| Topic Name: |
Asians = underrepresented minority? |
| Message Name: |
This shows the unfairness of heavy "pluses" |
| Date Posted: |
01/09/2002 |
| In Reply To: |
Racial considerations are not allowed by state statute. African American, Hispanic, and Native American enrollment dropped. Asian erollment increased a fair bit. And Caucasian enrollment has increased slightly. |
| Message: |
I read about this when it happened. I think it was called prop 209 or something when the CA voters decided to rid of AA in public education. The results were astonishing. The year before, about 100 out of 800 students at UCLA Law School were minority. The year after the school ended its AA policy, minority enrollment dropped to 8 or 9!
I know Bakke allows a school to used race as a "plus" in its admissions process, but the weight these schools gave it was ridiculous. That means they turned away an untold number of otherwise well-qualified candidates b/c they were born the wrong color--NOT black or hispanic. It's just not fair. People compete their entire academic careers for a slot in a top law school like Berkeley, and to think that they could get rejected b/c of something out of their control just blows my mind.
This should be a case study on why AA is unworkable. I would love to see a microanalysis of the students that were admitted b/c of race (who would have otherwise been rejected), and compare them with those who would have been admitted but were rejected b/c the AA slots booted them out. I would venture to say that those who were ultimately rejected came from poorer communities and sub-par education systems than the yuppy minority candidates who got in b/c of their skin color. It's just not fair. Discrimination is wrong--BOTH ways.
|
|
