<p>So if you haven't heard yet, a professor at UCLA has accused them of using affirmative action (which is illegal in CA) and now he is claiming that the school denied him access to the college applications.</p>
<p>Professor</a> Suspects UCLA Is Illegally Using Race in Admissions Decisions - Chronicle.com</p>
<p>So, just wondering....What do ya'll think about this?</p>
<p>It's not clear yet that it's a "scandal." There is some more information about this issue in the FAQ thread on "race" in college admission. </p>
<p>(The discussion of UCLA occurs several pages into the thread; remember that threads on College Confidential forums are searchable.)</p>
<p>OP - I read the websit linked inside of your link.</p>
<p>What I believe is happening is that those who favor diversity (in the instant case, the % of admitted African American students) have found a way to change the application review process so that it is now possible for a reader to determine the ethnicity of the applicant from the essay. One reader reads the entire file and rates academic/personal performance, and life challenges. This knowledge then influences/causes the reader to give a more favorable rating to the two remaining subjective categories of life challenges/personal performance to pull up a lower than average academic performance.</p>
<p>Before the change for 2007 admits, the grader for academic performance was not allowed to view the applicant's essay. The review was bifurcated with separate scores from the two readers.</p>
<p>And voila! All of a sudden the AA admissions doubled while at the same time the other low income or other SES challenged applicants % admittance dropped (American Indian, Vietnamese, Chicano/Latino).</p>
<p>I agree with the Professor's conclusion that UCLA is attempting to do the right thing by continuing race-based affirmative action (civil disobedience). They have engineeered this outcome by instituting a new a reader review process (holistic admissions) that allows for this in spite of the fact that Prop. 209 prohibits race-based affirmative action.</p>
<p>The Professor does have a solution that he backs with data -- allow a higher % of transfer students, which accomplishes the same goal, legally.</p>
<p>I hope UCLA gets sued in court. Numbers such as the average SAT score of black students being in the 1800's dont lie.</p>
<p>^I do too, seeing as how SAT scores mean absolutely everything in college admissions (as it should be).</p>
<p>^When did I say SAT scores mean everything in admission?</p>
<p>What you've got here is the state of California, and UCLA, possessing differing objectives with respect to URM representation at the school. UCLA wants to do the same thing all other private schools do -- try to build a diverse student body that includes African American, Chicano/Latino, Vietnamese, and on to SES, poor and disenfranchised of any ethnicity. The law currently in CA allows for SES and "life challenges", but no longer allows for ethnicity as a basis for admittance.</p>
<p>UCLA (and almost all institutions of higher learning) and California Law (Prop 209) have differing objectives. UCLA has tried to figure out a way to "seemingly" comply with the law and still reach its objective. I believe they call that passive aggression. :)</p>
<p>I've got to believe every other State funded (I should say <em>partially</em> State funded, since the last I checked the State currently pays for less than 60% of the actual cost of educating an undergraduate student, and less than 40% of the cost in the Professional Schools) university is watching UCLA very closely to see if they are able to use this "holistic" admissions process to circumvent the intent of Prop. 209.</p>
<p>UCLA is now looking more at one's background--adversities, financial hardships, etc. These are often found in URMs' backgrounds (though obviously not necessarily). Furthermore, UC changed the essay prompts last year, and one of them was aimed specifically at allowing such students to elaborate on their background. I'm not surprised that UCLA's % URM increased this year.</p>
<p>Just 230 admits out of 4,888 people? I find it funny that people are complaining about 230 African American students getting in. That's just over four percent of the admitted applicants.</p>
<p>"What you've got here is the state of California, and UCLA, possessing differing objectives with respect to URM representation at the school. UCLA wants to do the same thing all other private schools do -- try to build a diverse student body that includes African American, Chicano/Latino, Vietnamese, and on to SES, poor and disenfranchised of any ethnicity. The law currently in CA allows for SES and "life challenges", but no longer allows for ethnicity as a basis for admittance."</p>
<p>Why then, did the admission rates for Vietnamese applicants, who are on average statistically poorer than African American applicants, fall significantly in the same year African American admission rates rose significantly? If UCLA really cares about diversity, it would focus more on SES and less on skin color.</p>
<p>Well, that's the crux of the issue, isn't it Kicharo?</p>
<p>Historically "affirmative action" has focused on ethnicity. In the past 10-15 years or so, the discussion has much more centered on SES (socioeconomic status).</p>
<p>And I agree that the fact that, as you and the Professor pointed out, the reduction in Vietnamese % admitted, in combination with African American doubling, demonstrates that ethnicity and not SES was the motivating bias in the readers of the applications in 2006 vs. 2005.</p>