<p>^ Riverside is no longer guarenteed or offered to UC applicants who did not apply, but “they” said they will try to accomodate all the UC eligible kids that DID apply.</p>
<p>
I know you mean this question rhetorically and likely have no interest in a genuine answer; after all you already know your truth.</p>
<p>However for those who may be wondering, the reason why the UC population is 4-5% black is that reflects how many applied. As you know, the UC system guarantees a spot at some campus to every applicant meeting the UC criteria. Of all 95,000 applicants in 2009, 80% were admitted somewhere. However there were only 4,670 applicants who identified themselves as black. So that is why their percentage in the UC population is low. See for yourself at the UC tables at [University</a> of California: StatFinder](<a href=“http://statfinder.ucop.edu/library/tables/table_3-2008.aspx]University”>http://statfinder.ucop.edu/library/tables/table_3-2008.aspx) </p>
<p>As for holistic review being a tool to increase minority admissions, the evidence sure seems to suggest that.
I suppose you could believe that pool of URM applicants just coincidentally happened to be 10% stronger the year after holistic review was adopted, but then people believe a lot of things don’t they?</p>
<p>I didn’t read your link today, but i have read the numbers in years past. To me it is striking that the 10 percent increase was from maybe 2.5 to 3.5 percent, not 20 to 30, or something like that. I think the actual number at UCLA went from 85 to 105 frehmans. not much considering the size of the freshman class. I am not asking for change. The people have spoken</p>
<p>I won’t say holistic admissions doesn’t favor URM admissions, I would just say I don’t believe it’s much of a boost UNLESS you also overcame a challenge. I also have not looked at the data for research purposes, but just looking anecdotely at my two little data points; URM’s who seemed to have stat’s in the ball park for a UC they didn’t get into, but no “challenges”, and they were declined admission. More true for my 08 daughter. '11 son’s stats were a bigger stretch. STAT finder says he should have had at least a fifty percent chance, and he didn’t get in. As expected. </p>
<p>And I am saying, even when someone got a bump, the actual number remains low, and does seem to have a huge impact on admissions.Just talking blacks here. I haven’t looked at other URM’s.</p>
<p>BTW, I am certainly NOT saying they “deserved” to get in. I AM saying maybe my D would have chosen one of the campuses she DID get into if there were more black people there. I believe the UC’s know this is a factor for some “high achieving black students” going elsewhere. </p>
<p>That could explain PART of the “only 4,670 applicants who identified themselves as black.”</p>
<p>If they are tweaking things, why not adress THAT? I think it’s becuase they can’t, but what do I know?</p>
<p>Same 3 percent exists at a lot of CSU’s as well.This thread was about CSU’s.</p>
<p>I looked at the table you linked. From first glance, without knowing anything about the aplicant pool, African american admit rates don’t look abviously inflated. Yield rates are interesting too.</p>
<p>The comment that I was originally responding claimed ECs did not count for much at UCs and would not compensate for low scores unless a person was a URM. I do not believe being a URM will compensate for low scores and gain acceptance to a UC. </p>
<p>It did not help the URMs that I know who had GPAs above 4.0 and SATs above 2,000 but as mikemac stated people believe a lot of things.</p>
<p>Oooh! lots of typos in my post! </p>
<p>I am at work. Supposed to be doing other things. </p>
<p>I AM a good speller though! </p>
<p>Really!</p>