By Luis Roman
In his opinion piece, “Admissions disparity calls for a review of system,” Eitan Arom calls on UCLA administration to allow for a public evaluation of its admissions policies.
Normally, as an alum, I would steer away from these discussions and hope that the current student leaders engage in critical dialogue to ensure that UCLA remains true to its mission as a public institution.
But as someone who invested most of his time at UCLA to issues of access for underrepresented students and admissions, I knew I could not stay quiet.
It remains unclear if Arom actually read the entire Mare study, or if he drew his argument solely on Professor Sander’s speculation about racial influences in the admissions process. As the former Student Representative to the Academic Senate’s Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools, I spent countless hours reading the report, and attending meetings where faculty and administrators asked Professor Mare questions about his methodologies and findings.
CUARS commissioned the distinguished Professor Mare to lead this report and the committee was satisfied with the results. To get a more detailed evaluation, the committee decided that the study be expanded and include 2009-2011 admissions data.
Nonetheless, the Mare study indicated that academic factors continue to be the biggest admissions factors.
To argue that the supplemental process may violate the law because it somehow unfairly compensates black and hispanic applicants is not only fictitious but also callous. Supplemental review allows readers the opportunity to inquire more about specific students whose standardized performance may not reflect a student’s full potential. This is often a result of students’ unfortunate lack of resources and academic opportunities.
Coincidentally, most of these students happen to be black and hispanic, due to larger socioeconomic policies. To suggest that students should be penalized for not having access to educational capital and therefore not worthy of a UCLA education is irresponsible, and it undervalues the contributions of alumni and current students of color.
If Professor Sander and Arom are really invested in any admissions disparities, then perhaps they should look at the difference between applicant rate and admitted rate for students of color.
Last year, out of all California residents who applied, 5.5 percent identified as Black/African-American, but were only 3.8 percent of the admitted students; approximately 26 percent of all the applicants were Latina/o, but only 21.1 percent of the admitted students identify as Latina/o.
As concerned individuals, Professor Sander and Arom have the unique opportunity to work with other students of color and admissions representatives to close this gap.
UCLA may be one of the greatest universities in the world, but it is still a public institution. As such, the California Master Plan for Higher Education ensures that public universities reflect the demographics of its surrounding community. The reality is that UCLA does not look like California’s population, and it is nowhere near looking like the Los Angeles I call home. Since the passage of Proposition 209, which eliminated Affirmative Action, the UC has struggled to educate a truly diverse student body.
Holistic admissions may not be perfect, considering that UCLA has been unable to enroll as many underrepresented students as it did during Affirmative Action, but it is a step in the right direction.
Roman is a UCLA alumnus and former student representative on the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools.