UC Admissions Policy- Lawsuit, anyone?

[truMp]

Vol. 7, No. 33 August 21, 2002
UC’s “Too Many Asians” Admissions Policy
by Lance T. Izumi

Prior to Proposition 209, the University of California used race preferences to admit less academically qualified black and Hispanic students over more qualified Asians. Now, evidently uneasy that Asians make up nearly 40 percent of its undergraduates despite being only 11 percent of the state population, UC is again skirting 209 against high-achieving Asians.

The new system, called comprehensive review, de-emphasizes applicants’ SAT scores and high-school grades by adding new admissions factors, including participating in UC outreach programs, coming from a low-income family, first generation to attend college, attending a low-performing high school, and personal hardships. By these criteria, a student can rack up enough points to almost guarantee admission.

Although superficially race neutral, the new system is designed specifically to increase the number of blacks and Hispanics and reduce the number of Asians and whites admitted into UCLA and UC Berkeley, the UC system’s flagship schools. Under UC’s previous rules, grades and test scores were the determining factors for most admissions. Under those criteria, Asians and whites did well, but blacks and Hispanics did poorly, hence, the move to “comprehensive review.”

Under the new criteria, last year UCLA admitted fewer Asians and whites, but 19 percent more blacks and nine percent more Hispanics. Total system-wide black and Hispanic admissions are up significantly, exactly what UC wanted. The Wall Street Journal quotes former UCLA admissions director Rae Lee Siporin who says that the new system was crafted to make the student body reflective of the state’s population. Further, Siporin baldly says that simply using poverty as the key criterion wouldn’t work because it would “pull in” too many low-income Asians.

Also, according to the Journal, admissions to UCLA from heavily Hispanic schools, like South Gate High near Los Angeles, are way up while admissions from heavily Asian/white schools, like University High in Irvine, are down. One South Gate High Hispanic female student was accepted by UCLA with a 940 SAT score, 380 points below the average score for students admitted. An Asian student at University High with a 1410 SAT score was rejected by UCLA and says that she hurt her chances by not dwelling on her family’s hardships because “I didn’t want too much of a pity party.” This Asian student’s comment points to a culturally discriminatory aspect of UC’s new admissions system.

Many Asian cultures value stoicism in the face of difficulties. The Japanese, for example, speak of “gaman,” which roughly means to suck it up when things are tough. Whining is disfavored. Hard work and quiet determination are preferred. Liberals claim, with little evidence, that standardized tests are biased against blacks and Hispanics, yet cheer when UC adopts an admissions system that is culturally biased against Asians.

Even when high-achieving Asian applicants describe their hardships, many are rejected while lower-achieving black and Hispanic applicants with similar or lesser hardships are admitted. David Benjamin, who owns an SAT-preparation business, says ruefully, “It is simply shameful that it is worth less to be poor and Asian than to be poor and Hispanic.”

The gross subjectivity of the new UC policy, the open comments by UC officials and lawmakers, the telling statistics, and the cultural bias of the process combine to equal discrimination. Granting preferences on the basis of race is illegal in California. Lawsuit, anyone?

__________________________________________________

As most of you may well know, the University of California's "Comprehensive Review" system is simply flawed. Not only the flaws with the fact that of under represented minorities getting an advantage over "higher-achieving" candidates, but just the admissions of the entire candidate pool. Even students of white/ asian descent with "less merited" applications are beating out higher achieving applicants of all races. What is going on?

I think I'm so bitter because I have been one of the victims along with several of my friends. Anyone want to help out?

[yoMAMA]

why does Asian academic success bothers so many people?

new yellow peril in academics?

[hooligan]

why does Asian academic success bothers so many people?

new yellow peril in academics?

Too many low-income APIAs? I think low-income anyone are the people who should be going into the UC system. By the way, the comprehensive review hasn't helped the rates of Latinos and African Americans in UCLA. The article aggregates the results and thus you think Latinos and AAs are actually doing well, but truthfully they're not getting into the top-tier UCs.

The guy's a jackass, the comoprehensive review has barely helped people of color at all. I think people really have to understand that the UC policy is not a zero-sum game. If you don't get into the UC of your choice, it doesn't mean you've failed, it means you're probably going to get into a UC not of your choice. The problem is that everyone knows that there are good UCs and bad UCs. And a lot of "over achieving" students simply aren't satisfied with making it into a UC.

Rather, I think they tend to blame alternative admission policies for the way that the UC enrollment system is set up. If you didn't get into your UC of choice, it wasn't because someone "less qualified" took your spot, it means that the UC did not think you were going to add anything new to the campus.

Cliff notes:

1. There are no quotas in UC admissions.
2. If you're qualified to go to a UC, you'll get into a UC.
3. This does not mean that if you're qualified, you're going to get into the only one you applied to.
4. There is NO competition between people who are qualifed by comprehensive review and those who are qualified to get into a UC by traditional means.
5. UC admissions is not a "zero-sum game", there is not a competition for a "spot"

[SunWuKong]

isn't this article kind of old?

anyway, i absolutely agree with using the fact that a student came from a poor performing schools as part of the admission consideration. many schools give preference to certain high schools that are reputable, and that just never made sense to me. the benefit of a reputable high school should manifest itself naturally through good test scores, AP credits, and good high school GPA.

By the way, the comprehensive review hasn't helped the rates of Latinos and African Americans in UCLA. The article aggregates the results and thus you think Latinos and AAs are actually doing well, but truthfully they're not getting into the top-tier UCs.

are you sure? the article specifically say that there was a 19 percent increase in UCLA. are you basically saying that the author was lying? and what about this:

One South Gate High Hispanic female student was accepted by UCLA with a 940 SAT score, 380 points below the average score for students admitted. An Asian student at University High with a 1410 SAT score was rejected by UCLA and says that she hurt her chances by not dwelling on her family’s hardships because “I didn’t want too much of a pity party.” This Asian student’s comment points to a culturally discriminatory aspect of UC’s new admissions system.

The guy's a jackass, the comoprehensive review has barely helped people of color at all. I think people really have to understand that the UC policy is not a zero-sum game. If you don't get into the UC of your choice, it doesn't mean you've failed, it means you're probably going to get into a UC not of your choice. The problem is that everyone knows that there are good UCs and bad UCs. And a lot of "over achieving" students simply aren't satisfied with making it into a UC.

but earlier you said that Latino and African American students are not getting into the top tier UCs. shouldn't they be satisfied with just making it into a UC?

2. If you're qualified to go to a UC, you'll get into a UC.
3. This does not mean that if you're qualified, you're going to get into the only one you applied to.

this can be an argument to support sending Latino and African American students to "bad" UCs.

4. There is NO competition between people who are qualifed by comprehensive review and those who are qualified to get into a UC by traditional means.
5. UC admissions is not a "zero-sum game", there is not a competition for a "spot"

well come now. even all the UCs combined can only admit a limitted number of students each year. for each applicant admitted, there are several that will get rejected. they can't possibly admit everybody that they want, it's a simple matter of limitted resources.

and why shouldn't high performing students expect to go to the "good" UCs? they worked their asses off for their grades and test scores.

i can understand using a "comprehensive review" to be a tie breaker for applicants within the same range of performance, but when it makes up the difference between several hundred points on the SATs, it's just kind of ridiculous. and where are the low performing and poor Asian students? i see this as just another way to use the race of Latino and African American students as a qualifying quality without actually saying so.

[lethal]

The article's from 2002. Someone would've sued by now and won if it were illegal.

[missmeow]

why does Asian academic success bothers so many people?

new yellow peril in academics?

<devil's advocate>

Why are Asians so upset that Black and Hispanic numbers might be boosted by admission policies to numbers more representative of their population?

Don't the arguments made in the article parrallel those made by Whites when discussing Affirmative Action?

</devil's advocate>

[yoMAMA]

<devil's advocate>

Why are Asians so upset that Black and Hispanic numbers might be boosted by admission policies to numbers more representative of their population?

Don't the arguments made in the article parrallel those made by Whites when discussing Affirmative Action?

</devil's advocate>

You caucasian devils........

:wink:

[sinisterpanda]

what if they were a low-income asian coming from a bad high school and not getting a good score on their sat's, do they have the same chance of getting in as a hispanic or black of the same background?

[hooligan]

what if they were a low-income asian coming from a bad high school and not getting a good score on their sat's, do they have the same chance of getting in as a hispanic or black of the same background?

Well, the comprehensive review ought to pick them up. They won't make it under numbers alone.

are you sure? the article specifically say that there was a 19 percent increase in UCLA. are you basically saying that the author was lying? and what about this:

I know based on figures released last year that the numbers for admitted Latino and African Americans have been dropping and this next year will be the lowest yet.

well come now. even all the UCs combined can only admit a limitted number of students each year. for each applicant admitted, there are several that will get rejected. they can't possibly admit everybody that they want, it's a simple matter of limitted resources.

and why shouldn't high performing students expect to go to the "good" UCs? they worked their asses off for their grades and test scores.

i can understand using a "comprehensive review" to be a tie breaker for applicants within the same range of performance, but when it makes up the difference between several hundred points on the SATs, it's just kind of ridiculous. and where are the low performing and poor Asian students? i see this as just another way to use the race of Latino and African American students as a qualifying quality without actually saying so.

Because it's the paradigm behind UCs, in the eyes of legislature and UC regents. All UCs are the same, but when you ask parents, students and teacher. They'll all say that there is a two-tier system behind the UCs. The comprehensive review catches low performing APIAs as well, it's hypothically supposed to be "color blind."

Actually, the last year has been the first (and last year) that the UC system could not admit all of UC-eligible high school graduates. Mind you, this is the first time in years that this has happened, but since then, every high school graduate that's qualified to go to a UC has gotten into a UC.

Please, the UC system isn't a meritocracy in the least. More than half of the student athletes are admitted through the special privelege that the chancellor receives. S/he is allowed to admit .6% people regardless of test scores, etc.

The comprehensive review, again, is not a tie breaker. It's to determine if you're able to succeed in college. It's making student eligible based on potential, not on grades or traditional ways of evaluating students. Don't call it what it isn't. It isn't just a shady way of funneling African American and Latino students into the UC system. Again, the comprehensive review isn't a color-coded affirmative action, it's addressing the issue of privelege.

[SunWuKong]

I know based on figures released last year that the numbers for admitted Latino and African Americans have been dropping and this next year will be the lowest yet.

ok but the article was written in 2002, and the year the author referred to would have been 2001.

Actually, the last year has been the first (and last year) that the UC system could not admit all of UC-eligible high school graduates. Mind you, this is the first time in years that this has happened, but since then, every high school graduate that's qualified to go to a UC has gotten into a UC.

and i assume that every year, there is a base-line of qualification that an applicant must meet? and this base-line of qualification, does it get harder to achieve every year? i mean, they sure as hell aren't lowering what is a qualifying SAT score every year, are they?

Please, the UC system isn't a meritocracy in the least. More than half of the student athletes are admitted through the special privelege that the chancellor receives. S/he is allowed to admit .6% people regardless of test scores, etc.

and i absolutely think they should get rid of that and any other similar considerations they give to certain applicants.

The comprehensive review, again, is not a tie breaker. It's to determine if you're able to succeed in college. It's making student eligible based on potential, not on grades or traditional ways of evaluating students. Don't call it what it isn't. It isn't just a shady way of funneling African American and Latino students into the UC system. Again, the comprehensive review isn't a color-coded affirmative action, it's addressing the issue of privelege.

i'm not calling it a tie breaker, because it obviously is not - i'm saying that's what it should be.

there are plenty of Asian kids that come from low-income families, that are the first to go to college, that have faced personal hardships, etc etc. yet year after year we don't hear about that Asian kid that got in with an SAT score of 940. we hear about that Asian kid that got rejected with an SAT score of 1410. sure, the UC system sees no difference between its schools, but why the hell are they sending the kid to another UC if he wants UCLA? there are plenty of Asian proponents of affirmative action out there, i'm sure we'd read an article or two about how certain low-income and low-performing Asian kids are getting in if it happens, but until we read about how Asian kids also benefit from "comprehensive review", it's a little difficult to imagine that it's not just a way to implement race preference without actually saying so.

[hooligan]

3 ways of being qualified to get into the UC system.

1. Grades, ACT, SAT, and GPA - I believe that those qualified under comprehensive apply under this criteria.
2. Eligibility in a Statewide Context - Anyone in the top 4% of your school can get into a UC.
3. UC Test - I don't know much about this one, but since the SAT is so skewed they wanted a better test for the UC system.

The Comprehensive Review won't ever be the tie breaker. By the way, I neglected to mention, artists and people with considerable skill in any category get in under the same Chancellor's privelege. I don't know the immediate numbers, but I know they've been going down since they stopped using Affirmative Action and they've been dropping with the Comprehensive Review.

I know recently, there was a move to audit the Comprehensive Review and they found no wrong doing whatsoever. So, why the hate? Probably the same reason why you think it's just a way to inject color into the university.

[lethal]

One issue I see with this system is that it treats all UCs equally. If you're qualified, you'll get into a UC, maybe not the UC of your choice, but some UC somewhere.

However, maybe at some point the Regents must face the fact that not all UCs are created equal. Each campus is distinct from another. UC-Berkeley is not the same as UC-Riverside, for instance.

If a kid wants to go to UCLA, why say that he or she got into UC-Merced and that Merced is a UC so he or she should be satisfied? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[hooligan]

One issue I see with this system is that it treats all UCs equally. If you're qualified, you'll get into a UC, maybe not the UC of your choice, but some UC somewhere.

However, maybe at some point the Regents must face the fact that not all UCs are created equal. Each campus is distinct from another. UC-Berkeley is not the same as UC-Riverside, for instance.

If a kid wants to go to UCLA, why say that he or she got into UC-Merced and that Merced is a UC so he or she should be satisfied? That doesn't make any sense to me.

That's something that the Regents have yet to address for now. You're right, it's not equal, yet there's this fundamental idea of meritocracy involved with the admissions process. Everyone knows that there is a two-tier system in the UCs. Everyone acknowledges that there are better UCs and less good UCs, but no one knows how to solve this problem

[SunWuKong]

The Comprehensive Review won't ever be the tie breaker. By the way, I neglected to mention, artists and people with considerable skill in any category get in under the same Chancellor's privelege. I don't know the immediate numbers, but I know they've been going down since they stopped using Affirmative Action and they've been dropping with the Comprehensive Review.

well that's fine. what i mean is, get rid of admission of applicants for their athletic abilities, or any other reasons that have nothing to do with their area of study, like if your parents are alumni (i don't know if the UCs do this, but i'd like to see these types of consideration be rid of nation-wide).

I know recently, there was a move to audit the Comprehensive Review and they found no wrong doing whatsoever. So, why the hate? Probably the same reason why you think it's just a way to inject color into the university.

like i said before, until we start hearing about how some low-income, low-performing Asian kids are benefitting from this comprehensive review, it's difficult to imagine that it's not just a way to give racial preference to blacks and Latinos.

i'm all for giving a chance to those that are economically disadvantaged, but it's a little ridiculous when you can make up the difference in several hundred points on the SATs, and especially so when there's no evidence that this preference is race neutral.