Hi SFR, just wanted to say thanks for blogging about this. Although I graduated years ago, it's still good to learn about it so I can have conversations to help people understand what's going on and why we should care. Our future is at stake! :) You're awesome!

[...] regular reader of my blog (Oiyan Poon, graduate student in Education at UCLA) is writing an analysis paper on this issue and makes several good points. First is that because the new eligibility rules basically expands [...]

SFR- Phenomenal deconstruction. Look forward to the next one!

Glad to see that someone is going to help breakdown the recent proposal but I just want to clarify something, because it looks like its very hard to just be eligible to go to the UC. The above admission eligibility requirements are actually detailing "Eligibility in the Local Context", which a makes student not only *eligible*, but also *guarantees* them a spot in the UC system. If a student is Eligibile in the Local Context at the 4% level then they will be guaranteed a spot in at least one of all the UCs. If they are at the 12.5% then they are guaranteed a spot in at least the lower ranked UCs. However, to just be eligible at all (i.e. Eligible in the STATEWIDE Context) and not necessarily guarantee a spot in the UC, a student needs to have fulfilled the A-G Requirements with a minimum GPA of 3.0 as well as taking the ACT/SAT in addition to two SAT subjects tests. There is actually added depth to this because what the UC does is they have a conversion scale that translates a student's GPA and their test scores to a standardized scale which they calculate and use to actually determine eligibility. It's complicated but you can read more at http://www.ucop.edu/sas/elc/eligibilityinfo.html

To all readers, The fact that persons of the API "population" want to post a blog about this is unique. The fact that "members of the API community" assert there is a difference between "eligibility" and actual "admissions," is appalling. I was referred to this site by the EAVP of ASUC as defense for policy changes for admissions makes me quite unsettled. Any scholar of API issues would probably agree that this type of policy change is deliberate and has certain implications toward admissions policies. BUT, beyond this small population, I would like to show that the attempt to rationalize this action by the UC by saying that there is a difference between eligibility and admissions is WRONG. These two terms go hand and hand. There is NO way that eligibility will NOT affect admissions for the API community. First, the assertion in this article about expanding the representation of minority groups such as SEA's is nowhere supported by the UC's statements. Spoke persons for the UC DO NOT differentiate the SEA community from the AA population as a whole thereby reinforcing the notions of an "invisibility" of the SEA community within the umbrella of an AA population. This leads to questions of whether eligibility really does NOT affect the API community when the AA community is already perceived as being overrepresented. Thinking back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when discrimination took the form of the simple inability to identify with the African American situation and cause in society, I can't help but see reminiscent issues arising for the AA community when even UC administrators don't see that the SEA community is still not a representative sample of the AA community and suffers from unconscious biases when being viewed under the veil of AA categorization. Thus, inherent biases against this particular "minority" group is still very apparent and possible. Secondly, the discussion over guaranteed admissions and the choice of majors is unfortunately IRRELEVANT. This argumentation seems like a diversion from the true ISSUE at hand which is a decreased API population in the UC system as a RESULT of these policy changes. Guaranteed admissions is only one factor in one's progress at a university. It acts as a gate toward a better education. If you happen to be lucky enough to gain admissions to a top university, the next level will be competition for majors. SORRY, unfortunately, NOT everyone in society is cut out to be DOCTORS or top notch INVESTMENT BANKERS. Personally, I don't want people who aren't qualified to be at the higher echelons of society. I would write more but its 3:30 in the morning and frankly I'm tired. Hopefully, people realize this is a blog that was referred to by the EAVP as DEFENSE for a policy decision that has a huge impact on a certain population. The FACT that this blog is used as support for a policy to diversify understanding of the issue is FUNNY. Frankly, I find it BS. Get someone with some real knowledge or some research to back up information, NOT a blog. P.S. I'm probably considered "ignorant" and "unenlightened" to some people, but I believe what I believe. If you want to diversify the issue, do YOUR own research and thinking. Don't listen to blogs that have no facts and substance including what I have posted. DO the research and come to your own conclusion and SEE the BS in the policy decisions in the UC. "Collateral Damage" is a bitch and if it applied to any other "minority" group believe me we would HAVE issues. SHAME ON YOU DIONNE from someone who has supported you most of the times, but NOT this time!

David, I can't figure out your particular position. Can you please clarify your position without using all caps and without the use of a stream of consciousness technique?

Hi "David", I'm glad you are taking the time to help educate people about the way you think and your thoughts on the issue. I am a little disappointed in your use of language (i.e. "bitch") and personal attacks on myself in particular. I appreciate your opinions and referred this information to the listserves I sent it to as another side of the story to what was sent out earlier. For those of you who didn't get the "referral" email from me that DAVID is talking about, here it is: "Hi Everyone, I want to make sure everyone gets diverse points of view with this issue. UCSA, the University of California Students Association, has taken a stance in support to these policies and I agree. I was initially appalled by the article from Inside Higher ed, but through more information gathering that those numbers skew the real data by comparing different aspects of UC admissions (eligibility, guaranteed admissions, and taking into account university wide policies as opposed to campus specific policies). I think this link (http://www.apaforprogress.org/uc-admissions-scandal-of-2009-yo-lets-not-freak-out-just-yet-part-1-of-5) provides a good overview of what is going on and can shed light on a viewpoint that is more researched. Also, please keep in mind that the best we can do is keep educating ourselves and looking at different points of view for this situation. In addition, that all the data so far are ONLY PROJECTIONS, because the policies haven't been put into practice yet. We shall see. If you all have any questions please let me know. I've gotten some information from different sources and am willing to talk about it and am welcome to speaking with folks to have different info, so we can all learn together! Peace, Dionne" So just to clarify, if it wasn't clear: I didn't refer people to this blog as an end all be all to what the policy changes will do nor do I try to argue that API eligibility or admissions will NOT be affected. As I said in the email, I'd really like to speak to folks about this issue and hear what people are thinking. It would have been/ and still would be nice to talk to you, seeing as you have very strong feelings on the issue. And maybe we can talk about the issue and not attack people. Yes I am the EAVP of the ASUC and I am a student in the UC system and I am entitled to have my own opinions that might not necessarily reflect everyone's thoughts. I didn't send or refer my opinion from a position of the EAVP of the ASUC, although I did mention that UCSA supports the policy change and I agree. I'm sorry if you misunderstood and hope that those reading this understand I didn't mean to make it seem like because I am the EAVP that my thoughts have more weight. Of course, like a lot of people I am still learning about the issue. I think blogs are important ways that we can find out more, including the opinions of folks that may not be "legitimized" by degrees of higher education or privileged enough to be published, etc. From your comment: "SORRY, unfortunately, NOT everyone in society is cut out to be DOCTORS or top notch INVESTMENT BANKERS. Personally, I don’t want people who aren’t qualified to be at the higher echelons of society." -DAVID (above comment) I could probably see why you don't think everyone's opinions should be taken into account if they aren't "qualified". I am very uncomfortable with the last sentence in particular and ask how you would define "qualified." And I would ask how CLASS plays into this issue of being "qualified" and how that complicates the issue in addition to race and under representation in general. As for what you said about the SEA community and the invisibility of that population in the Asian American categorization. I agree. And I would add to that the inclusion of the Pacific Islander community in the API category is also problematic. As I said in the email, we don't know what will happen with the new policies, especially because they haven't been implemented yet. And the success of the COUNT ME IN campaign and the disaggregation of the API category in UC data collection can hopefully give us better details of not only how these NEW policies will changes enrollment of SEA students, but also how the current policies are working. I will be looking out for that information and if I find something, I can let you know, if you decide to give me your email to send it to you. Also to your comments: "The FACT that this blog is used as support for a policy to diversify understanding of the issue is FUNNY. Frankly, I find it BS. Get someone with some real knowledge or some research to back up information, NOT a blog."--DAVID (previous comment) I was wondering what you would consider "REAL KNOWLEDGE" would it be blog comments instead, such as yours or history books or published findings (which there aren't really so far since it just happened, if you find one, please send it to me!)? Also, I assure you that I've read and am continuing to research more than blogs and am trying to have discussions with different people to continue to shape my thoughts. And lastly, I'm sorry you feel that way about me and this issue. But to be clear, I sent that email and am writing this comment in response, NOT necessarily to gain your support, but to help educate each other. And for that, I appreciate your comments and hope that you can be open-minded and take what I said for what it's worth and hopefully we can focus on the issue and not campus politics. peace dionne

I believe the new admissions policies of the UC are definitely a step in the right direction and will INCREASE not DECREASE access to the UCs for ALL Californians. We have to remember that the SAT II is an expensive test that is useless. It has very little predictive power about who will succeed in college. So...it's out the door. It is useless. As for A-G coursework. Not all schools offer the same amount of A-G courses. Why should we penalize students who go to schools that perhaps offer them 4 years of science (for example) as opposed to 6. It's not their fault. Until we equalize our education system, I think it is great that the UCs are taking steps to not penalize students who are marginalized in K-12 schools.

[...] friend and fellow higher education nerd (er, scholar), Oiyan, breaks down the changes to be implemented for the fall 2012 class (or today’s [...]

I agree wholeheartedly with David here.  This is a blog and Spam Fried Rice or Dionne is it (is taking a position that is based on projections and her mathimatic olympics and not based on studied and verified facts.  How can anyone go against the wisdom of the API Legislative Caucus who has our best interest at heart.)  First of all, the name SpamFriedRice is ridiculous because it is self-inflicting perpetuating of stereotypes against Asians and you now they all clump us together as one anyway.  Not all Asians appreciate the reference to fried rice as an identity whether or not you were trying to be funny.  Anyway, discrimination is never good.  The UC administrators' tactics are full of stench in light of the API Legislative Caucus's strong urging of the board of regents postponing the vote to change the proposal.  The fact that BOARS went ahead with the vote without any outreach to the API community and went against their adopted policy of 2002 when they stated that the achievement-oriented tests is preferable and a philosophy that they embraced over an aptitude test is just outright sneaky.  Again, discrimination is discrimination.  As a gay Laotian man that just had his civil rights taken away via Prop 8 and who is first generation immigrant I DO NOT support discrimination in any of its forms.  Like David, I don't want unqualified people to be at the top echelons of society as we've seen what can happen when an idiot like Bush whose parent bought his education for him runs the most powerful country in the world.  It just leaves so much room for manipulation of the stupid by those that are smarter.  Again, discrimination is a dangerous precedent to set and it's a step backwards to where we've come as a society.  The fact that members of an API community is blogging about the projected benefits not based on facts and neglecting the history of this country is appalling.  I get that you guys are trying to be 'PROGRESSIVE' but that doesn't mean that we have to support the idea that collateral damage is something we can afford to live with.  It's funny that most of the people who're coming out for the change in policy is or was students at UC or just students period and they're desperately trying to give themselves credit over the wisdom of the API Legislative Caucus leadership who've been doing this as a career and who have our best interest at heart.  Please stop with your BULLSHIT attempt to push a discriminatory agenda under the guised of progressivenness.  I don't want any of my API family to suffer not even at the benefit of Southeast Asian first generation immigrants like me.  Why have we gloss over the fact that an increase in White student admissions is an intended effect of this policy change?  Maybe the people being manipulated are the API students thinking they're doing something progressive when in truth they're being manipulated to support a far reaching and harmful policy change that will affect all of us. 

Yours,

-Nakhone Keodara

SoCal Voice.net

And, one more thing, if the tests are racially or ethnically unfair because of cultural references then why not fix that problem.  That would be the long term fix to the problem.  It seems that the UC administrators have a history of not living up to their commitments, such as their not completing stated in-depth review of the new admissions test and its alignment with UC testing principles no later than 2008 and before permanent adoption of the new SAT.  This is their attempt to circument having to do the footwork of fixing a long term problem with short-term bandaid and you're giving them cover.  And, what's most appalling is that they just think they know what's best for all of us and even against our community leaders' resistance.  That speaks volume, people.  Wake up!  You're doing more harm than good.

Alright, so Nakhone can you go over her analysis instead of your perceived loss of rights under the past Bush regime? Go OVER the analysis -- I'm not interested in someone hewing to the "wisdom" of any authority including that of the API Legislative Caucus. Right now, all I see from your end is a lack of analysis based on the figures. If you're not a quant jock, then find someone else's analysis to cite but until I see a pretty sophisticated analysis of her work, it still stands up as far as I'm concerned.

The disingenuousness displayed by some here provides unintentional hilarity.

 

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/090720_ap_tests.htm

I think that the new policy, which starts in Fall 2012, increases the number of UC eligible students from 46,795 to 76,141 students. That’s almost 30,000 more students who get a chance to apply to the UC, this really awsome.

This just shows how diverse not only this college but our country is.

HSA

Right now, all I see from your end is a lack of analysis based on the figures. If you're not a quant jock, then find someone else's analysis to cite but until I see a pretty sophisticated analysis of her work, it still stands up as far as I'm concerned.

Componenti Elettronici