The UCLA admissions process, though moving in the right
direction, still has its shortcomings. Despite the Academic
Senate’s stated desire to broaden the criteria for admissions
beyond academic achievements, the new holistic approach allows for
little meaningful evaluation of an applicant’s “life
challenges” because it is too subjective.
The final enrollment figures were released Tuesday for the fall
incoming class. After the approved appealed cases, final figures
indicated that a few more black students were admitted than
originally reported.
Administrators like Janina Montero, vice chancellor of UCLA
Student Affairs, have said that if it were not for Proposition 209,
UCLA would currently be practicing affirmative action. Any plan
that includes race as a factor in admissions decisions is a bad
contingency plan.
Proposition 209 was passed by California voters in 1996 and
banned race-based affirmative action in the University of
California system.
It’s actually a smart idea to bring back affirmative
action ““ but not the kind you’re probably thinking
about. The days of race quotas are long behind us (and that’s
certainly for the better), but there is another idea worth
considering: affirmative action based on socioeconomic status.
Race-based affirmative action is a problem because there are a
considerable number of minorities in the world that are neither
poor nor disadvantaged. Giving a rich black student (ostensibly
able to afford a private school education and SAT prep courses)
priority over a poor and genuinely disadvantaged white student is
wrong.
What if UCLA gave preferential treatment to students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds (say below the poverty line)? The goal is
still the same ““ to give disadvantaged people a boost in
college admissions ““ except this system would leave no room
for messy questions about race.
Obviously this is not a final solution. The stars would have to
align and the U.S. would have to be able to solve not only
inequalities in the K-12 education system, but also poverty itself,
in order for affirmative action not to be necessary.
The current process doesn’t properly define “life
challenge” ““ a category of the application now given
considerably more weight ““ which makes the term too
subjective.
Applicants should be judged on academic qualifications and on
what they have been able to achieve within the context of what is
realistic based on the applicant’s background.
A student with middle class or wealthy parents should be
expected to have higher test scores and a better education than a
student who is raised in a poor neighborhood and given an education
in an under-performing school.
Applicants should not be evaluated on touchy-feely
“challenges” but on actual, provable disadvantages
based on characteristics such as family income and which high
school they attended.
There will always be inequalities in society, and addressing
those inequalities where they actually exist is a step in the right
direction for UCLA.
As for the current process of holistic admissions, the
administration has a long way to go.