Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

The discussion continues....

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit

moderator, please be aware that that poster also has a flame at the end of part one of this thread which you had closed and might not have caught....

also on the fat letter for fat student thread....
Thanks.

Thank you and everyone else who has been letting moderators know about disruptive posters. We appreciate your help in keeping College Confidential a respectful place in which to post.
Moderator DoveofPeace

By Thedad (Thedad) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Two notes: Moores position and most recent article (in Forbes Magazine) was formally disavowed by a majority of the UC Regents, causing the article to be credited to Moore "as a private citizen." He is playing political games with statistics.

A specific bit of data relevant to UCLA (thanks, Xiggi):

Some selected Admissions rates for 2003:

Chinese 39 percent
White 27 percent
Korean 26 percent
Hispanic 19 percent
African American 14 percent

Admits as a percentage of total class:

African American 2.8 percent
Hispanic 13 percent
Asian 41.4 percent
White 32.1 percent

It's very difficult to make a case that Asians are being discriminated against courtesy of hordes of [always presumed to be universally unqualifed] URM's. But nobody should let the facts stop them.

Note: Asians in this case include Chinese, Korean, Filliino, Vietnamese, East Indian/Pakistani, Japanese, and "Other Asian."

By Momof2inca (Momof2inca) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit

I can see where this discussion is leading, and that's fine, since there is much to be discussed and learned; however, I maintain that the overwhelming cause of UCLA/Berkeley and now UCSD becoming ultra-competive is California's population growth and the resulting pressure this has placed on admissions.

There were 10,000 more applicants to UCLA in 2003 than in 1999.

Parents and educators, particularly in our overcrowded, underfunded public schools, are not adequately up to speed on what it now takes to get into the UCs. Nobody thinks of UCLA as a safety, but neither does anyone I know consider it a reach for a kid with a 1500 SAT, a 4.3 weighted gpa and two out of three SATIIs over 700. The new reality is that it is a reach for everyone. Just like the ivys. This is the message that must get out to teachers and counselors so that parents are prepared.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 01:18 pm: Edit

I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to Momof2's remarks above: UCLA isn't necesarily a Reach but it *is* a multidimensional lottery ticket. Test scores help but they are not determinative. Ignore SAT II scores at your own peril.

And I think that UCLA is so overwhelmed with apps that, at least in the beginning, they're looking for reasons to turn an app down, not a reason to take it.

I've been told from a source I consider to be reliable that one of the first things they do is to throw out all the apps with what they perceive to be a weak senior schedule. Out they go...regardless of GPA, SAT's, essays, or anything else.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

All selective colleges review their applicants in the context of the opportunities they have been given and their socio economic situation. A child going to a top school offering top level courses with college educated parents living in a high desirable neighborhood with many "bought" ECs (yeah, I mean all of those music lessons, elite sports teams, drama workshops, the works) is always going to be viewed as having more advantages than a child from a single parent home with a zipcode that means dangerous going to an overcrowded public school with sparse offerings. If the kid has to work, that is viewed as a valued EC. If he cannot take AP courses because none are offered at his school, that is taken into account. So it is not surprising that this information is being quantified at the UCs. I'm sure it is to some degree at all of the selective schools.

And that is often why asian kids do not get in. Most come from stable family homes with relatively educated parents who have them in a top school. Many times the kids does not have to work at all--school work is the primary objective in these households and even if there is little money, they take private lessons from top symphony violinists or master pianists and have an expensive violin. When we were in programs in Pittsburgh , I would suck in my breath at the quality of instruments many of the asian kids had. These kids have a lot of advantagous and though they may complain about their parents' obsession with educational achievement, the pressure works. And it is generally considered an advantage. But I do not believe that these guidelines were put in to keep out more asians.

Also I think the number of asian kids are miscounted. When I did a head count of several face books, I found a severe discrepancy. Many of these kids do not identify themselves as asian and I don't think you can force them to do so. And I don't think you are allowed to guess by name or address or inference.

My brother who lives in Ca and has just had his first child is contemplating moving to a lousy neighborhood to a dumpy school to give his D an advantage. (He is just kidding) It is ironic that as parents we give everything we can and all of our efforts are put down as a negative on the talley sheet for college. Of course we do not do these things for college alone, I would hope and our children get a lifetime of advantages from the activities and extras we get for them. But it is kept in mind when assessed by the schools.

The UC list is useful for all of us when we think about spending $ for a program. Things like junior statesman programs clearly do not enhance one's resume and if you are contemplating such a program, make sure your son and daughter have a clear reason why they want to do it. I do not believe in choosing programs solely for the impact on colleges but it is good to know what programs colleges do not think much of.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Wong...

It does. That's the core issue. The asian population at the UC is disproportionate, thus asians need higher scores, unless they are Southeast asian.

Asians, are not URMs. And, test scores and grades are not the final arbitor in admissions. Asians in HI, for example do not score as well on the SAT and SAT II, unless they go to private schools. The reason that asians 'score' well, in general, is because cultural values are in line with the majoritarian position of Whites in America (they thus benefit from those shared values).

Also, many asian students from CA focus on Berkeley and LA because within CA, there is status associated with going to those two schools in particular. That they do not think outside the box by applying to other schools is a problem...which drives numbers, etc...

Prestige is what makes for uncomfortable bedfellows. the UC's are good, but not the end all, be all for most people.

I'm from Hawaii, and even if my scores were perfect, I would have very little chance at Berkeley. Facts are facts, out-of-state students need higher and bettter scores and gpas but no one grumble about how unfair it is. Likewise, if asians (Korean, Japanese and Chinese) are over represented, then how can you complain about admissions, give that you could apply to schools outside the state or at less competative ones, never mind the great private CA schools?

Rob.

By Aparent4 (Aparent4) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Well, it's easy for me to say because I don't live in Cali, but I can tell you we repeat around our house just about every week, "How do poor parents do it?" All of the stuff that is valued by most universities -- the lessons, the massive projects, etc. -- are just not practical in a household headed by, for example, a poor single parent. I think the push to make ECs and boards more important has helped us middle-class people get our kids into schools that were previously populated entirely by the wealthy, but it doesn't do a thing for kids from struggling families. It is about time the colleges did more to recognize this. Doesn't sound as though the UCs are taking the best approach, but right now the whole situation is out of control, imnsho. It really is in all our best interest to educate leaders of every background.

Also, Jamimom, although I usually agree with you, the negative press Junior State has received at the hands of Rachel Toor really does not deserve to be propagated. Students involved in Junior State are a very active, eager, politically committed bunch. Given the state of our world, we could use a lot more kids like them. And Junior State provides all sorts of scholarship money for its regional conferences and summer programs, so that kids at all economic levels can participate and experience themselves as leaders. It is a very diverse group of kids who bring tears to my eyes, they are so sincere and excited about changing their world. http://www.jsa.org/ And btw, the Junior State members I know have certainly been admitted to some pretty amazing colleges

By Kluge (Kluge) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Wong35, the fact is that "overcoming hardship" is a standard - just one that you apparently feel shouldn't be used. If you read the Sac Bee article about the UC Davis app. "scorer" you'd note that he doesn't even look at the applicant's names, often doesn't know if they're male or female. Race is not even listed. Hardship is hardship. And since URM's are statistically more likely to have had hardships, it stands to reason that if you only assess admissions numbers by a set of standards which excludes that particular one the URM's will appear to be "overrepresented."
A kid who has not been tutored in the SAT, and takes it only once, and scores 100 points lower than a kid who received intensive preparation for the test and took it repeatedly is, in my opinion, likely to be just as successful in college (if not more so) despite having lower "objective" qualifications.
I've read the Moore's report. As I've stated before, it is stunningly intelectually dishonest. Selection, emphasis and omission of data is as effective a way to argue as the use of adjectives, and no more "impartial." And the use of vague anecdotal "evidence" (as McWhorter does) is just flimflammery.

By Mike (Mike) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 03:16 pm: Edit

talking about race in the usa has never been confused by facts then there are attempts to pretend that sats and gpas are judges of intellegece

mike has a 3.98 gpa and he got his b in ap english thr school has 4 4pts. only one took ap english so what does his schools gpa mean kids who stay out of ap english are the smartest?

mike's dad

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 03:29 pm: Edit

Wong...

Nope. Only if you look at grades and scores and ignore eveything else would that be true of a larger percentage of Asians in the UCs. I, for one, would NOT want to go to a school that is so out of balance. Perspective and diversity is what it is all about especially in a global sense.
While I looked at the UC system, I found it to be lacking with resect to a few measures of performance.

I for one am interested in schools that promote diversity and cannot imagine going to a school that was like high schools in HI, where most of the students were asian. Most were too focused on studying, too competative, not well-rounded, complacent. Nevermind that I am part asian, and most of my friends are asian--and they agree with that characterization. Just my opinion. You think UCs would be better with students who don't actively participate in college life in great numbers? Have you seen the asian parents post here on CC?

Notice that you are speaking of only particular UC schools. No other state schools that would love more asian applicants. By only viewing UC as good or presigious of all the public schools across the nation, you've set-up a false situation.

In Washington & Oregon, the pressure on asian students are not acute, like the UCs.

It is not a politically incorrect issue, nor do people not want to talk about it. If you do a search, you'll find discussion about this issue ad nauseum.

Asian populations would be SMALLER, if UC students are to be representative of CA as a whole. You also ASSUME that grades and scores are the only statistically significant measures of admissions. All people have different intelligences, although only a few are prized in a school enviornment.

You are also ignoring majors that asians chose, and the fact that they score less well on the verbal portion of the SAT. In college, there is generally more writing. Why would low verbal scores, or SAT II not be a greater factor?

The high math vs. low verbal, engineering and science vs. liberal arts are issues that detract from Japanese, Chinese & Korean students. The situation for Southeast asians is different. They are considered URMs. If anything those BENEFIT by the hollistic view of admissions. Favoring priviledge asians (Japanese, Korean & Chinese) for admissions at the EXPENSE of Southeast asian is a bit unsavory.

By your SELF-SELECTIVE critieria, you would balkenize the UCs. There is no conspiricy. Just disappointed kids who only wanted a particular UC because their parents unresonably deside there are only certain right UCs. That's life. Why have the chip on your shoulder. Blaming the system is short-sighted because it is only in relation to what you have lost as opposed to what is best for the community and society.

My asian grandma extoled the virtues of placing the community before the individual. I believe that. You seem to have baught into individuals first. Perhaps you believe that since other URMs are not asians, that you can belittle them as a group, but you cannot. The model minority myth is just that-a myth.

Rob.

By May_1 (May_1) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Wong35,

Did you ever think for a second that the--oh, I don't know--moderators could be the ones changing your posts becuase of your chronic spamming?

Food for thought.

By Wong35 (Wong35) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 03:53 pm: Edit

By May_1 (May_1) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 03:45 pm: Edit


Wong35,

Did you ever think for a second that the--oh, I don't know--moderators could be the ones changing your posts becuase of your chronic spamming?

Food for thought.


Wong35! Do not repost the same message AGAIN. Start respecting our rules and you may avoid yet another banning. Mod

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 03:58 pm: Edit

All conservative views, that succeeds in piting one minority group against another. Divide and conquer to maintain the status quo. Rascism is alive and well. Again, the articles use SAT scores as the arbitors of who is admissable. That is why comprehensive review was started, to prevent those with access to money, time, etc...to gain an advantage based just on scores. Oh, wait...the resultant outcome is also elitism. Hmmm...cute.

Rob.

By Obiwan (Obiwan) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Notice to everyone: We encourage discussion here on CC, even vigorous discussion. However, we do not tolerate attempts to bludgeon the opposition into submission through sheer numbers of posts. Nor do we tolerate posters who have been banned coming back with new screen names. If we catch you, you will be banned again. Meanwhile, your posts will be removed so that your contributions to the discussion will not remain a part of the record. Doing so leaves a bad taste in my mouth but letting banned posters gain the fruits of their labors leaves a worse one.

--Moderator Obiwan

By Bigmike (Bigmike) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Regretfully because I used the word pc, I believe people have started to imply that this means race. It does not, from my point of view, it means that UC's are trying to diversify their programs which is fine but they are leaving out a core group of kids who work their butts off to get a good chance in life. How does anyone, parents, teachers and even the UC's themselves teach to children to work hard and strive for goals when they know its a lie. I could care a less about the ethnic breakdown of a school, what I care about is the blatant throw away of these kids who have been lied to by so many.. I'm sorry I was obviously not educated enough before all this has happened, and if I could I have to admit I would play the game differently..
P.S.
above someone stated that I had a flame? IS this implying I wrote something that was removed due to profanity, if so you got the wrong guy...

By Mom2003 (Mom2003) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Bigmike, As a parent I feel for you and your son. I personally would like to move past your use of the term "PC" and instead focus on this really sad situation that you and your son are facing. All of us know how terrible we feel when our children are hurting and we can't do much to help them. You can appeal to UCLA and I hope the appeal works. But whether it does or not, you need now act as if it won't and take actions to make sure your son has alternatives that he feels happy with. I am glad he has applied to other places. I am keeping my fingers crossed and praying that he gets into Berkeley, it will go a long way towards making him feel better about UCLA rejection and I am sure financially things will work out. He will find friends he can carpool with to visit home.

Wishing you and yours well through these anxious times...

By Northstarmom (Northstarmom) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Bigmike,
Unfortunately, many people use the word "PC" as a code word for people of color getting unfair advantage. Thank you for clarifying that is not what you meant.

To me, what stands out about what you're saying is that apparently you thought that if a student had high grades and good stats, they would be virtually guaranteed of getting into the college of their choice. Once upon a time this was true. In fact, this probably was true at the time when most parents were applying to college.

It isn't true, however, any more. That's because the number of seats at top colleges have remained about the same, but the numbers of highly prepared, high scoring college-bound students has soared. Having good scores, grades, and even a decent EC is just as one of the parent posters here often says "a lottery ticket" to admissions. It is no guarantee of admission at all because there will be an overabundance of such students applying as well as students who have overcome incredible challenges and endured inferior educations to earn the stats/grades for admission (even if those stats/grades are lower than those of applicants from more advantaged backgrounds).

This is why it is so important for all applicants, no matter how stellar, to have at least one safety school where they know they will gain admission, can afford and would enjoy attending.

Does your son have any admissions yet? Did he apply to any safeties? Several of us have expressed concern about how he's doing, but you haven't replied.

Oh, I don't think anyone said you put a flame on the board. Someone else posted flames, which the moderators removed.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 05:23 pm: Edit

The problem is that it is not a game. College admission is serious.

It's just that we are often driven by prestige ranther than by a reasoned approach sometimes. Applying to a range of schools is normal, as you never know what the colleges will be looking for in a student.

It is unfortunate that the teachers mislead your son. They should have known better, so should the counselor. Because the more selective schools look at large numbers of students, it is more important than ever to do the homework on the schools.

Flame means a rant...like the asian admissions thread.

Don't be discouraged from the posts. It's just that there have been tons of posts on affirmative action, test scores, grades, etc... It is usually after they are denied admissions--not before. It happends more often when taking about the UCs and UMichigan, than other state schools.
When there is a very competative system, people tend to blame the process (whether with respect to affirmative action, geographic diversity, legacies, athletes, development prospects, URMs, etc...).

Things happen for a reason, sometimes good, sometimes less so. The funny thing is that we usually are defined by how we handle disappointment. I feel for you, but all is not lost.

Rob.

By May_1 (May_1) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 05:35 pm: Edit

To posters unfamilar with the general feel regarding UCLA admissions (particularly from a SoCal person's viewpoint),

I certainly can see where BigMike is coming from, as while UCLA certainly isn't seen as a safety, it's viewed as school that someone with a 1500+ and a 3.8+ uw should be able to get into.

I'm sure other SoCal parents and students know how this echoes at their schools.

By Mstee (Mstee) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Bigmike--do let us know what you learn by appealing UCLA, if you decide to go through with that. Anything you learn from that--even if you learn that it is pointless (hopefully not) is information that is useful to other UC hopefuls.

And yeah, I'm glad I found this board last fall. It has really helped me be much more realistic about my son's chances at some of the selective schools he has applied to, and to make sure he had some less selective, but attractive schools in the mix. Some people, if they know sons SATI and SATII scores assume that he is in anywhere. But we know they're wrong. We live in the Bay Area and there are many Berkeley grads living here having to come to grips with the fact that their kids probably won't get in. And they only applied to Berkeley as undergrads, and never thought twice!--was considered an automatic admission at the time. And now their kids with higher SAT scores and several AP classes under their belts won't get in. Things are so different now. . .

Happy to say, son had a realistic school counselor as well, who made sure he had safeties on the list, and made no promises to him.

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 05:51 pm: Edit

May:

I understand BigMike's feelings very well and sympathize with him and other families in the same situation. I,too, would have thought that his S would have had an excellent chance at admission at UCLA. But I realized that the college-age population had grown enormously, especially in CA, and that the UC system not only could not accommodate this growth but was being shrunk because of budgetary issues. This is a double whammy that is making UCLA as selective as top LACs and private universities, whereas families and high school counselors continue to consider it as a match for excellent students.

I don't know if UCLA tries to balance its student population by gender, by fields of study and other criteria besides SATs and GPAs and those listed in the UC-Davis checklist, but if so, that would be another factor making admissions even more unpredictable from an applicant's perspective. BigMike is right,that this message needs to be heard more widely in CA high schools.

By Momof2inca (Momof2inca) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Bigmike --
Just curious, where else did your son apply? (If you care to share that info.) Has he heard from other schools yet?

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Aparent4, I do not have a negative thing to say about the Junior statesman program. In fact I am on the board of a similar program here in this area. My friends have sent their kids to the program and have loved it. I think it is a wonderful program.

What I noticed from the UCDavis list was that it is not considered an activity of note. It was also mentioned in a book written by a former admissions director of Harvard, "What It Really Takes to Get into The Ivy Leagues". I did not catch its mention in Rachel Toors book. Many families believe that this activity is greatly valued by colleges and may highlight it in the EC section of college applications. The information I have been getting is that it may not be such a great idea to do so since the activity is for some reason not well regarded or regarded at all by adcoms. The reason cited to me was the money involved. For parents looking for summer activities that may enhance college resumes, this is not going to do it. Neither are essay writing workshops or SAT enhancement courses. Not to say any of these activities are not of value. They certainly are, but you do not want to list them as a primary activity. Nor do you want to highlight an extravagant vacation to the Riviera.

I have an issue with parents who are hell bent in building a resume for their kids and are looking for stuff to impress the colleges rather than something the kid really wants to do or something with a socially redeeming aspect. If junior statesman is a program that meets many of child's interests, by all means let him go. The same with Super Camp, Outward Bound, pre-college, any number of programs that go on in the summers. But there are some things that are just not as highly regarded by colleges as others and I am pointing out that this junior statesman program has shown up several times as something that colleges disregard or do not like. It is not my opinion. It shows up as a zero on the UC list and was mentioned similarly by the former admisssions director of Harvard. Don't know what Ms Toors wrote, but inferring from your post, Duke is of the same opinion.

Again, this does not mean that I am warning anyone off of the program. Anyone considering any program should check it out carefully. And anyone looking for college resume brownie points so deliberately may deserve to fall into these programs that colleges do not like. But families should know how these programs are regarded. I know someone who scraped and scrimped to send her son to this program with the genuine belief it would help her son get into programs like Georgetowns School of Foreign Service. Apparently some of the hype led her to believe this. She was not getting what she thought she was paying for.

As for my kid, he is going abroad this summer on one of those trips that college feel is a sign of privilige (and yes, they are right) He will also be studying for SATs and going to an essay workshop, another activity of the same ilk. what college want. The SAT work is needed because his scores are not great and there is no time this year to take a course and he is the sort who just needs help to get essays done. Yes, they are activities generated by the college process but I am fitting it into the schedule the best way I can, given my child's preferences on what he wants to do. It would look a heck of a lot better if he is doing volunteer work and taking physics or Spanish this summer which he is dropping from his schedule next year.

And if he were interested in the type of activities that the Junior statesman addresses, we might swing the amount needed to for him to do the program, regardless of how colleges view it.

By Aparent4 (Aparent4) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 08:17 pm: Edit

Jamimom, now I get it. You are talking about JSA's summer program. But JSA is a year-round organization, entirely student-run, not just the summer program that costs money. Even the summer program gives many scholarships; my d got one. The students in the year-round program get all sorts of experience organizing conferences and debates and preparing for and participating in them. As I said, the kids I know who have been involved -- with JSA leadership as their primary EC -- have done very well collegewise; they participate because they are political junkies and I'm sure that comes through in their interviews and apps. The purpose of the summer program is really to inspire leadership to go back to their local chapters full of ideas and action plans. Just sending a student to it -- or most other summer programs -- well, as you say, that's resume padding.

By Kidsmom (Kidsmom) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 08:39 pm: Edit

BigMike,
Sorry to read about the rejection.

My oldest is just trying to get into private middle from a montessori elementary school. I knew one school was a reach but thought he had a great chance at the other two. Ended up my ds got waitlisted at one school and accepted at one. A classmate who scored much, much lower on the ISEE and is not as advanced academically got into the the school ds was rejected by and the one he was waitlisted at. Huh? I don't get it, my son is a gifted baseball and basketball player, just got his black belt, and wrote, IMO, a great essay. But, the schools weer looking for something else.


I feel your pain and hope your son gets some good news soon.

By Aparent4 (Aparent4) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Bigmike, very sorry to read about what happened to your son. I am one of those who was thrown off by your "pc" comment. It's great that the dialogue on this thread has given us the opportunity to understand one another. This should happen a lot more in the world at large, don't you think? Anyway, I know it's a terrible disappointment but I am sure good things will come your son's way in the near future.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 09:35 pm: Edit

I know kids who love the program and got much out of the summer program. Not knocking it at all. I am very active in a Leadership Forum for young catholic boys that does many of the same activities. I believe much of the format is modeled after Junior Statesman, so believe me, you do not have to sell me on the virtues of the program. And JS is certainly not a black listed program at all--it just is not considered a big ticket item on the college EC sheet as many activities are not. There is no reason to avoid an activity because of that. Particularly if you enjoy it. Personally, a bit of me believes there should not be a list with point values on activities simply because there are people crazed enough to rearrange their kids lives to go after the points. But, I also strongly believe in open info for things like college admissions, so I am a bit conflicted about those lists.

I am protesting a bit strongly because I truly was not dissing that program and am horrified anyone should think so. I also believe that the National Honor Society is a great organization despite some of the political issues that have come up with it and that it is an honor to belong to it. Also not considered a big deal or a deal at all for colleges. Lots of stuff on the "no deal" list that makes kids into more interesting people which is really the purpose of most activities.

By Ellemenope (Ellemenope) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 10:30 pm: Edit

We were discussing how it was not right for Mike's son's teachers to lead him to believe that he was a shoo-in for UCLA. I think the guidance counselors are clued in to the fact that there is no "sure thing" for UCLA and UCB applicants anymore. But perhaps the teachers are not as up on what is going on in the college application world.

This whole "comprehensive review" at the UCs (maybe with the exception of UCB, who has probably been doing comprehensive review for many more years) is about 2-3 years old now. In the past, UCs would admit 50-75% of their class based on academic credentials alone. The balance would be subjected to comprehensive review. Now, 100% of the class is chosen by comprehensive review.

The teachers could well be behind the curve on how the UCs choose their students.

One poster mentioned that the number of students applying to UCLA/UCB has exploded in the last 5 years. I've noticed that since 2000 (and the economic downturn), many of the brightest kids in her high school have chosen to apply to (and attend) the UCs and not expensive schools back east. I don't see this changing until parents feel more comfortable about their jobs and the economy. What this means is that there is more competition for spots at UCLA and Berkeley.

By Albertc (Albertc) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Thedad said:

[Two notes: Moores position and most recent article (in Forbes Magazine) was formally disavowed by a majority of the UC Regents, causing the article to be credited to Moore "as a private citizen." He is playing political games with statistics....It's very difficult to make a case that Asians are being discriminated against courtesy of hordes of [always presumed to be universally unqualifed] URM's. But nobody should let the facts stop them.]


The facts are not in with Mr. Moore's assertions and complaints regarding Asian Americans. There will be a follow-up report to be issued in April, 2004, on the matter. Mr. Moore was not talking about overall admit rates for each group and % representation for each group. These rates have to be aggregated towards each factor used for admission for each group. Not all groups are equally qualified for each single factor used. All factors must be compliled and be weighed towards admission.


Please check out:


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20040309-9999-1n9admit.html


"New study targets UC admissions: Asian-Americans may get short shrift, says statistical analysis"

By Eleanor Yang
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

March 9, 2004

"Asian-American students are less likely to be admitted into the University of California than students from other racial groups with comparable academic qualifications, according to a UC study released yesterday.

"Additionally, African-American and Latino students are more likely to be admitted than students from other ethnic groups, when most other factors are considered equal, the study said."

"UC President Robert Dynes said yesterday that he is concerned about the unexplained differences in admission rates and called for further investigation before the 2005 admissions cycle begins."


Thedad gave the overall admission rates for Chinese as 39%, White 27%, Korean 26% and African American 14%. Thedad also gave admits as total % of the class....Asian 41.4%, White 32.1%, Hispanic 13%, African American 2.8%.

These numbers have no bearing on whether all the criteria used for each group for admission were applied equally, or whether one group was required to meet a higher criteria or a higher standard of achievement, for admission. The criteria used include test scores, grades, ECs, essays, leadership, special talents, and the overcoming of hardships.

The admit rates for each group have to be commensurate with the qualifications meet by each applicant group. Not all applicant groups meet these qualifications equally. Some groups are more qualified than others according to ALL the admission standards, objective and subjective ones. Of course, these rates will be different and the % of the class for each group will differ according the overall qualifications of each applicant group.

One group may have a 60% admit rate and represent 60% of the admits to the class, and still be treated unfairly, if this group is not admitted commensurate to the overall qualifications of the group for admissions.

Mr. Moore has not been proven incorrect with his assertions, that Asians may be treated unfairly, even though they are admiited at a higher overall rate and a higher % of the class than the other groups. This has no bearing on whether or not Asians are unfairly. They still may be treated unfairly, as a group, simply because this group is more highly qualified, according to all the standards of admissions used, and that they are not admitted commensurate with their qualifications. If Asians as a group are required to meet a higher standard for admissions, they being treated unfairly, and theit admission rates and their % of admits in the class should be EVEN HIGHER that the numbers given by Thedad.


The jury is still out on Mr. Moore's assertions. We shall see with further study. The preliminary report seems to indicate that Mr. Moore is correct.

By Albertc (Albertc) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Please check out the following regarding elite public university admissions:


http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040324/6037229s.htm

March 24, 2004


College admissions examined

Affirmative-action critics seek data on school policies

By Mary Beth Marklein

USA TODAY


"Three national groups critical of affirmative action are invoking state open-records laws to demand that public universities disclose whether and how race and ethnicity are considered in admissions decisions."

"Organizers of the effort said Tuesday that they have contacted presidents of selective public universities in 20 states asking for detailed admissions information, such as the extent to which an applicant's race or ethnicity factors into decisions, and whether targets or quotas have been set for certain racial or ethnic groups. They plan to extend the inquiries to universities in most, if not all, states."

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Do I detect a repeat offender?

By Aparent4 (Aparent4) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Jamimom, no problem. It's just that as I recall, Rachel Toor, who identifies herself as a political progessive (which I am, btw), has been quoted on the Net as saying that if she sees Junior State on an application she automatically concludes that the student is some sort of knee-jerk conservative and she discards the app. As quoted in The Atlantic Monthly article "Confessions of a Prep School College Counselor, "In evaluating students' extracurricular activities Toor is 'personally most turned off by Junior Statesmen of America and by kids who started investment clubs at their schools.' Pity the poor kid stuck out there in Louisville or Grand Rapids: he knows no better. Get a clue, kid! Dump the Statesmen!" http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/flanagan.htm

So that's why I'm defending JSA. That's just prejudice, imnsho. JSA includes the gamut of kids, from arch conservative to ultra liberal. I know that Boys' State is very highly regarded, by contrast, and yet every boy I know who went (including my s) said the discussions and elections were a joke, full of silliness and displays of supermodel pin-ups. I know Chuck Hughes's book, which you mention, and think very highly of it, but I don't think he claimed to mention every single activity he considers valid. He is giving examples.

If these adcoms are going to wield so much power they really ought to be a litle more informed...and they especially ought to look at activities in the overall context of the student. In fact, I suspect many of them do. I am quite confident that d's involvement in this organization, and her ability to describe how much it has meant to her growth, was a very positive feature of her successful apps for ED and for scholarships. Likewise d's young colleagues who have already been admitted to Yale and other top schools, including Ivies, this year.

I don't mean to be going after you! Didn't mean to horrify you. But I do feel that since CC is googled, here is an opportunity to set the record straight about JSA, given that Rachel Toor has used her bully pulpit to take a very unnecessary and unfair potshot at it which has been quoted by various students on boards.

Thanks for humoring me in this dialogue. I guess you hit a nerve that Rachel Toor had already struck!

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Missed Rachel Toor's stance entirely. And did not realize that she was that strongly anti JS. Seems to be overkill to me and very unfair. I had heard that JS would not win you points on the EC list but not that it would blow an app out of the admissions pool!

That does explain something to me. I may have mentioned a mom whose son went to one of the summer programs. When the mom brought it up to the prep school where the son goes, they rather rudely dismissed it which really upset her as her son enjoyed the program and seemed to get so much out of it.

By Albertc (Albertc) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Thedad said, "It's very difficult to make a case that Asians are being discriminated against", courtesy of Xiggi's figures which are totally irrelevant to Mr. Moores' charges.


For political correctness at UC Berkeley at its worse, please click on:

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=14658


Excerpts from

News

Regents Censure Chairman
Board Slams Moores for Berkeley Admissions Claims

BY Kim-Mai Cutler

Daily Cal Staff Writer

Friday, March 19, 2004


SAN FRANCISCO— "The UC Board of Regents passed a resolution censuring their own chairman, John Moores, yesterday after an hour of unusually intense argument over his public accusations that the university still uses race as a factor in admissions."

"The board split in an 8-6 vote over a resolution, which contained a stinging rebuke of Moores for an editorial piece published in Forbes magazine this month."

"The article argued that by letting in marginally academically qualified students in place of higher-achieving students, UC Berkeley admissions discriminated against Asian Americans."


John Moores was censured by the UC Regents for pointing out the statistics cited in the piece in the Forbes opinion piece.


I don't totally see eye to eye with John Moore's motives (he isn't doing all of this because he loves Asian Americans), but I definitely don't like the way the UC Regents are handling this. Moores brought up legitimate concerns.