Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Cheating: An Insider's Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA
Tim Groseclose (UCLA, Department of Political Science), Cheating: An Insider's Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA (2014):
Because of California's Proposition 209, public universities such as UCLA cannot use race as a factor in admissions. However, as this book shows, UCLA gives significant preferences to African Americans, while it discriminates against Asians. The author, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA, documents what he witnessed as a member of UCLA's faculty oversight committee for admissions.
He also describes findings from a UCLA internal report as well as statistics from a large data set that he has posted online. All show that UCLA is breaking the law. The discrimination is not simply a byproduct of class-based preferences. For instance, for one aspect of the admissions process, a rich African American's chance of admission is almost double that of a poor Asian, even when the two applicants have identical grades, SAT scores, and other factors.
- American Thinker, How UCLA Violates the Law to Use Racial Preferences in Admissions
- Russell K. Nieli (Princeton), How UCLA Lies about Affirmative Action
- Town Hall, UCLA Professor Blows Whistle on Illegal Admissions Practices at University
- Washington Examiner, UCLA Professor Blows Whistle on Illegal Admissions Practices
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/06/cheating-an-insiders-report-.html
Comments
@Daniel
So by stating the same idea in two distinct ways, I'm somehow guilty of tortured logic?
Posted by: Lee Reynolds | Jun 4, 2014 2:23:08 PM
@Lee - You start with this premise "Laws against racial discrimination do little to stop it." and end with this premise "laws against racial discrimination do not dissuade racists." These are two wholly separate ideas that only your tortured logic try to connect.
Posted by: Daniel | Jun 4, 2014 12:50:21 PM
What bothers me the most about UCLA's circumvention of the law is this: they could just pick race-neutral criteria like geographic zone, poverty-level, 1st in family to attend college, etc. However, they will not do this because it would mean letting in whites and asians that are similarly situated.
Their policy, therefore, is just as much about exclusion as it is about inclusion. For that reason, I have no sympathy for whatever recourse the people of California take against them.
Posted by: JM | Jun 4, 2014 12:10:38 PM
Of course law will not prevent criminals from acting criminally. What a good law will do is provide grounds for the people who act criminally to be punished as criminals. If the law is a good law it will have overt acts that are illegal, reasonable evidence criteria sufficient to establish the crime, and opportunity for the prosecutor to up his conviction rate by prosecuting the most egregious individual cases. Normally statistical evidence is insufficient to establish overt acts by an individual.
Posted by: DonM | Jun 4, 2014 11:16:32 AM
It is *not* illegal to try to increase the number of minorities - but it depends on the method(s) used. E.g. adding to the number of need-based scholarships is likely to increase the number of less affluent students and they are disproportionately minority. Increasing the weight given to rank in class vs GPA or SAT/ACT scores very well may increase admissions from high schools which can't afford as many honors classes or exam-prep sessions - and ditto regarding minorities.
Posted by: Henry | Jun 4, 2014 10:45:35 AM
@Daniel:
What on earth are you talking about?
Only a lawyer in cross-x, or someone determined to maliciously misconstrue a person's statements (but I repeat myself) could create your response to what I wrote.
The river tells no lies, though standing on the shore, the dishonest man still hears them.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds | Jun 4, 2014 10:05:46 AM
This is exactly why brick and mortar schools will follow brick and mortar stores.
Posted by: SenatorMark4 | Jun 4, 2014 9:56:48 AM
Take one part hubris, add a good dose of racism, hide it from view while breaking the law and snubbing the public trust, coat with a liberal frosting of "we know better than you', sprinkle with arrogance and abuse of power and that's how you make a UCLA cake. It tastes as you would expect.
Posted by: William Brown | Jun 4, 2014 9:42:10 AM
so because those determined to break the law will break the law, the law must not be able to prevent action? that is remarkably tortured logic. This logic ignores the masses of people that habitually comply with the dictates of the law regardless of personal inclination. Yes thieves are going to steal, they are thieves, but does the law prevent me and others from becoming a thief? that is the question you ignore.
Posted by: Daniel | Jun 4, 2014 7:52:57 AM
@Dan - you did read the second paragraph, right? Where the claim is made that ability to pay had nothing to do with it?
"...All show that UCLA is breaking the law. The discrimination is not simply a byproduct of class-based preferences. For instance, for one aspect of the admissions process, a rich African American's chance of admission is almost double that of a poor Asian, even when the two applicants have identical grades, SAT scores, and other factors."
Posted by: Silence Dogood | Jun 4, 2014 7:39:05 AM
The law in California forbids admissions officials from discriminating on the basis of race. Efforts on the part of admissions officials to increase "minority" enrollment is discrimintion, and therefore illegal.
Laws against racial discrimination do little to stop it. When someone is determined to judge individuals on the basis of their skin color, or some other irrelevant and arbitrary criteria, telling them that they can't or shouldn't isn't going to stop them. Just as laws against stealing do little to deter thieves, laws against racial discrimination do not dissuade racists.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds | Jun 4, 2014 7:05:46 AM
>>This is "cheating" only if one assumes that any effort to increase minority enrollment is illegal I'm not sure this is what the California law says, or if it would be legitimate if it said so. The authors are free to present any argument that they wish, but to present it as the uncovering of some kind of dark secret seems a bit overstated.
<<
Spoken like a true Stalinist/Liberal Dem.
Posted by: Carl Davis | Jun 4, 2014 7:05:30 AM
This is "cheating" only if one assumes that any effort to increase minority enrollment is illegal I'm not sure this is what the California law says, or if it would be legitimate if it said so. The authors are free to present any argument that they wish, but to present it as the uncovering of some kind of dark secret seems a bit overstated.
Posted by: michael livingston | Jun 4, 2014 6:15:12 AM
UCLA is part of the corrupt California "combine" which is only slightly less corrupt than the Illinois version.
Posted by: Mike K | Jun 15, 2014 4:46:21 PM