<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad,</p>
<p>I have no problem with that sort of admissions policy. I don't like quotas, nor do I like admissions that simply ignore socioeconomic factors. That's all.</p>
<p>UCLAri:</p>
<p>I think it's necessary. Strictly looking at scores misses the big picture. </p>
<p>I know of some hiring managers that purposely looked for applicants that weren't necessarily the highest scoring (in college) candidates but rather, had reasonable scores while having to hold down a job to support themselves through college. The theory was that if they could do well in school while having the challenge of working hard through school, they'd have no problem working hard and doing well on the job.</p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad,</p>
<p>I know people who outscored me on the GRE at my program who I'm fairly sure I'll keep up with. Scores ARE important, but they aren't the only metric.</p>
<p>Well, scores aren't the only "metric" but they are what we have that can be quantified. We all, black, white, or whatever, have various circumstances, and they simply can't all be addressed, so grades and test scores are what is used. I agree with Ward Connerly, this change doesn't pass the giggle test. PUHLEEZE!!!!! How stupid do they think the public is?</p>
<p>The other bit of information that is missing is how many of the black applicants have been accepted and chosen to go elsewhere, specifically to private schools that can consider whatever they want to in admissions. I am guessing that many simply got a better offer with more generous financial aid and are now going to schools some UCLA students might have wanted to go to but couldn't afford. </p>
<p>Bottom line is still that it is unfair to those with higher scores to be denied admission because of some unquantifiable social factors. And really, is playing the race card the way a person wants to get into college, rather than strictly on merits? Currently, at least at UCLA, other than recruited students like athletes and those in the theater department, everyone admitted met the same high standards and is hard working and smart. This to me is an equalizer, that takes away the differences rather than perpetuating them.</p>
<p>bbsister,</p>
<p>Why'd you put metric in quotes? :confused:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bottom line is still that it is unfair to those with higher scores to be denied admission because of some unquantifiable social factors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Woah, woah, hold on here. This happens ALL the time at ALL levels of admission. The qualitative factors that you almost deride are incredibly important for admission to all but a small number of programs (undergrad and grad.) Essays and ECs are constantly brought up throughout this forum as a key for distinguishing oneself from everyone else...or even for making up for a deficiency.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Currently, at least at UCLA, other than recruited students like athletes and those in the theater department, everyone admitted met the same high standards and is hard working and smart.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Y'know, I knew more than a few recruited athletes at UCLA, and all of them were pretty hard working folks. You try to follow their schedules (workouts, training, games, AND studying) and see how far you get.</p>
<p>I'm not advocating that ethnicity even be a big factor. But we definitely ought to consider socioeconomic factors at admissions time. I mean, who's going to do better on the SAT? The kid who got weeks of one-on-one coaching...or the kid who took it cold because he couldn't afford any help?</p>
<p>but ucla does consider socioeconomic factors...... i know i did not getting on my 1700 something SAT score...... it was definitely my condition that explained my stats which were plainly average..... for this site......
and yeah like i said earlier.... even if this is a problem.... it can only be solved at high school level, by encouraging... students to work better, providing better resources at crappy schools...etc.. not by colleges accepting people just to maintain diversity......</p>
<p>and also how do they expect an enrollment of 8%(percent of blacks in LA, read in one of the articles) with only 5% applicants......</p>
<p>I absolutely agree that it's largely a secondary level problem, but it doesn't mean that UCLA and other universities can't act as catalysts for change.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>WHaaaaaaaaat does "catalysts for change" mean??? I've seen that before, and have no idea what it means. It just seems to be what people say in such instances. What exactly do you want to change??? Admitting the most hardworking, qualified individuals, completely without regard to race, seems to be the honorable thing to do. </p>
<p>I am not saying that athletes don't work hard, but I AM saying that, generally, it is presupposed that they don't necessarily meet the same stringent admission standards as regularly admitted students. I haven't seen their stats lately, so I can't swear to this, but when athletes are recruited far ahead of their peers who are admitted academically, you figure it out. Same thing in theater, FYI. Audition only. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I don't recall ANY admissions application that asked if your parents had the money to hire a SAT coach or not, or if your parents struggled so that you could have a course. My sister IS a National Merit Scholar, walked in and took it cold, FYI. You are also presupposing that every black kid doesn't have the money for extra coaching, but that every white or asian kid does. That is just ignorant. If they want to factor coaching or no coaching into the decision, fine, but race is truly not a part of that. Lots of poor white or asian kids would love to have the advantage of a course too. Quit making everything about race, and quit negating the accomplishments of EVERYONE who gets admitted to UCLA, black, white, or any other. Marching and demanding that any particular group be admitted is still offensive.</p>
<p>bbsister,</p>
<p>You still haven't told me why you put the word metric in quotation marks.</p>
<p>But anyway, catalyst for change means that you admit people to the university who may later serve as community leaders and active developers for blacks at large. It means that you'll give otherwise underdeveloped groups the types of go-getters that they'll need to finally break the vicious circles that have plagued them up until now. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Admitting the most hardworking, qualified individuals, completely without regard to race, seems to be the honorable thing to do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that only the people with the highest grades and SAT scores, though?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Same thing in theater, FYI. Audition only.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This sounds like sour grapes to me, as theater students are being admitted by a totally different metric than standard liberal arts students. You're comparing apples and tangelos here. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You are also presupposing that every black kid doesn't have the money for extra coaching, but that every white or asian kid does.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Am I really now? Where did I say that? All I said is that socioeconomic factors play into a family's ability to provide SAT tutoring as well as academic resources.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My sister IS a National Merit Scholar, walked in and took it cold, FYI.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One datum a statistical analysis does not make.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If they want to factor coaching or no coaching into the decision, fine, but race is truly not a part of that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not concerned solely with race, however. I've said this time and time again. However, when you have an ethnic group that has a high correlation toward being in a strained socioeconomic group, it becomes a little easier to work the two together. Of course there are cases where you may confound the two variables (I see it done all the time.) That's why we use them both carefully and attempt to weigh the value of either variable in each individual case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quit making everything about race,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How can I quit doing something I'm not doing?</p>
<p>
[quote]
and quit negating the accomplishments of EVERYONE who gets admitted to UCLA, black, white, or any other.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? :confused:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Marching and demanding that any particular group be admitted is still offensive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When did I do that? :confused:</p>
<p>I'm going to make a demand too, now. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. </p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>why the hell are you guys arguuing with each other..... its cool to voice your opinions..... but... questioning and arguing with each other is not doing anything....... and this is not directed towards anyone in particular......</p>
<p>"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."</p>
<p>When people talk about diversity, they seem to focus on skin color. The implication, of course, is that people of similar skin colors share similar views. Which is absurd and somewhat demeaning.</p>
<p>Admissions are color blind, as they should be. For when you admit one based on skin color, you reject another based on skin color.</p>
<p>Diversity of IDEAS and VIEWS is what's important. And in that area, most universities get a failing grade.</p>
<p>I think this is missing UCLAri's opinion. His take is just about factoring in socioeconomic differences among applicants. I don't think race is what his opinion is based on...</p>
<p>It's ALL about race.</p>
<p>"Socioeconomic differences" is just a proxy to skirt the law, and avoid admitting the desire to return to racial quotas and discrimination disguised as affirmative action.</p>
<p>"Diversity of IDEAS and VIEWS is what's important. And in that area, most universities get a failing grade."</p>
<p>sblake7 what are you talking about.....</p>
<p>even though i haven't started college yet, based on my experience at the orientation i can tell you that even my small group of ten random people was very diverse, not just racially, but in beleifs, ideas, culture, values, morals, region.......everything..... </p>
<p>and i repeat that was just a group of ten random people out of a university of 20+ thousand undergrads........what are you basing your statement about no diversity of "IDEAS and VIEWS" on????????????</p>
<p>R4Life:</p>
<p>I'm talking about the lack of intellectual and political diversity among the faculty at most universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm talking about the lack of intellectual and political diversity among the faculty at most universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In other words..."OMG!!! ALL THE ENGLISH PROFS ARE TEH LIBERALZ!!!!"</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Socioeconomic differences" is just a proxy to skirt the law, and avoid admitting the desire to return to racial quotas and discrimination disguised as affirmative action.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because, let's face it. Poor people have the SAME EXACT opportunities for college prep. And way to put words in my mouth. Do you always turn to logical fallacies to make your point, or did I just luck out this time?</p>
<p>since i haven't been there i can't argue about the professors..... but i know there are clubs, such as bruin democrats, bruin republicans, etc i know people there who are liberatatrians....... i bet there is all kinds of political diversity, with such a huge student and faculty population, there is bound to be diversity.......and intelectually..... well every teacher has there own style and ideas, so there has to be diversity... just cuz you didn't find one supporting yours, yet doesn't mean, one doesn't exist.......</p>
<p>The saying that admissions is purely based on academic qualification is bogus because I know many people who were admitted with very low SAT scores and many that were rejected with high SAT scores and multiple varsity letters and ECs. Not to mention that the ones with the lower SATs were asian and the ones with the higher SATs were black.</p>
<p>wheresmycat, who says that saying? I don't know anyone who truly believes it. Secondly, who says that SAT I scores are everything? The UC system values SAT II scores more than SAT I scores, but it does what it can to devalue both in many ways. Admissions is complicated, and there are many factors about which those not directly involved (i.e. us) have no idea.</p>