Increasing diversity in light of a state ban on the use of race and ethnicity in university admissions has, for the better part of two decades, proved a difficult task at the University of California.
That’s why UC Student Regent Cinthia Flores is proposing a revision to the system the UC uses to review applicants in the hopes of increasing campus diversity within the scope of Proposition 209, which outlaws race-based admissions in California.
Flores is advocating to add a criterion to the process of holistic review, the catch-all template for admissions that was adopted after race-conscious admissions were banned. The new criterion would take into consideration whether an applicant comes from a high school that receives federal aid, called “Title I,” or a community college with low transfer rates.
Although this new factor could potentially overlap with criteria the UC already considers in its applicants – including the location of secondary school and residence – it does a better job of explicitly stating and institutionalizing the UC’s commitment to diversity than any of the current factors.
The UC would do well to adopt Flores’ suggestion and thereby reaffirm its commitment to increasing diversity at the University.
One potentially problematic aspect of the diversity factor is its focus on Title I schools, as a majority of California’s high schools qualify as Title I.
But just because many high schools in the state are Title I does not mean the University shouldn’t provide them all with a slight competitive edge in admissions.
Moreover, the new admissions consideration is only one part of Flores’ initiative. Her proposal also calls for the UC to make partnerships with Title I high schools and low-transfer community colleges. Students would then be rewarded for attending partnership schools when they are being considered for admission.
Creating partnerships with these schools is perhaps the most valuable part of the University of California’s Higher Education Diversity Pipeline drafted by Flores. These partnerships increase enrollment in classes required for admission to the UC and in turn the number of UC applicants from those schools.
The diversity factor will do little good if the University doesn’t foster partnerships with low-income schools and provide a path for students from these schools into the UC. It’s easy to change an admissions criterion, but the real work comes in making sure that students from Title I schools and low-transfer community colleges are applying to the UC.
With the existence of these partnerships, the addition of the diversity factor is a worthwhile way to increase the presence of underserved populations at the University as much as is possible within the confines of Proposition 209.
Creating partnerships with underserved high schools and then seeing to it that there are tangible benefits when students from those schools apply is a concrete step forward in increasing and maintaining diversity – an area where the UC could definitely improve.
Since the implementation of Proposition 209 in 1996, the number of students from underrepresented communities has dropped significantly across the UC. Explicitly taking socioeconomic status into consideration may alleviate some of these problems.
Ultimately, the suggestion is not an “end-all and be-all” solution to the lack of diversity at the UC – it’s a way to show that the university is committed to keep working, trying new things and enriching everyone’s experience at the UC by diversifying its population.
Email Delgadillo at ndelgadillo@media.ucla.edu or tweet her @ndelgadillo07. Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us @DBOpinion.