UCLA’s much-publicized holistic admissions approach has now survived its first applicant pool.
When the data was released on the school’s Web site on April 5, a 2.2 percent increase in underrepresented minority admits served as evidence for the policy’s improved ability to take into account factors other than test scores and GPAs.
While the school would still benefit from greater racial diversity, the more pressing problem is the ignorance and mild racism expressed by some members of the Bruin community.
It’s not that UCLA has too many white and Asian students; it’s that people assume that those who are not of these races are “affirmative action” admits who don’t deserve to be here.
There’s no doubt that the large majority of students are Asian American or white. These groups, when combined, make up nearly 73 percent of current undergraduates, per information from the school’s Web site. It could be said, quite reasonably, that we have a crisis of racial diversity.
Some students become defensive when people of overrepresented races are not admitted to UCLA. In a recent submission to the Daily Bruin, the claim was made that “since his skin color was white,” a student was denied admissions, presumably in favor of nonwhite students.
The idea is that more qualified white students are being turned away to make room for applicants, who ““ save the novelty of their ethnicities ““ are less competent. Underprivileged and unqualified students are being poured into our school with the mere goal of creating a more colored cross-section of the American dream.
It would be ironic then, if the total GPA of the admitted students for 2007 was 4.30 (up from 4.26 from last fall), if the average student took an average of 19 honors and advanced placement classes, and if the average SAT score (up one point from last year’s 2006) spoke to the continuing strength of UCLA’s academic future.
Which, of course, they do.
The continued upward trend in the academic strength of admits shows that the new holistic admissions policy did not contain many radical changes. Although the number of underrepresented minority admits did rise, this increase did not come at the expense of more qualified white students. The reason applicant strength is not going down is that students of equal or higher merit are still being chosen, regardless of their race.
But what about all the stories we hear and come across? How can Jimmy have a 4.2 GPA, live in Egypt, write about it in his essay, play sports, and not get into UCLA? Incidents of star candidates being rejected are not evidence of reverse discrimination ““ they’re a testament to the depth and quality of UCLA’s applicant pool.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, having a GPA above 4.0, strong test scores and numerous extra-curricular activities is not the exception at UCLA, it’s the norm.
The new admissions policies are listed on the Web site. Of eight criteria for admissions, race is never explicitly mentioned. In fact, it is only alluded to once, where UCLA is described as “a campus that values cultural, socioeconomic and intellectual diversity.”
Affirmative action, a system that set quotas or gave students expressed priority based on race, was made illegal by California Proposition 209 in 1996. Application readers are even blind as to the student’s response to the optional race question. Arguments that UCLA holds skin color above achievement or experiences are simply baseless.
Nonwhite and non-Asian students should not need to justify their admittance. If UCLA is to ever have a successfully diverse campus, minority students must not be profiled as undeserving of their admission and enrollment.
Still think your cousin Bob was rejected from UCLA for being white? E-mail Makarechi at kmak@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.