New California Policies Cutting Qualified Students from CA Schools

[Lihu]

So, what else is new? I'll start off with the fact that almost every American has faced discrimination and injustice from where every they came. Asians specifically have faced a lot of injustice in Asia, and in the United States. US policies included exclusion acts, internments, and more. Now this. So, we're back to the specific discrimination part, the schools are banning qualified students from California schools in place of less qualified ones who are supposedly less "advantaged". [URL=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30393117/ns/us_news-life/t/asian-americans-blast-uc-admissions-policy/#.UxOE3oXfBNA]http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30393117/ns/us_news-life/t/asian-americans-blast-uc-admissions-policy/#.UxOE3oXfBNA[/URL] First of all, this policy is being passed. Second of all, Asians are not generally better off than any other minority. There are rich and poor, hard working or otherwise in any race. So, what gives one minority more of an advantage than another one? Nothing. So, why are there policies that seem to indicate otherwise? It impacts me, because my son has a friend who is a straight 'A' student taking AP classes and is good at programming computers already. He could work as a mid level programmer out of high school, he has written professionally used code. Yet he has trouble getting into California schools. He's probably going to Case Western Reserve on a 33% scholarship, but no California school is looking seriously at his applications due to this policy. Giving "disadvantaged" students an unfair means of admission to a school could very likely make way for their failure in the school. Simply put, they are not as qualified as those that got in by having even higher academic standards than those cut off by these artificial barriers. There is a large gap in the abilities between those that get in through discriminatory admissions and the ones who made the cut in their own group. I think the ACLU and affiliates have gone just a little too far this time, and it makes me think of all the non-minority students in the past that were equally discriminated against. My cousins did this :roll: : [URL=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-12-03/asian-students-college-applications/51620236/1]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-12-03/asian-students-college-applications/51620236/1[/URL] All Asians should just change their last names and/or just put white for race. Leave it up to a public institution to do something like this.

[14ledo81]

I agree. Many policies like this actually hurt the people they are "designed" to help. Employers won't believe they legitimately made it through the school. Not to mention the deserving person that worked his/her tail off only to lose a spot because of this.

[Shindig]

Have you (or your son's friend's parents) looked at non-public schools in California? Pomona College and Harvey Mudd have great computer science programs, as does USC.

[Lihu]

I agree. Many policies like this actually hurt the people they are "designed" to help. Employers won't believe they legitimately made it through the school.

Not to mention the deserving person that worked his/her tail off only to lose a spot because of this.

I think that all the students that finish, have earned their degrees. No matter how they got into the school.

However, not all of the admitted students will finish, and I think less will. Plus, there will be less of the tougher courses when you have these types of policies in place. simply because there are less academically qualified students to take them.

There will be a larger gap in the academic capabilities of the ones that got in by merit and the ones that get in by policy. This is simply because all the students that got in by merit made an artificial cut that is unreasonably high.

It's not that there is a difference in capability by race, it's simply because of a policy that was not well thought out.

[Lihu]

Have you (or your son's friend's parents) looked at non-public schools in California? Pomona College and Harvey Mudd have great computer science programs, as does USC.

Yes, they did look at Harvey Mudd and Pomona, both very difficult schools to get into and very expensive.

At this point, we are probably not even going to apply to the UC schools. I would furthermore discourage any Asian parents from aspiring to send their children to any UC school.

Too bad, we have three generations of UC students, and a 4th if you include my grandfather who taught linguistics at UC Berkeley. I don't know who comes up with these policies and what statistics or data they base their decisions, but from any angle it looks like a very bad idea.

[colin007]

So, what else is new? I'll start off with the fact that almost every American has faced discrimination and injustice from where every they came. Asians specifically have faced a lot of injustice in Asia, and in the United States. US policies included exclusion acts, internments, and more. Now this. First of all, this policy is being passed. Second of all, Asians are not generally better off than any other minority. There are rich and poor, hard working or otherwise in any race. So, what gives one minority more of an advantage than another one? Nothing.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with "almost every American". Also, I would say that, in America, latinos and blacks have higher rates of poverty and lower education achievement than asians.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

So, what else is new?

I'll start off with the fact that almost every American has faced discrimination and injustice from where every they came. Asians specifically have faced a lot of injustice in Asia, and in the United States. US policies included exclusion acts, internments, and more. Now this.

First of all, this policy is being passed. Second of all, Asians are not generally better off than any other minority. There are rich and poor, hard working or otherwise in any race. So, what gives one minority more of an advantage than another one? Nothing.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with "almost every American".

Also, I would say that, in America, latinos and blacks have higher rates of poverty and lower education achievement than asians.

This is not due to poverty.

[uno6518]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with "almost every American".

Also, I would say that, in America, latinos and blacks have higher rates of poverty and lower education achievement than asians.

Ditto this.

There are reasons that underrepresented minorities exist that go beyond not just being able to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". I'd also say that it's a big jump to say that this doesn't have to be alleviated by letting all of the minorities in, therefore reducing the number of qualified students. There are other ways, especially in California. CA junior college-to-UC/CSU transers for instance.

That all being said, I agree that this is not a good policy. The fact that their own internal study showed that Asian, Latino, and Black population would be reduced and they still want to push forward with this is head-scratching.  It appears that a chunk of this is coming from dropping guaranteed admittance to students who graduate in the top 12.5% of their class to the top 10%.

[uno6518]

This is not due to poverty.

Lots of numbers that disagree with you there.

[iacas]

This is not due to poverty.

Uhm… Not so sure about that one there @Lihu .

Edit: Errrr, @uno6518 already responded.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="colin007" url="/t/72885/new-californian-policies-are-cutting-more-qualified-students-from-california-schools#post_957100"] I'm going to respectfully disagree with "almost every American". Also, I would say that, in America, latinos and blacks have higher rates of poverty and lower education achievement than asians.[/QUOTE] Ditto this. There are reasons that underrepresented minorities exist that go beyond not just being able to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". I'd also say that it's a big jump to say that this doesn't have to be alleviated by letting all of the minorities in, therefore reducing the number of qualified students. There are other ways, especially in California. CA junior college-to-UC/CSU transers for instance. That all being said, I agree that this is not a good policy. The fact that their own internal study showed that Asian, Latino, and Black population would be reduced and they still want to push forward with this is head-scratching.  It appears that a chunk of this is coming from dropping guaranteed admittance to students who graduate in the top 12.5% of their class to the top 10%.

I'll need to dig deeper through the proposal, from what I read it was only for selective minorities. Lots of Asian families were poor 20 plus years ago. Culturally, education comes first for children. Everything is centered around this goal. Most Asian families would forgoe anything outside the basic necessities to educate their children. This is a cultural thing, because this is how you improve your economic conditions in Asia as well. Poor or not, the children's education comes first.

[colin007]

Of course. I think that's a culturally (and sometimes stereotypically) validated point. However, the connection between poverty and schooling, or lack thereof, is strong. You live in an impoverished neighborhood, what do you think the schools are going to be like?

[Lihu]

Many Asians live in the worst parts of LA.

[Golfingdad]

So, what else is new?

I'll start off with the fact that almost every American has faced discrimination and injustice from where every they came. Asians specifically have faced a lot of injustice in Asia, and in the United States. US policies included exclusion acts, internments, and more. Now this.

So, we're back to the specific discrimination part, the schools are banning qualified students from California schools in place of less qualified ones who are supposedly less "advantaged".

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30393117/ns/us_news-life/t/asian-americans-blast-uc-admissions-policy/#.UxOE3oXfBNA

First of all, this policy is being passed. Second of all, Asians are not generally better off than any other minority. There are rich and poor, hard working or otherwise in any race. So, what gives one minority more of an advantage than another one? Nothing.

So, why are there policies that seem to indicate otherwise?

It impacts me, because my son has a friend who is a straight 'A' student taking AP classes and is good at programming computers already. He could work as a mid level programmer out of high school, he has written professionally used code. Yet he has trouble getting into California schools. He's probably going to Case Western Reserve on a 33% scholarship, but no California school is looking seriously at his applications due to this policy.

Giving "disadvantaged" students an unfair means of admission to a school could very likely make way for their failure in the school. Simply put, they are not as qualified as those that got in by having even higher academic standards than those cut off by these artificial barriers. There is a large gap in the abilities between those that get in through discriminatory admissions and the ones who made the cut in their own group.

I think the ACLU and affiliates have gone just a little too far this time, and it makes me think of all the non-minority students in the past that were equally discriminated against.

My cousins did this :

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-12-03/asian-students-college-applications/51620236/1

All Asians should just change their last names and/or just put white for race.

Leave it up to a public institution to do something like this.

No offense Lihu, but ... where do you get any of that????  When you take out the title of the article, the picture of the Asian parents, and the complaints and conspiracy theories from Asian parents, this is what it says about the new policies:

"The primary goal is fairness and eliminating barriers that seem unnecessary," UC President Mark Yudof said. "It means that if you're a parent out there, more of your sons' and daughters' files will be reviewed."

One of the biggest changes is scrapping the requirement that applicants take two SAT subject tests. UC officials say the tests do little to predict who will succeed at UC, no other public university requires them, and many high-achieving students are disqualified because they do not take them.

The policy also widens the pool of candidates by allowing applications from all students who complete the required high school courses, take the main SAT or ACT exams and maintain a 3.0 grade-point average. Under the current policy, students have to rank in the top 12.5 percent of California high school graduates to be eligible.

Students still have to apply to individual campuses, where admissions officers are allowed to consider each applicants' grades, test scores, personal background, extracurricular activities and other factors but not race. "

Other than the part at the end that I emphasized, nowhere does it mention anything about race.  Nor does it say anything about "banning" or "excluding" anybody.  It just says that they will be able to consider a larger pool of applicants, and that there will be more competition for the spots.

I'm just not seeing what you're seeing.

[Lihu]

You only brought up the press release that says it will accept more applicants based upon factors other than the SAT tests. I will only address this issue in this post as there are many other aspects of the policy that is steering the education at these schools in the wrong direction as well. These tests are where many American Asians are strong, this is a fact. So, the new policy is specifically targeting American Asians. I am not sure how it will affect foreign born Asians since I don't have any of the admission data. Sports will gain a boost. Your quote states that "qualified applicants" who would not do well in these standardized tests, but would otherwise fit well at the UC schools would also benefit. Who are they? Generally, not Asians, but possibly other minorities? My guess is that applicants from abroad will also benefit from this. Non US applicants are also wealthier, and will pay full price for tuition and housing. Their weakness? More than likely the Verbal SAT scores which they are scrapping. Instead of having a generally higher level of education, the school will depend upon the higher level of the fewer local applicants who exceed the new bar of purely academic acceptance to keep the standards higher. They will get tuition from richer less qualified foreign applicants. They will recruit much better athletes with not so great academic standards. Who wins? The school. Is it fair? IDK, that's why I am posing this question to you guys to get a better feel. I would like to know how everyone feels about this.

[Golfingdad]

You only brought up the press release that says it will accept more applicants based upon factors other than the SAT tests. I will only address this issue in this post as there are many other aspects of the policy that is steering the education at these schools in the wrong direction as well. These tests are where many American Asians are strong, this is a fact. So, the new policy is specifically targeting American Asians. I am not sure how it will affect foreign born Asians since I don't have any of the admission data. Sports will gain a boost. Your quote states that "qualified applicants" who would not do well in these standardized tests, but would otherwise fit well at the UC schools would also benefit. Who are they? Generally, not Asians, but possibly other minorities? My guess is that applicants from abroad will also benefit from this. Non US applicants are also wealthier, and will pay full price for tuition and housing. Their weakness? More than likely the Verbal SAT scores which they are scrapping. Instead of having a generally higher level of education, the school will depend upon the higher level of the fewer local applicants who exceed the new bar of purely academic acceptance to keep the standards higher. They will get tuition from richer less qualified foreign applicants. They will recruit much better athletes with not so great academic standards. Who wins? The school. Is it fair? IDK, that's why I am posing this question to you guys to get a better feel. I would like to know how everyone feels about this.

I simply quoted statements about the policy from the article that YOU linked. And based only on that article, the policy seems completely fair to me because it will include more people in the application process without excluding anybody. How could you argue otherwise? I'm also likely always going to be for policies that lean less on standardized tests. They are a poor judge of talent, IMO. They show you who is good at prepping for and taking tests, not necessarily one who is most proficient in the material.

[flopster]

This is not due to poverty.

Just look at what prop 13 did to lower income school districts, and even though lottery money is generated way more in poorer districts the funds are evenly distributed.

[MS256]

My guess is that applicants from abroad will also benefit from this. Non US applicants are also wealthier, and will pay full price for tuition and housing. Their weakness? More than likely the Verbal SAT scores which they are scrapping.

Instead of having a generally higher level of education, the school will depend upon the higher level of the fewer local applicants who exceed the new bar of purely academic acceptance to keep the standards higher. They will get tuition from richer less qualified foreign applicants. They will recruit much better athletes with not so great academic standards.Who wins? The school. Is it fair? IDK, that's why I am posing this question to you guys to get a better feel.

I would like to know how everyone feels about this.

You mean you guys in California pass up "better athletes" in favor of better students? ;-)