<p>ixjunitxi: No one is offended by the fact that many more African Americans got in this year. I'm sure many more students welcome it since it means bringing new viewpoints and more diversity to UCLA, but it does suck for those asians and whites who had the same stats or even slightly better stats than a black student. Certainly, race is not a overwhelmingly important factor in admissions, but it is definitely considered.</p>
<p>stats, stats stats...im sure if UCLA thought the same way you did they wouldnt have turned away 800 validictorians</p>
<p>Ecs are considered, essays are considered, geographical background is considered, legacy is considered, financial situation is considered, athletic potential is considered, I mean the list goes on.</p>
<p>And im pretty sure that 392 african americans were ACCEPTED....that doesnt mean that was the number of them that applied. So im sure the ones that got accepted had pretty good STATS</p>
<p>I meant that AA says that you (an affluent African American) will be accepted over a poor white or Asian who overcame far more challenges than someone like you solely because of the color of your skin. My example had nothing to do with UCLA, it was just an example of what AA can often do.
I am not offended by the large amount of African Americans offered admission this year, but rather with the concept of AA.
Also, there were many qualified whites and Asians that were not accepted, just as there were probably some URMs that were turned down with good stats, don't tell me that UCLA (with a 20 something acceptance rate) only turns down the VERY BOTTOM, which is incredibly insulting to qualified people who were turned down by UCLA (btw, NOT me, so this is not a result of bitterness).
Also, neither legacy nor financial situation (in and of it's self; so overcoming low income would be considered, but not solely that fact that you're rich vs. poor) are not considered for any of the UCs.
Nobody has said that these students had poor stats, people are just concerned that the large increase is not a result of legal practices (and once again, taking race into account is illegal).</p>
<p>There are plenty of qualified students rejected every year- its just natural with the sheer number of applicants. The question becomes now how were qualified applicants considered and why was one pool of qualified students accepted while another pool rejected. And I agree Charisma that social economic status should be considered in conjunction with race if race is being considered, because that is one of the main concept of AA (giving extra consideration due to limitations afforded to a person).</p>
<p>I don't doubt that the students accepted were qualified. There was a dip in admissions for certain groups, and so its expected at some point that number would go up (numbers fluctuate and don't remain constant). This year happened to be a quick turning point, which isn't really that suprising considering the scrutiny and media attention it received last year. I believe diversity adds to the whole college experience and think its important to maintain a diverse college campus</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLA objectifying black students</p>
<p>UCLA is pulling out all the stops to make sure the 392 black freshmen they accepted know for certain that they are, indeed, black. How can one ignore this fact with an event such as Friday’s “Admit Weekend: Black by Popular Demand?”</p>
<p>But an event isn’t quite money in the bank. While everyone else applies to get scholarships – filling out applications with details about their academic and sports careers to compete for money – these students get them without even asking.</p>
<p>UCLA is treating these students as if they were not individuals, but “The Black Students.” They are nameless and faceless – but colorful – which is way more important to UCLA.</p>
<p>I hope every single one of them declines their admittance offer in indignation. This is not how you treat human individuals. It is how you treat sheep.</p>
<p>Nader Badri</p>
<p>Fourth-year, International development studies</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>uhhh it certainly persuaded me to join UCLA instead of USC....</p>
<p>and it was sponsored by the UCLA Black Alumni Association, so it wasn't really the university's money going through to provide scholarships. a special interest group wanted to give money to kids that represent their ideals...so what? all of the black students who got into UCLA are pretty smart and well-rounded.....some may argue holistic admissions/affirmative action let all of the dumb black people in blah blah blah but in truth they worked their asses off too. we already proved that we're academically/EC focused, so i don't see a problem in the BAA giving us scholarships. i see it as being the same as giving a student a regents scholarship without them having to fill out an extra application. </p>
<p>and the weekend was really fun and it definitely showed that the black community at UCLA cares that we join them. and plus all of the free **** was nice =)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Admitted students’ scores show disparity</p>
<p>Anthony Pesce (Contact)
Published: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 </p>
<p>Data from 1995 to the present recently released by UCLA shows that students who identify as black and Latino or Chicano are admitted with lower average high school GPAs and SAT scores than white and Asian students.</p>
<p>University officials firmly maintain UCLA does not violate state law in its admissions process and say any trend data does not provide a complete picture of admissions.</p>
<p>But Ward Connerly, a former UC Regent and author of legislation that banned affirmative action in California, insists UCLA is illegally attempting to admit more minorities, and, while doing so, sacrificing the academic standards of the university.</p>
<p>UCLA’s admissions process can be complicated and takes many factors about each applicant into account.</p>
<p>Director of Admissions Vu Tran said there is no clear formula for how each application is scored but emphasized that every conceivable factor except race and gender is considered.</p>
<p>University policy states that the largest factor in admissions must be academics, which include GPA and SAT scores, while other much smaller factors include the income of a student’s parents, whether a student is a first-generation college student, and the academic ranking of the high school.</p>
<p>Some of the numbers, which include racial breakdowns of several admissions factors, provide a relatively rare look into specific admissions trends and statistics.</p>
<p>The figures showed that on average students from lower-performing high schools and low-income families have had slightly higher acceptance rates since 2002.</p>
<p>Further, Asian students, on average, have had almost universally higher acceptance rates over the past several years, including Asian students from low income brackets or attend a low performing high school compared to other ethnicities in those categories.</p>
<p>Students who are in the top 3 percent of their class qualify for “eligibility in the local context”, which means they are guaranteed admission to at least one University of California campus, an have seen slightly increase acceptance rates to UCLA in the past three years.</p>
<p>Connerly argues that looking at trends in admissions data, such as average SAT scores and GPAs, is important because it can point to academic deficiencies in groups of admitted students.</p>
<p>But Ana-Christina Ramon, research coordinator for the UCLA Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies, said the figures show UCLA considers a number of factors in admissions.</p>
<p>“Traditional indicators of merit which are often heavily relied upon are now still pretty high on average, but in general you can see that the more diverse student body that was accepted shows that other factors are also taken into consideration,” she said.</p>
<p>Connerly agreed that UCLA should not only look at test scores, but added he is particularly concerned about the gaps between the races.</p>
<p>“I’m not one to believe that you should rely solely on GPA and SAT (scores) but when you systemically discriminate against two groups of students in favor of the other two in order to compensate for the academic gap ... that is morally wrong and constitutionally wrong,” Connerly said.</p>
<p>He added that accepting black and Latino and Chicano students with SATs and GPAs lower than white and Asian students is unfair to those held to a higher academic standard.</p>
<p>But Tran noted that looking at such a narrow batch of statistics constitutes a “snapshot in a very limited angle” and said admissions statistics are lacking the more intangible factors such as the personal statement.</p>
<p>“They are all qualified based on overall achievements like ... leadership,” he said, adding that though the statistics may show slightly lower GPA or SAT scores for minority students, all of the applicants accepted are more than qualified for admission.</p>
<p>Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Janina Montero said it is UC policy to admit students from the full spectrum of qualifications, not just those who are very academically qualified.</p>
<p>D’Artagnan Scorza, access coordinator for the African Student Union, said academic factors cannot be taken into account outside the context of a student’s achievements.</p>
<p>“Students who get admitted to UCLA still have to achieve in the context of their environment,” he said.</p>
<p>“The definition of merit unfortunately has been defined as GPA and SAT scores. ... It doesn’t tell you how successful a student will be at UCLA,” he added.</p>
<p>Ramon said the gap in GPAs and SAT scores between underrepresented minorities and white and Asian students could be at least partially accounted for with grade inflation.</p>
<p>She said since students who come from more affluent schools typically have access to resources such as honors and Advanced Placement courses, it makes sense that they would have higher GPAs.</p>
<p>“When you look at studies of academic performance, they indicate that high school grades and standardized test scores explain less than one quarter of the variance of freshman GPAs across the UC campuses,” she said.</p>
<p>Montero said UCLA has access to a database that allows application readers to evaluate students in the context of their experiences because they can look at what high school each applicant came from and what courses the school offered.</p>
<p>She also said personal statements can be good tools for evaluating applicants, and the statement can be weighed based on how much information the applicant supplies.</p>
<p>But Connerly maintains the disparity in GPAs and SAT scores reveals a motive to increase minority students on campus artificially.</p>
<p>“There has never been any doubt in my mind that UCLA and Berkeley have been discriminating against Asians and whites in order to achieve diversity,” Connerly said.</p>
<p>With reports from Julia Erlandson and Jennifer Mishory, Bruin senior staff.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Score gaps stir dispute over holistic approach</p>
<p>Julia Erlandson (Contact)
Published: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 </p>
<p>When UCLA announced its decision last year to adopt a holistic admissions process, some expressed hope that the new system would help increase the number of underrepresented minorities admitted to the university.</p>
<p>Officials said at the time that holistic review was intended to make admissions more fair by placing more emphasis on students’ personal qualities and achievements.</p>
<p>And while the number of underrepresented minorities admitted did increase overall, there is still a significant gap between the SAT scores and high school GPAs of black and Latino students compared to white and Asian students.</p>
<p>The persisting gap left some questioning whether the switch to holistic review had really improved UCLA’s admissions process.</p>
<p>In fall 2006, before UCLA switched to holistic admissions, black and Latino applicants’ average SAT scores were 255 and 246 points lower than the average for their white and Asian counterparts.</p>
<p>That gap seemed largely unaffected by holistic review – in fall 2007, black applicants’ SAT scores were on average 293 points lower than those of white and Asian students, and Latino applicants’ scores came up 249 points short.</p>
<p>Applicants’ GPAs told a similar story. In both fall 2006 and fall 2007, black students’ GPAs were about two-10ths of a point lower than white and Asian students’, and Latino students’ were about one-10th lower.</p>
<p>Ward Connerly, a former UC regent who sponsored anti-affirmative action legislation in several states, said he believes these disparities reflect a lack of fairness in UCLA’s admissions process.</p>
<p>“UCLA said it would revise (its admissions standards) to take non-academic factors into account, ... but the data that I looked at suggested that they were looking at non-academic factors primarily for black students,” Connerly said.</p>
<p>“It seems to me that there is something going on ... that is allowing admissions people to weight non-academic factors to such an extent in favor of black students.”</p>
<p>Ana-Christina Ramon, research coordinator of UCLA’s Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies, which has conducted studies on the university’s admissions, said in order to understand the effect of holistic review, it is necessary to look at applicants in the context of their schools and communities.</p>
<p>UCLA’s old admissions system relied heavily on GPAs, so students from less affluent communities who did not have access to many Advanced Placement courses were unable to attain the same high GPAs as their counterparts from more privileged areas, Ramon said.</p>
<p>“Now, students are considered more in the context of the communities they come from,” she added. “That helps, then, in terms of looking at students; ... did you get a 3.9 because your school only has one AP course?”</p>
<p>And admit rates for minority students from lower-performing high schools did increase after the implementation of holistic admissions.</p>
<p>High schools in California are rated according to the Academic Performance Index, a 10-point scale with higher scores awarded to higher-performing schools.</p>
<p>From fall 2006 to fall 2007, the admit rate for black students coming from high schools with API scores of 1 or 2 jumped from 12 percent to 27 percent.</p>
<p>The rate for Latino applicants from these schools rose from 25 to 27 percent in the same time frame.</p>
<p>Ramon said these figures are testaments to the success of holistic review.</p>
<p>“That’s a sign of how the holistic admissions is working,” she said. “You have to really take into account all these other (non-academic) factors ... so that your students have a true college experience ... where they’re learning from each other.”</p>
<p>But at the same time, the admit rates for white and Asian students from low-performing high schools fell.</p>
<p>In fall 2006, 35 percent of Asian students and 41 percent of white students from California high schools with API scores of 1 or 2 were admitted to UCLA.</p>
<p>In fall 2007, those numbers dropped to 31 percent and 33 percent, respectively.</p>
<p>Connerly said he was not surprised by the latest admissions figures.</p>
<p>“I’ve had my suspicions that UCLA was going to try and find a proxy for race to get the pressure off their backs,” he said. “As you look at the underperforming schools in California, ... Asian kids are going to those schools to almost the same extent as black kids are.”</p>
<p>But D’Artagnan Scorza, access coordinator for the African Student Union, said he does not believe holistic review means underrepresented minorities are being held to lower standards.</p>
<p>“It’s how we look at merit. Should someone be allowed in the university because of GPA and SAT scores? Yes. Should someone be allowed in the university based on the context of their environment? I say also, ‘yes,’” Scorza said.</p>
<p>Ramon said it will likely take several years to adequately assess the effect and success of holistic review.</p>
<p>In any case, Ramon said she was not sure holistic admissions alone would be able to close the SAT and GPA gap between underrepresented minorities and white and Asian students.</p>
<p>“Changes in the entire school system would have to be made. ... There are a lot of inequities in the K-12 system,” she said.</p>
<p>With reports from Jennifer Mishory and Anthony Pesce, Bruin senior staff.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This "holistic admissions" policy is pure BS designed solely to appease the Black leaders who were making an uproar about this last year. There was at least one protest on campus, one of the community leaders called it "a crime" (whatever that means) and some are even saying (absurdly) that there is some sort of deliberate and racist purge of higher education. I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend. Prospective students should be admitted based on their qualifications, not the race they belong to. This is not only illegal and harmful to UCLA's academic reputation, it is blatant insult to those qualified students who worked hard throughout their four years of high school, but were not admitted. I sincerely hope that UCLA reverses 'holistic admissions' and reinstitutes the previous policy.</p>
<p>^ agreed.</p>
<p>actually i wish america would do university entrance exams. either you're qualified or not. my mother came from an incredibly poor family in taiwan and she went to bei i nu, and then ntu, so it's not like poverty makes people dumb.</p>
<p>Basing a decision off of race is ridiculously counterproductive to anything black leaders hope to accomplish in terms of social justice. The moment this this thing continues on to a second or even third year, whites and Asians will be in an uproar, forcing another Prop to get rid of it for good. I agree with the posters above; its unfair to discriminate solely on race. Any preferences should, instead, be given to socio-economic standards. It's not anyone's fault that they're poor, and if I were, as an admissions officer, to choose between a poor Asian student and a well to-do African American with the same grades, I don't really care that the school has to fill some imaginary "quota" on URMs I'm choosing the one that has clearly demonstrated that he/she can overcome circumstances.</p>
<p>Personally, I went to the Black weekend and looked around thinking "Wow, we're all here because we're black". Not true. We were just as achieving as everyone else who got admitted. I sat in rooms with ASB presidents, drum majors, club presidents, over 4.0 students. We didn't get in just because we're black. Being black only made us suffer in life and be treated unfairly since we got into school and even just walking around our own towns. We used those experiences as testiments to our ability to continue under difficult circumstance. </p>
<p>Like it's been said, we do need diversity at schools to reflect the real world. I say if you're good you get in, regardless. Ethnicity is not a factor. Besides, there's no real fuss all Cali.s are guaranteed admission to at least one UC. So it's not let everyone else gets left out int he dust. Hard work is rewarded regardless of where you are, who you are, who your parents are.</p>
<p>Let's not forget to consider the fact that UCLA is a public school and everyone that is qualified should be considered. As an "equal-opportunity" university, funded by the Californian's taxes, it should also represent the state's demographics. </p>
<p>How many AA are there in California? How many applied this year? How many applied last year? How many got in? How does that measure up to the demographics? IT DOESN'T. Who are any of you to be critical our leaders trying to make a positive change for our community? </p>
<p>And WHO are ANY of you to be critical of the students that actually made it in??!? It's ridiculous, the single-minded opinions just FLOW from the mouths of those who are most ignorant to the subject and least likely to research the truth- but rather wallow in their ignorance and gobble up everything they're fed. Come on, BRUINS... Let's talk about AVERAGES:</p>
<p>A-A: 10, 8, 1 = 6.3
LTO: 10, 8, 8, 1 = 6.75
ASN: 10, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 1 = 7.3
WHT: 10, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 1, = 7.5</p>
<p>You're right, guys, our averages are lower. I mean, it's simple math, right? Who can't see that?? You know what, since we're on the subject, I'm curious to know the RANGE of the SAMPLE SIZE??? Does that make a difference? </p>
<p>I mean, what do I know? A first-year AA female?! I must be THE least qualified, and absolute BEST example of why this "HOLISTIC" system should be flushed. Cause, ya' know what? I'm sitting here looking at the numbers, and I just CAN'T see why everyone's so mad at US. </p>
<p>I'm not even going to GET into the whole HISTORY of African-Americans. NOR am I going to touch on the PERSONAL ADVERSITY that many AA's face as a DIRECT RESULT of that HISTORY. </p>
<p>BUT, I will challenge everyone to do a little math. </p>
<p>I will also ask (politely- of course) that if you didn't do your homework, don't raise your hand.</p>
<p>"As an "equal-opportunity" university, funded by the Californian's taxes, it should also represent the state's demographics.."</p>
<p>Why? Do you want UCLA to match the state demographics in, say, intelligence? Take a sampling of bright and dull people so that it "represents the state's demographics"? How about height, or weight? Are we properly "representing the state's demographics" on those data points? Age? Got enough seniors on campus to "represent the state's demographics"? (How about diversity of political opinion among the faculty? But that's another issue...)</p>
<p>No, you're not really interested in the student population representing the state's demographics, except in one all important (to you) area: skin color. Something that most of us hoped would be largely irrelevant by now is apparently THE most important feature to some, as they continue to chant the mantra of racial divisiveness.</p>
<p>Admissions are supposed to be color-blind. That seems right to me.</p>
<p>race should not be considered in academics...look at the ivy leagues...they have very few minorities and no one is ****ing about it.....yet they are considered the best of the best...it should only be based on academics...period....no matter the circumstances...it's a dog eat dog world out there where there are no shortcuts....</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is IT IS NOT A SHORTCUT. I'm sorry I took just as many AP as my non-AA friends who made it into UCLA. I'm sorry I do more sports than they do. Sorry I've been demonstrating leadership in clubs and color guard since I was a sophomore. I worked just as hard as anyone else to get into UCLA as did everyone I met at the black weekend. So next time you want to belittle us, I suggest you go out and find someone of African descent and get to know them. You'll be shocked at their work experience, volunteer hours, leadership, e.c. activities, grades, and school work. And yes, sometimes we all get mad when we think someone unqualified got into a school we didn't or we feel like we worked harder but we always say that before we see the whole story.</p>
<p>I got in because I maintained over a 3.5 unweighted with honors and AP classes while my brother was hospitalized my freshman year so I was home alone a lot with my younger brothers, my sophomore year my grandmother was supposed to die, and I got straight A's last quarter despite the fact I had to suddenly leave the country because my grandfather died I was out of school for 2 weeks for his funeral and STILL did my senior project and got it in only 3 days late.</p>
<p>Btw, I was in a country where I was lucky to have a flushing toilet so I didn't even have a computer to work on my project.</p>
<p>I am sorry that everyone feels that because the holistic admissions process produced an increase in African American students, it considers race. The fact is this concept is completely false. I personally know readers who have described in detail their process of accepting. RACE WAS NOT CONSIDERED. What was considered was background and other things that are vital to understanding student potential.</p>
<p>IT IS A SHAME that people would post such comments, implying that African Americans entering Fall 2007 will be here because of their race. You all are directly enforcing the stereotype that African Americans are inferior. Now, black students are reading these comments and feeling inferior, as though they do not belong here. Don't get it twisted! UCLA would not admit students they felt would not represent the institution to its fullest. </p>
<p>Future freshmen! You belong here! Congrats, your hard work has paid off. The readers could not see your skin color and it couldn't influence your acceptance. You made it here and I applaud you. Cant wait to see you all next school year!</p>