In a recent submission, Stanley Johnson expressed concern about
the low number of African American freshmen enrolling at UCLA this
fall. I share his dismay and would like to add my perspective and
correct what I believe to be some misperceptions. My knowledge of
our admissions process comes from having been a member of both the
UCLA Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with
Schools and the UC Board on Admissions and Relations with
Schools.
As required by Proposition 209, the UCLA admissions process is
race-blind. In addition to evaluating students’ academic
accomplishments and extracurricular activities, our admissions
process takes into account a variety of factors, which we call
“life challenges,” such as low parental income and
“disadvantaged school” status. A student that has
experienced significant life challenges has an increased chance of
being admitted.
The result of our comprehensive review process is a
disappointingly small number of African American admissions. The
faculty and administrators with whom I interact do not wish to
ignore this outcome. This year, the Academic Senate has convened
two groups to assess our admissions process: a joint Student-Senate
Admissions Workgroup and a special subcommittee of CUARS. Both
groups will explore whether UCLA is inadvertently failing to
account adequately for the adverse effects of students’ high
school and personal circumstances.
The challenge of admitting a diverse class is exacerbated by
UCLA’s selectivity; only 25 percent of freshmen applicants
were offered admission in fall 2006. As a result, there are many
students who are not admitted to UCLA who could succeed here. We
can point to denied African American applicants whom we would be
delighted to have as members of our campus community ““ but
the same holds for members of every other racial and ethnic group
and thus does not prove our admissions process is faulty.
Johnson is correct that the Eligibility in the Local Context
policy was never intended to guarantee admission to any particular
campus. It only guarantees that a student will be admitted to a UC
campus. Because of high selectivity, UCLA does not admit all
students in this category. For Fall 2006, UCLA admitted about 58
percent of its ELC applicants. It would be interesting to explore
the implications of admitting a larger proportion.
Around 36 percent of our undergraduates receive Pell Grants
(financial aid for low-income students); this is the highest
percentage out of all elite research universities in the nation.
Also, about 29 percent of our undergraduates are the first in their
families to attend college. We are succeeding in these and other
dimensions of diversity but still have challenges to overcome to
achieve an undergraduate body that represents California’s
racial and ethnic diversity.
The state recently mandated that BOARS decrease the number of
UC-eligible students in order to comply with the Master Plan for
Higher Education. BOARS is passionate about access to UC and
student diversity and took great care to raise eligibility
standards in a nondiscriminatory way. The higher GPA requirement
may decrease the proportion of African American students in the
eligibility pool, but I believe this was unavoidable. And it will
have essentially no effect on UCLA admissions since we were already
much more selective than the eligibility criteria.
Finally, I must vehemently object to our admissions process
being characterized as rewarding “privilege” over
“academic potential.” The faculty members on CUARS and
BOARS are very concerned about identifying students from diverse
backgrounds who will thrive at UCLA and enabling access for
students from across the racial, ethnic and socioeconomic spectrum
of California.
I encourage Johnson to continue to take an interest in this
issue, talk with faculty at his school who understand the nature of
the challenge, and contribute to finding a solution.
Lavine is chairwoman of the Academic Senate. The views
expressed do not represent the official position of the
senate.