussions are too strong. </p>

<p>So tell me - what’s a solution to the holistic approach? You do realize that the Vietnamese have only been here since the late 70s and early 80s and it would provide for a difficult examination of the discrimination towards them for the supposedly ushering in of unfortunate, supposedly almost helpless URMs while the Vietnamese continue prospering as well? Are there statistics about the success rate of Southeast Asian students? Yes sure but the sample isn’t as strong as URMs - specifically blacks. </p>

<p>No, of course it’s not fair. I excelled in a less than satisfactory background and I had a series of external circumstances hindering my success yet I was graduating with a 3.9. I’m resentful I admit and I think programs like AAP keep the sentiments of discrimination - Latinos and Blacks populate it. Social stratification exists but the possibility of social mobility persists and the fears of racism exist as well… I’m furious but there is no other way for progress… for the evening out of the social platforms… and finally, with the possible expense of students who might be more deserving, who face even more difficult circumstances (what can you say about the Vietnamese who’ve been here for a few decades to expense a war-torn country? comparing it to what’s supposedly hundred of years of discrimination and racism and slavery and suppression to URMs?). I think not and as upset as I am, I hope the social platform is leveled out… just not at the expense of deserving students. </p>

<p>As much as the professor points out the case on the Vietnamese, I can’t help but remain hopeful that those students too can increase their chances at success… although the small sample of data remains cynically skewed if not completely unfair. </p>

<p>Call me a socialist but I’m somewhat hopeful, much to the chagrin of our opponents to Affirmative Action and an underhanded attempt under ‘holistic admissions.’ </p>

<p>Yours, Emmeline (if you couldn’t figure that already!)</p>

[vc08]

<p>

Yours, Emmeline (if you couldn’t figure that already!)

</p>

<p>LOL.</p>

<p>This article is a bit disheartening, but I’m a bit surprised it took someone this long to figure it out. Realistically, who WOULDN’T reveal their race in an essay if they felt it could be used as an advantage? It’s no different than writing about a parent passing away, or a serious illness overcome (though I in no way mean to suggest that these obstacles should be dismissed entirely). That’s probably the most obvious part of the personal statement; what do I have to offer that other people don’t? What makes me different? And, to African Americans, Hispanics, and other URMs, it’s obviously their race. In fact, I think it would be an interesting study to see what percentage of URM students mention race in their essays. I’d bet the overwhelming majority do.</p>

<p>But, it’s also important to note that the blame shouldn’t rest with the students, but rather with the admissions staff. Minorities are using their skin color and/or background as an advantage, sure, but the reason for that is that no one has told them they can’t! In the essay section, at least. And, I’m sure UCLA isn’t unique in this accusation. In fact, I’d bet many, many public universities use similar procedures, if only unintentionally. Of course, no doubt they’ll be more careful now.</p>

[qipao]

<p>

LOL.

Explain! :rolleyes:</p>

[vc08]

<p>hahaha idk, I was wondering A) what happened to you, B) When you would come back, and C) who qipao was.</p>

<p>And then that one little sentence answered 2 of those questions. In a very emmeline fashion. :)</p>

[qipao]

<p>A) I was banned for cursing.
B) All too soon - the next day.
C) It became obvious, no? There’s less cursing but the writing style is the same.</p>

[vc08]

<p>Hahaha ahh it happens to the best of us apparently.</p>

<p>as for C)…I haven’t been on here in forever! I think I was on the day you got banned, but just logged back on tonight, so it caught me a little off-guard :)</p>

[UC2008]

<p>i am all against affirmative action. and shame on UCLA if they really used illegal admissions practices. i am a taiwanese-american, and like typical chinese/taiwanese americans we were put in a rigorous academic environment… perhaps chinese/taiwanese americans are most lkely to be put under the most stressful and rigorous academic environment. yet many were not admitted to top-notch schools like UCLA, etc. meanwhile, other under represented minorities GET IN. i believe that universities should admit students who are most academically prepared. the other under represented minorities can succeed in differnt universities. .. asian-americans who are beter qualifed deserve the spots which the under reprsented minorities have taken away just because of their race.</p>

[vc08]

<p>I think it’s important to remember though that not ALL URMs are “underqualified.” Some of the smartest people I’ve ever met have been Mexican, black, etc. To put everyone into a certain category is simply ignorant.</p>

[alansda]

<p>Since we’re going on this topic, what does Obama think?</p>

<p>

**Stephanopoulos**: You've been a strong supporter of affirmative action.</p>

<pre><code>Obama: Yes.

Stephanopoulos: And you’re a constitutional law professor so let’s go back in the classroom…I’m your student. I say Professor, you and your wife went to Harvard Law School. Got plenty of money, you’re running for president. Why should your daughters when they go to college get affirmative action?

Obama: Well, first of all, I think that my daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged, and I think that there’s nothing wrong with us taking that into account as we consider admissions policies at universities. I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed. So I don’t think those concepts are mutually exclusive. I think what we can say is that in our society race and class still intersect, that there are a lot of African American kids who are still struggling, that even those who are in the middle class may be first generation as opposed to fifth or sixth generation college attendees, and that we all have an interest in bringing as many people together to help build this country.

Stephanopoulos: Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that in 25 years affirmative action may no longer be necessary. Is she right?

Obama: I would like to think that if we make good decisions and we invest in early childhood education, improved K through 12, if we have done what needs to be done to ensure that kids who are qualified to go to college can afford it, that affirmative action becomes a diminishing tool for us to achieve racial equality in this society.

</code></pre>

[CoffeeBreak_1]

<p>interesting. can you post a link to that?</p>

[s_dragon]

<p>^_^ interesting argument</p>

[qipao]

<p>I liked that as well. Besides, when his children post their socioeconomic information on their applications - the family income of his parents are upper-middle/upper-class and it becomes more than obvious about their status… never mind the information about listing that their parents were Harvard Law Educated and finally, potentially the President and First Lady…</p>