Stuart Buck alerted me to an odd OpEd (maybe an OddEd) in the Los Angeles Times. I would describe it as touchingly confused.
The author, Sue Clark, is a guidance counselor in the Irvine, Calif., school system. She begins with a report of an anguished, angry call some years ago from the parent of a good student who had not been accepted at UC San Diego because, the parent was convinced, of racial favoritism.
I’d already warned the girl and her mother that the chances of getting in to UCSD were borderline at best. Her test scores were good, but not great. Yes, she was a varsity sports player; certainly, she had worked hard on student government projects. She had good grades in UC preparatory classes. But competition was as savage then as it is today. More likely, she would be accepted to another good school. And since the UC system had race-based admissions, it was possible that this mother was correct. A similar student who was an underrepresented minority might have been given more weight in the rankings.
“Might have been given more weight”?! Ms. Clark says she supports preferences, but her “might” makes it sound as though she doesn’t have a very clear idea of how they work.
Ms. clark refers in passing to her glee, as a counselor, in “discovering a girl who was half-Apache and half-Mexican” who was also — now she was really thrilled — “affiliated with a tribe,” especially when the girl declared “I do native dancing too.” Of course, there was also the male Asian student who complained that Asians weren’t given preferences and a white girl who said her parents “were thinking of legally changing her name to ‘something ethnic.'”
But her central story concerned Barbara, a brilliant young black student who refused to have her race identified on her application forms. “I don’t want to be admitted with my race as a consideration,” she explained. “I either get in on my merit, or I don’t get in.”
Ms. Clark was both impressed and appalled. In fact, she considered adding on the form that the student had been president of the Black Student Union, but in the end she didn’t.
Despite all this she claims to be sad that UC stopped taking race into account. But she’s glad she honored Barbara’s wishes.
Most odd.
I think people should just lie. They can’t prove that that blue-eyed blonde isn’t really Black. Being Native American is the best–most tribes don’t ask for any proof at all.
On the contrary, because being a member of a tribe can confer financial benefits from tribal property, and because membership implies eligibility to participate in tribal government, they will certainly NOT enroll someone on their own say-so. Now, one can claim to be a Native American without being enrolled in any one tribe, but that’s different.
BTW, the policy may have changed, but some Indians are entitled to educational benefits by treaty, and I think at one time the University of California used this to waive out-of-state tuition for Indians.
Perhaps her title should be changed to misguided counsellor.
I don’t believe that racially-based admissions policies have been abandoned in the UC system despite being outlawed.
My evidence is anecdotal, but strong. My younger son scored 1480 on his SATs, had a 4.571 grade average, was a varsity athlete all four years and MVP of the conference his senior year. He had a number of youth activities (e.g., Key Club, Interact, school newspaper). He was a California resident and his mother a UCLA graduate (who had given generously for 20+ years to the school and the athletic department).
He applied to UCLA and didn’t even make the waiting list.
I personally know of two kids in local schools who graduated the same Spring with considerably lower SATs, lower GPAs, no athletic honors, no legacy status, but with Hispanic surnames. Need one guess the outcome of their applications to UCLA? Both accepted.
Just call me an optimist mugged by reality. The taxpayers of California are being played for fools and the admissions process in the UC System is more corrupt and unaccountable than ever.
P.S.-My son went to Trinity College in Hartford, CT and then transferred to University of Colorado for his sophomore year (just completed). He is an architetcture major with one B and all the rest A’s for his first four semesters. He loves to ski and the girls are prettier at CU. Life is good and all worked out just great. It’s his dad who has the problem.
I’m fairly certain that UC has dropped legacy preferences in admissions.
Now, is it possible that the Hispanic students were accepted to UCLA out of class-based affirmative action (which the author of this blog seems to think is OK)?
Andrew – I think class-based affirmative action is O.K.? True, I don’t believe it violates any fundamental principles, as race-based affirmative action does and religion-based affirmative action would if it existed. That’s the same way I feel about legacy preferences: they may or may not be a good idea, but they don’t offend basic principles. But if were calling all the shots myself, I would give scholarships to needy applicants but I wouldn’t lower the standards for them. But hey, that doesn’t mean I would require everyone else to follow my preferences. If you want to judge poor students by a different standard, I would say it’s a free country and that’s your privilege. But if you want to apply racial or religious favoritism, I would say it’s a free country and you can’t do that….