2007 UC ADMISSION NUMBERS

Here are some of the 2007 numbers reported by the Regents:


2007 APPLICATIONS


Total = 73,825

Whites = 27,164 (36.7%)

African Americans = 3,527 (4.7%)

Asians = 20,837 (28.2%)

Latinos = 14,941 ( 20.2%)

Numbers include undocumented residents, as such are generally considered residents for admissions purposes.


2007 ADMITS


Total = 57,318 [Basically 78% of "Total Applications"]

Whites = 20,370 (35.4% of Total) [Basically 75% of "White Applications"]

African Americans = 2,071 (3.7%) [Basically 57% of "AA Applications"; too low!]

Asians = 20,250 (35.3%) [Basically 97% of "Asian Applications"]

Latinos = 10,715 (18.7%) [Basically 72%, or the same "rate" as White Americans]


The admission policies are still very subjective and differ by campus.


LAST YEAR'S (2006) FRESHMAN CLASS


Total Accepts = 37,168

Whites = 11,981 (32.2%)

African Americans = 1,117 (3.0%) [Just 96 , or 2% at UCLA!]

Asians = 15,527 (41.8%)

Latinos = 6,041 (16.3%)


Since my law schools days at UCLA (oh so long ago), I have found a few things troubling about the admissions policies established by the Regents. Let me give you one specific, current example.

For as long as I can remember, the Regents have been vigorously attempting to increase the representation of what it labels as "Underrepresented Students." Oddly enough, by definition these students are basically comprised of individuals that are getting into the UCs at rates (or ratios) materially less than White Americans.

These groups include Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans. So far so good; as I think I get the "general reasoning" behind this policy. [Specifically, if the rates are much less than White Americans, then there must be something wrong now; or there must have been some past wrong doing or discrimination. Seems simplistic, but I get the gist.]

But here is the rub, which I think is implicitly unfair to African Americans (and Native Americans). The Regents include both 1st and 2nd generation immigrants (no matter the legal status) in this group of Underrepresented Students; and allows these individuals to get the special benefits only available to such Underrepresented Students.

[The "top 4 percent of public schools" program was one program that was originally designed to provide such benefits. Those reviewing the applications apply other benefits under the subjective portion of the UCs' application process. See prior posts.]

It seems odd to expect (or push???) these new immigrants to be getting into the UCs at the same "rates" (or ratios) as families that have been in this country for multiple generations. And this is exactly what the UCs are attempting to do; especially with respect to Latinos given their increasing numbers. It also seems odd to think that if the UCs are attempting to correct past discrimination that giving special benefits to recent immigrants will accomplish this task. In fact, I would argue that it would have the exact opposite impact.

As you can see, 72% of the Latino Applications get accepted to one of the UCs. This compares to the 75% for White Americans. Given the significant portion of Latino families that have "foreign born" parents, 72% seems exceptional. Certainly not what I would consider "Underrepresented Students." [True, this rate reflects the benefits put into place by the UCs to increase Latino representation; especially the "top 4 percent" program of late.]

Basically, I think it is unfair to our historically poor for the Regents to give 1st and 2nd generation immigrants "special benefits." It is especially harmful to African Americans living in California that have and continue to be disproportionately poor; even poorer on average than recent immigrants.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem giving these residents (assuming they are documented) the same opportunities as everyone else. After all, this is the American way.

It is also the American way to "pay your dues" when you first come to this country. To me, this means that you work as hard as possible to make a better future for your kids, and their kids -- without asking for any "special" considerations.

[Here is my "example":

Assume that there is a group of “French Americans” that historically has been disproportionately poor because of certain discriminatory actions taken by our government several generations back. Further assume that because of these actions it is unlikely that these French Americans will ever equal the economic prosperity of other Americans unless some new, specific action is taken.

Now assume that there is another group of poor Irish Americans that has been immigrating in droves to the USA in order to pursue the American dream. Assume that over that last 20 years, the amount of Irish Americans now living in California (alone) has increased by around 4 million or 30 percent.

Question: Based on the above, would you also expect the number of Irish Americans attending the various CA universities to have increased by 30 percent (over the last 20 years)? I would argue no; especially if these new Irish Americans are generally poor.

Question: Based on the above, would you expect the new (4 million) Irish Americans to be getting into the CA universities at the same rates as more established families? Again, I would argue no.

Questions: Would you consider it appropriate to give these new Irish Americans “special,” beyond the normal considerations when determining their admissibility to the CA universities? What if such special considerations would result in reducing admissions for poor, but established French Americans? What if good portions of these new Irish Americans are in the USA illegally?]


Here are some interesting facts:

In 2005, there were approximately 35 million people living in California. Around 9.6 million of these people were foreign born. In 1995, the number of foreign born was still fairly high (at around 7 million, give or take).

In 2005, 35% percent of California's population was Latino. This was up from around 32% in 2000.

[Given that the majority of our foreign born are Latinos, I would not expect (under a fair application process) for these numbers to translate into a dramatic increase in Latino representation at the UCs. But that is just me. After all, it took my families YEARS before anyone got a college education.]

In 2005, 6.1% percent of California's population was African American. This was down from around 6.7% in 2000.


In 1997, 14.7% of UC freshman admits were Latinos. In 2007, 18.7% of UC freshman admits were Latinos. An increase of 27.2% since 1997.

In 1997, 3.8% of UC freshman admits were African American. In 2007, 3.6% of UC freshman admits were African American. A decrease of 5% since 1997.

Again, I think it is intrinsically unfair to give 1st and 2nd generation immigrants "special benefits" that are not readily available to average residents. It is especially harmful to African Americans living in California that have and continue to be disproportionately poor; and quite frankly continue to leave California given that high schools (and local communities) are becoming more geared to serving our increasingly Spanish speaking population.