"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11

Applying to College
861

<p>@theanaconda UC’s must draw the majority of their students from CA. The state has the largest Asian population in (in sheer numbers) of the country (6 million). That’s 15% of all CA residents. For Berkeley, everyone in the Bay Area (high Asian population) applies. While that obviously doesn’t account for the full 43% (high stats being the other factor), it’s gotta determine a decent chunk. If every college wiped affirmative action away, yes, Asian percentages would be higher -but never in UC proportions.</p>

862

<p>@Lilliana330‌
But the numbers spiked after they got rid of affirmative action anyways. I agree though, I’m not sure I expect 43+% in race-blind admissions, maybe a more modest 35%ish like it is at caltech I think would be more likely. But Berkeley and the UC system is the actual “experiment” done on
It so it’s what we have to go by.</p>

863

<p>@theanaconda CalTech’s numbers seem more realistic, but I think that, as a STEM school, the numbers might be a bit skewed too. Studies show that Asian Americans enter STEM fields twice as often as their non-Asian counterparts, so they might get a higher-than-avg. percentage of Asian applicants. </p>

864

<p>The percentage of Asian students admitted to Cal has not changed since the alteration of their admission policies. It has consistently hovered around 27-28%. The amount of Asian students applying has skyrocketed which makes sense considering the location of the school largest state and city populations if Asians sans Hawaii and it’s emphasis on a stem curriculum.</p>

865

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, I understood it all along, xigs. SCOTUS ruled (7 to 1, I might add) that the Fifth Circuit erred by not applying strict scrutiny to the case and ordered them to redo the case. And now, the Fifth Circuit has made the same mistake twice by not applying strict scrutiny the second time around either.</p>

<p>Funny how you are always here to gloat about your “victories” at the lower levels and sulkingly silent when you lose at SCOTUS. Of course, it will never occur to you, ever, that your arguments are pathetically weak. No one has ever defined “critical mass” in oral arguments. And Schuette was a complete joke; it’s shameful that it was a 6-3 decision instead of 8-0.</p>

866

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s interesting. Is that true across the UCs or just at Cal?</p>

867

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh no, you still do not understand much of all it because you look at life through thick colored lenses. I am not “gloating” about what you call “victories” at the lower levels. At best, those victories tend to reflect how far our nation has still to come to terms with the injustices of the past and the present. But you won’t ever be able to recognize that as your way to “deal” with such injustices would espouse the now infamours line of Chief Justice Roberts. </p>

<p>But none of that matter. You are completely missing the mark about the errors of the lower courts, and grossly misinformed about the impact of the SCOTUS to send it back. Just as you missing the point about the Schuette cases final impact and how it ultimately might help “your side” and hurt the minorities. I hope you might, some day, understand that the Schuette decision is hindering the efforts to impose the rules of the majority on the disadvantaged. </p>

<p>As usual, I feel sorry for you everytime I poke my head in this thread and measure the wasted time and effort and the futility of your entire discourse. What have you accomplished by repeating the same trite arguments over and over, and miss the fact that people deliberately set you off as your reactions are so predictable. </p>

<p>I’ll check in a few months and look at dozens more pages of the same ol’ stuff! And know that next December, January, and April, the chips will fall in the same way as they did before. You are preaching in the desert, my friend! </p>

<p>Is there not a community of real people that you could help. Such a vigor and intellect should not be wasted on lost causes. </p>

868

<p>OHMOM, take a look at the data available here:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2014/fall-2014-applications-table3.1.pdf”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2014/fall-2014-applications-table3.1.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>You can go back here <a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/studstaff.html”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/studstaff.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>or compare 2004 <a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2004/applications2004/app04table5.pdf”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2004/applications2004/app04table5.pdf&lt;/a&gt; to the most recent one.<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2014/fall-2014-applications-table3.2.pdf”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2014/fall-2014-applications-table3.2.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>At Cal
2004 10700 Asians and 4500 Latinos
2014 16800 Asians and 11600 Latinos </p>

869

<p>Thanks xiggi. I’m not quite able to find Asian admission RATES for pre-97 and post -97, though. I can see the rise in the % of Asians on campus, but not if the current 26-30% admit rate that seems to have lasted for 10 years, was the same before 97? </p>

870

<p>

</p>

<p>Really? I don’t remember all your posts, but [I&lt;/a&gt; do remember this one from almost three years ago to the day](<a href=“NYTimes: Race Question on Apps Perplexes Multiracial Students - #148 by xiggi - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums”>NYTimes: Race Question on Apps Perplexes Multiracial Students - #148 by xiggi - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums) where, yes, you most certainly gloated about what you thought at the time was a certain victory for your side:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There is no question that the tone here is one of unbridled glee. xiggi predicted that the Sixth Circuit would not rehear Schuette and thus naturally thought that there was no way SCOTUS would accept the case. So euphoric was xiggi that he even speculated that the decision would lead to the overturning of Proposition 209. And if “this goose is cooked” isn’t gloating, then I don’t know what is.</p>

<p>Of course, with the lovely benefit of hindsight, we know that the Sixth Circuit did rehear the case, and SCOTUS did accept Schuette and ruled 6-2 in favor of Michigan against BAMN. And as I’m sure you know all too well, xigs, BAMN’s attorneys were utterly humiliated during oral arguments. They contradicted themselves left, right, and center, most egregiously when they claimed that Proposal 2, which banned the use of racial classifications, was itself a racial classification and then refused to say that the 14th Amendment is a racial classification.</p>

871

<p>All I can add, Fabrizio, is a sound “Bless your heart!” </p>

872

<p>I only know about Cal Berkeley </p>

873

<p>There are some tables that track admissions by campus and ethnicities. Here is the last one:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2014/fall-2014-admissions-table3.pdf”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2014/fall-2014-admissions-table3.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Then you can jump to the oldest one posted <a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2001/campus.pdf”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2001/campus.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>You could compose the data by looking up the numbers every 3 years. Looking at the admissions in 1997 through 2001, you might see the impact on Latinos/Chicanos with numbers ranging from 1000 to 1200. In 2014, that number was above 1700. The Asians went (I think) from 2500 to 3500. The admissions trend in the past three years for Asians at Cal is downwards with an attrition of 700 from 4200 three years ago. </p>

874

<p>I’m pretty sure this has been posted here, but it’s a long thread and I don’t want to search through it. I just want to make sure of this since I’m curious. The ethnicity questions on common app are optional, so if I don’t report anything, will colleges know my ethnicity or not? Given my background, name, and citizenship and everything, it’s very obvious what my ethnicity is. However, are colleges not allowed to assume anything? That’s what I think I read on this thread, but I want to make sure.</p>

875

<p>My grandfather is Full blooded Iroquois so what percent does that make me? My family always said we had a native american heritage but I wasnt sure how much? Unfortunately I never met him as he passed before I could spend time with him.</p>

876

<p>1/4</p>

877

<p>I want to see percentages of each race applying to college too. Is that not pertinent?</p>

<p>Isn’t college self-selecting?</p>

<p>And, uh, isn’t at least 2/7ths = 29% of the world’s population Asian?</p>

878

<p>I did see those, but nothing PRE-97 which is the first post-Prop 209 class, I believe.</p>

879

<p>

</p>

<p>The percentage in the blood line are not as relevant as your tribal affiliation. Unless you have been a participant, the impact of having a grandfather who happen to be an Iroquois is nil in terms of college. </p>

880

<br>

<br>

<p>AFAIK, Prop 209 was implemented in the late Fall of 1996 and its real first impact was on the Class of 1998. I think you might find the table posted on the Wiki entry “good” enough for the type of granularity warranted, and despite the variances in admissions and enrollment. The patterns are easy to follow.</p>

<p><a href=“1996 California Proposition 209 - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_209&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>HTH</p>