Archive for UC
As you probably read, the University of California system (UC) raised fees by 32 percent for fall 2010 admissions. The American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly, a former UC regent, says he voted against proposals to raise fees for students during his tenure.
“But with each vote I realized that UC was slowly moving toward the day when basic decisions would have to be made about how the university is financed, who can attend it and what the public should expect from the institution. Well, that day has come; and the public can either dodge the issues or face them, and try to craft a new relationship with UC.” (Source)
Connerly says UC is a business operating as though it were a public service enterprise. While popular campuses like Berkeley, LA, and San Diego could get away with raising fees “significantly,” other campuses can’t. UC seeks to hold on to both identities.
“[M]aintaining its public service identity seems to oblige UC to create and maintain its own internal subsidy for students who cannot afford the fees that others pay,” Connerly writes. “For example, a third of every dollar paid by student fees is used to provide financial assistance to students whose family incomes are considered low to moderate. As my nemesis on the Board of Regents, William Bagley, often remarked, this is a tax on families of UC students. As such, I would suggest it ought to be paid by the state taxpayers rather than solely by the families of UC students. Getting rid of this “Robin Hood” fee structure would enable UC to avoid raising its fees by 32 percent just so it can give 33 percent of that 32 percent back to lower-income students. Instead of a 32 percent hike, the recent increase would have been 21 percent.”
Connerly believes taking a market-based approach, similar to that of selective private schools, would be the better option for UC, rather than an institution that accepts government funds.
“When UC becomes a market-based entity, it might be forced to make cuts in certain courses that can no longer be justified. A market-based entity would also do a better job of reducing the time-to-degree.”
But UC likely won’t do it, because it makes too much sense.
Filed under: UC, Ward Connerly | |3 Comments
In an effort to raise money, the University of California at Berkeley plans to admit fewer in-state students next fall and enroll more out-of-state students. This, some say, will reduce the percentage of “underrepresented minority students” on campus. (Source)
Budget shortfalls mean schools have to decide which is more important: more brown faces for the brochure and less money, or fewer brown faces and more money. If the school opts for more funds, the percentage of blacks could drop by 13 percent and Hispanics by close to 18 percent, as these groups tend to fall near the admissions “cutoff point.” An excerpt:
The potential for a decline in Berkeley’s racial and economic diversity has drawn criticism from some faculty members and others who believe the university should retain its focus on California residents in spite of the budget cuts…Christopher Newfield, an English professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, said in an e-mail that the political cost of enrolling many nonresident students would outweigh the financial benefits. Berkeley officials believe new revenue from nonresident tuition will fill about 15 percent of the campus’s budget gap next year.
Mr. Newfield said it would be better to get the money by imposing a temporary surcharge on all students—a proposal unlikely to sit well with students who will already be paying for a 32-percent increase in tuition. Relying on nonresident tuition, he said, is “more of the California fantasy that somebody else will pay to fix this.”
By law, Berkeley is barred from admitting or denying applicants based on race, but there’s a workaround. The school admits students under a “comprehensive review” process that takes into account an applicant’s “personal qualities” and “[l]ikely contributions to the intellectual and cultural vitality of the campus.” (Source)
This process, apparently, increases diversity.
Filed under: UC | |Comments off
Americans of Asian descent account for about 12 percent of California’s population, yet they account for 40 percent of all undergraduates at the University of California at Los Angeles, 43 percent at Berkeley, 50 percent at San Diego, and 54 percent at Irvine.
The American Civil Rights Institute’s (ACRI) Ward Connerly has written about UC’s efforts to “tinker” with admissions. A UC administrator told him “unless the university took steps to ‘guide’ admissions decisions, UC would be dominated by Asians. When I asked, ‘What would be wrong with that?’ I got an answer that speaks volumes about the underlying philosophy at many universities with regard to Asian enrollment.
“The UC administrator told me that Asians are ‘too dull – they study, study, study.’ He then said, ‘If you ever say I said this, I will have to deny it.’ I won’t betray the individual’s anonymity because to do so would put him in a world of trouble. Yet, it is time to confront the not-so-subtle hand of discrimination against Asians that masquerades as ‘building diversity’ at many campuses.”
UCLA professor Mitchell Chang noted the “dull” stereotype. Students of Asian descent may be “disproportionately less likely to participate in certain kinds of extracurricular activities,” and the admissions committee may be biased against “academic nerd” types. (Source)
It should come as no surprise that elite schools discriminate against students of Asian descent. Princeton University released a study that showed these students were much more likely to be rejected than other students. A black student with 1150s and a white student with 1460s had the same chances of getting in as an Asian student with 1600s, top scores. Download the 11-page Power Point study (PDF).
Is this an indication of elite schools keeping numbers down because Asians are “too dull – they study, study, study,” or because these students would overrun schools but for lower standards for preferred minorities, and, as it turns out, whites? Even more damning is this (emphasis added):
“He also found some indications that while rich students make up an increasingly large share of the entering freshman classes, the top private schools appeared to be giving admissions edges to low-income minorities, but not necessarily low-income white students.”
So much for class-based affirmative action, which would help lower income students of any race. The numbers bear out the truth: schools significantly are lowering standards for blacks, moderately for whites, and not at all for Asians. But this practice may change. Three years ago, an Asian student with perfect SAT scores filed a complaint alleging that Princeton discriminated against him by rejecting his application. The article reports that the Department of Education is investigating Princeton.
Spokesman Cass Cliatt said, “Princeton considers factors such as interest in and demonstrated commitment to a particular field of study or extracurricular activity, exceptional skills and talents, experiences and background, status as an alumni child or Princeton faculty or staff child, athletic achievement, musical or artistic talent, geographic or socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, any unique circumstances, and a range of other factors.”
Terms like “experiences and background” and “any unique circumstances” typically refer to noncognitive factors designed to give preferred minorities with lower grades and scores an admissions boost.
Nevertheless, the study shows that whites are given an edge as well. The question is, will Americans of Asian descent rise up against this practice?
Filed under: Diversity, Socioeconomic AA, UC, Ward Connerly | |Comments off
The Washington Times recently published an editorial about Thomas Perez, Maryland’s secretary of labor and President Barack Obama’s nominee for assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
Focusing on his record on illegal immigration and comments on racial preferences, the Times writes:
“[Perez] has served as president of the board of CASA de Maryland, an immigrant-advocacy organization known for taking several rather extreme positions. For instance, CASA has fought against keeping illegal immigrants from getting state drivers’ licenses. Mr. Perez himself has supported efforts to grant in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants. And he has been a strong proponent of giving preferential treatment to members of some races or ethnicities in admissions to schools to train health professionals…On that latter point, Mr. Perez argued that racial preferences could be used not just for ‘remedial’ purposes — not just to make up for past discrimination.”
Indeed, Perez believes medical schools should drop standards for black applicants, because he contends they are more likely to work in “underserved” communities than white doctors. Linda Chavez of the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) tackles the topic of Perez’s strange ideas published in a law journal in 2006. An excerpt from her column:
“[Perez] cited a handful of studies purported to show that minority doctors are more likely to provide medical care to under-served poor minority populations than white physicians…He then leapt to the conclusion that the best way to improve access to medical care for underserved populations was to insist that medical schools use race or ethnicity in choosing which students to admit.
“In effect, Perez appears to be arguing for a form of medical apartheid in which minority patients should be served by minority doctors under the presumption that both groups benefit from this practice. The argument is both insulting and dangerous.”
Last month, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called the president’s health care bill’s race-based preferential treatment provisions discriminatory and found that such efforts likely won’t reduce heath care disparities. Increasing access to high-quality doctors, regardless of race, “is the best way to mitigate such disparities.” (Source)
Filed under: Barack Obama, UC | |Comments off
There’s an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times that discusses the University of California (UC) system’s revised admissions policy in the context of Proposition 209, which became state law in 1996.
Since voters barred the state from discriminating against or preferring individuals or groups based on race in hiring, contracting, and admissions, certain government institutions have tried to find loopholes. The UC system, for example, recently changed its admission policy to eliminate two previously required SAT subject tests, a change intended to benefit blacks and Hispanics. Some Americans of Asian descent, who’ve complained about the changes, believe the new policy will negatively impact them.
Other changes include reducing guaranteed admissions for high school students graduating from the top 12.5 percent of their class to the top nine percent.
“The theory is that this will guarantee more spots for students at underperforming high schools where opportunities are not as great and more of the students are underrepresented minorities,” Marc B. Haefele writes.
The writer brings up a point I often emphasize when discussing attempts to attract more black students. If UC applies the new (lower) standard to all students, it would increase the percentages of white and Asian students, because they too will benefit from the lower standard. The only way the system can admit more black students while keeping white and Asian numbers more or less constant is to apply the changes only to blacks, and that’s against the law.
Filed under: UC | |Comments off
The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that parents and groups of Asian descent are upset over the University of California’s (UC) admissions changes. As you may know, these students tend to score higher on standardized tests and achieve higher grades than whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other groups.
Earlier this year, the Board of Regents voted to eliminate two SAT subject test requirements and will consider for admission applicants with a 3.0 or higher who’ve completed at least 11 of 15 required college prep courses by their junior year and taken the ACT with Writing or SAT Reasoning exam.
It’s been widely reported that UC’s admissions changes will negatively impact Asian students. The purpose of the changes is to admit more minorities, but Asian students are not considered preferred minorities. Author Stephan Thernstrom noted that Asians are 12 percent of California’s population but accounted for 37 percent of UC admissions last year. An excerpt from the Chronicle:
The Legislature’s Asian and Pacific Islander caucus sent the board a letter urging it to postpone voting on the policy change. The letter complained that the policy “has not received the proper vetting it deserves,” partly because the university had made no effort to run it by Asian-American lawmakers, civil-rights groups, and higher-education associations. It also said the university’s analysis of the policy’s impact on Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders had failed to break out the data for specific ethnic groups, masking the potential impact on those that are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The board overwhelmingly approved the policy anyway. The university’s administration dismissed its own projections by saying that its analysis was based on outdated data that failed to account for the likelihood that Asian-Americans would adjust their behavior by, for example, putting more effort into the basic SAT test, which remains part of the admissions criteria.
When the changes were first proposed, an analysis estimated that the share of Asian students would drop from 36 percent to between 29 and 32 percent. What accounted for this projection? In order to admit more black, white, and Hispanic students, the share of high-achieving Asians inevitably would drop. But I’m speculating here.
While Americans of Asian descent typically don’t protest and complain the way other minority groups do, I have a feeling they’ll continue venting their displeasure at any admissions scheme that unfairly reduces their numbers, as well they should.
Filed under: UC | |2 Comments
Commenting on the University of California’s (UC) new admissions policy, which is a thinly disguised effort to get around a state law that bars the government from preferring or discriminating against any person based on factors like race and sex, the American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly told San Jose Mercury News that UC “has essentially lowered its standards.”
Any reasonable person can attest to this fact, but many are reluctant to talk about it in public. The aim of the less rigorous admissions policy is to expand the pool of applicants to include more minority students who may not have taken two SAT subject tests, a requirement the Board of Regents eliminated. The new policy states that applicants with a 3.0 or higher who’ve completed at least 11 of 15 required college prep courses by their junior year and taken the ACT with Writing or SAT Reasoning exam will be considered for admission.
The article also notes that Asian organizations are angry about the changes, which will negatively affect students of Asian decent applying to UC. “They contend that subject tests are a better indicator of college readiness than the SAT I, which favors American-born students over immigrants because scores are influenced by expensive ‘test prep’ and family upbringing,” according to the article.
UC’s changes come in the wake of concern about the ever-present academic achievement gap between blacks and Hispanics and whites and Asians. The school contends it merely is casting a wider net to include more low-income students. That would be fine if it were that simple. The fact is UC is lowering the standards of admission. And yes, this practice does widen the net. But at what cost?
Earlier this month, I blogged about Stephan Thernstrom’s article on how UC’s new policy changes affect students of Asian descent. People of Asian descent make up 12 percent of California’s population, but accounted for 37 percent of UC admissions last year. Under the new admissions policy, their numbers will be reduced by 10–20 percent.
Filed under: UC, Ward Connerly | |Comments off
Stephan Thernstrom, co-author of No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning, writes about the University of California’s new admissions policy at National Review Online.
Among other things, the UC Board of Regents voted to eliminate the requirement for applicants to take two SAT subject tests. Effective 2012, applicants with a GPA of 3.0 or higher who’ve completed at least 11 of 15 required college prep courses by their junior year and taken the ACT with Writing or SAT Reasoning exam will be considered for admission. More students will be open to “comprehensive review.”
Thernstrom writes about what may not be an unintended or even an unanticipated consequence of the new policy. Although the change is intended to increase black and Hispanic enrollment, the prime beneficiaries will be whites, “whose share of total enrollments is predicted to rise by 20–30 percent.” Asian students, who will see a reduction in enrollment of up to 20 percent, will be affected the most.
“The net effect will thus be to make the University of California substantially ‘whiter’ than it has been,” Thernstrom writes.
Apparently, there aren’t enough blacks competitive with whites to go around, so in order to reach an arbitrary skin color goal, businesses and the government tend to lower hiring and admissions standards for blacks. Lowering standards for all would be impractical, not to mention detrimental. Generally speaking, Asians tend to be high achievers academically; therefore, they’re what I call a non-preferred minority. No bar-lowering for them.
As Thernstrom notes, Asians are 12 percent of California’s population but accounted for 37 percent of UC admissions last year. He adds:
“It’s hard to believe that, as part of this mission, the regents are deliberately trying to do their bit to stave off the ‘yellow peril.’ But proponents of racial preferences have let slip some highly unsavory attitudes on occasion. My wife, Abigail, appeared on Crossfire many years ago and was asked by liberal co-host Bob Beckel whether she would ‘like to see UCLA Law School 80 percent Asian.’ In a 1995 interview, President Clinton said that ‘there are universities in California that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian Americans.’ In 1998, a writer for Newsday asked, ‘Since Asians outscore everyone, would we accept an all-Asian class?’”
I’m eager to know what Asian groups have to say about UC’s new admissions policy.
(Hat tip: Discriminations)
Filed under: UC | |Comments off
Jay Schalin, a senior writer with the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, informs us that in February, the University of California’s (UC) administration and faculty senate plan to discuss changing the admission policy to downplay standardized test scores, and give more weight to high school class rank and subjective factors like “life experiences.” (Source)
In other words, UC is looking for a way to admit students based on race while pretending it isn’t. You may be wondering how that’s possible, considering that race-based admissions are illegal in California. In 1996, the voters chose to bar their government from hiring, contracting, and admitting on the basis of race. But tax-supported schools like UC have been using proxies for race since then.
Regardless of what the system says, the aim is to admit more black and Hispanic students. Period. That’s not the problem. The method used to admit them is the problem. Ward Connerly, former UC regent and director of the American Civil Rights Institute, said, “In this case, the faculty senate is trying to devise a system that will admit more students from low-income and underperforming high schools, which will translate into more black and Latino students.”
What schools like UC really want to do is eliminate evaluating blacks and Hispanics based on grades and scores altogether. If they could, they’d simply arbitrarily admit a certain percentage of “promising” minorities, and be done with it.
But they can’t. They must make some effort to evaluate blacks and Hispanics based on grades and scores, just as they do with whites and Asians.
A sure way to determine if UC intends to apply “holistic” admissions to every student is whether more whites and Asians are admitted, an unintended consequence of de-emphasizing grades and scores.
Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, also wrote an excellent book titled, In Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. He compiled an inventory of 4,002 significant figures over 2,750 years who pursued excellence and accomplished great things in the arts and sciences. His inventory overwhelmingly consists of white European males, as do other authoritative and respected inventories. Murray made the case that no significant non-European figures and events were omitted from the major inventories. What was known about great works of other cultures was included.
In response to charges that European accomplishment in the sciences is exaggerated and that sources used to compile inventories are biased against non-European countries (about 97 percent of significant figures and events in the sciences are Western), Murray encouraged critics to augment the list of “giants” with non-Europeans, with one caveat: You must use the same rules by which European figures and events were included.
This method would not increase the number of non-Europeans on the list, says Murray, but would add more Europeans to the list. Why? Because European countries were so prodigious; dropping standards of evaluation would result in more European countries, not fewer, and certainly not more non-Europeans.
If holistic assessments were applied equally across the board, the enrollment of whites and Asians – not blacks and Hispanics - would increase.
Filed under: UC, Ward Connerly | |Comments off
It’s a provocative post title, but non-resident preferences may become a reality in the University of California system (UC).
Yesterday I linked to an op-ed penned by Ward Connerly, in which he cited California’s perennial budget woes. Well, UC officials may have come up with a solution: granting preferences to applicants who will pay out-of-state tuition. Naturally, the school would discriminate against qualified California applicants. An excerpt from the LA Times article:
“David Shulenburger, vice president for academic affairs at the National Assn. of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges in Washington, D.C., said he expects more public universities across the country ‘as a matter of survivability’ to at least consider additional recruiting outside their states. The premium tuition for out-of-state students helps schools afford basic functions and subsidize in-state students’ fees, he said.
…
“UC regent Judith Hopkinson recently urged the university’s governing board to consider increasing the numbers of out-of-state students for the financial and social benefits that she said are provided by a more geographically diverse student body.”
Do financial concerns justify rejecting students eligible for reduced tuition in favor of out-of-state students who pay a higher tuition? I suppose we’ll never get to the point of admitting students based only on grades and scores. Then again, have schools ever considered only grades and scores without regard to family background, race, and sex?
Being “shades of gray” creatures, we know human relations involve more than hard and fast rules and numbers. Compassion and fairness come into play, as they should in some cases. Unfortunately, so does prejudice. Where do we draw the line?
Is it “fair” to admit a black applicant from a middle class background merely because he’s a member of an historically “oppressed” group over a white applicant from a poor background merely because he’s from the “oppressor” group? Surely, at some point we have to rise above the past and do things the right way in the present.
I may be overreacting and reading way too much into this out-of-state preferences plan. What say you?
Filed under: UC | |Comments off
« Previous Entries||
