<p>Hey guys, I’ve been coming to this forum for the past 3 weeks, but I decided to post until now. I’m also waiting for UCSD and Cal. I got into UCD already.
I was reading the posts from last year and there were some people who heard from UCSD until may…that’s insane…I don’t want to wait that long.</p>
<p>it’s a supreme court case, as in SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. It not only applies to Michigan, but it applies everywhere. Last time I checked, CA was still a part of the United States. </p>
<p>And the same goes for the Bakke decision; it not only applied to CA, but it applies everywhere else.</p>
<p>the uc update site was up till end of march. doesn’t that mean that some uc’s will regard updates submitted before march 30?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>diamondprynzez, take a look at this:</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States</a></p>
<p>Just because the Supreme court decides that race CAN be used as a factor does not make it the law of the land that race MUST be used as a factor. Basically the Supreme Court deemed that it wasn’t unconstitutional according to the United States Constitution.</p>
<p>However, California has the freedom to ban it, and did so by amending the state Constitution. Now it is unconstitutional in California according to the state constitution</p>
<p>Affirmative action based on race is illegal in public institutions in California.</p>
<p>Did I even mention prop 209? I maintained that race can be used as a factor as long as it’s not the determinant factor. You said that came from the Bakke decision… which was wrong. That’s misinformation that I was correcting you on. Period. I wasn’t even addressing California laws… you just happened to pin the wrong decision to the wrong case.</p>
<p>so being the first gen college student helps me? :)</p>
<p>I have a very low GPA 3.0.
Major: Econ
Applying for UCI and UCR.
I will complete the IGETC by this summer.
All major classes would be done by this Spring.
Can anyone please tell me my chances?
Thanks</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, this is a UC transfer thread, so I’m pretty sure everyone here is talking about the University of California. The truth is that race cannot be used as a factor in the UC.</p>
<p>In the Bakke case they “stated that universities could use race as a plus factor”, so how was I wrong?.. The Supreme court found in Bakke that racial quotas were unconstitutional, but using race as a factor was acceptable. </p>
<p>The real misinformation was when you asserted that “race can be used as a factor”, since it cannot be used as a factor in California, and the University of California is in California. This is a UC thread.</p>
<p>In the wikipedia article for the case you mentioned, [Grutter</a> v. Bollinger](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger]Grutter”>Grutter v. Bollinger - Wikipedia), it states “The decision largely upheld the position asserted in Justice Powell’s concurrence in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy, but held that quotas were illegal.” So what’s the point of mentioning a UM supreme court decision when the UC supreme court decision was earlier and decided the same thing?</p>
<p>All the UCs block the applicants name, income, and race from ever being seen by the admissions staff. After decisions are made, then they note how many applicants from each race got in.</p>
<p>Exactly. diamondprynzez stated that “race can be used as a factor as long as it’s not the determinant factor”, and that’s not true for everyone discussing their transfer chances to UC campuses.</p>
<p>I wanted to make that clear, in case anyone here thought their chances to competitive UCs could possibly be affected by the color of their skin…</p>
<p>Whew! So I guess I don’t need to worry over lying about my race on the app…</p>
<p>^except if they catch it in the financial aid office ;)</p>
<p>It’s all part of my essay, y’see. My “overcoming factor” was albinism. Yea, that’s the ticket.</p>
<p>(With sincere apologies to any real albinos in the crowd!)</p>
<p>shame on you.</p>
<p>I love how you’re saying the Bakke case and the Bollinger cases are identicial… </p>
<p>and it may be a UC thread, and I’m sorry if my individual focus on here wasn’t just talking about the UC’s… I applied to other places as well, and those are on my mind, too.</p>
<p>And it was also misinformation on your part when you said the U Mich case only applied to Michigan.</p>
<p>Human Bio, Sociology, Philosophy, Finished Stats (4 on Ap test), Finished History (5 on Ap test), Finished English 1B, finished Government (3 on AP test), General Bio, Anthro Physical, Cultural, and Forensics. Chem 2a, chem 1a. going to take chem 1b and calc and finish by this winter. Gpa is about a 3.4. would that be good enough to transfer to UCI? or do i need to take a physics and genetics course too? i was thinking of taking that at irvine. but please let me know what i should do and if that is good enough so i can apply. i called irvine and they still didn’t provide me with the best info when it is there job too =(. i thought maybe you guys had already applied and heard back. thanks!</p>
<p>I never said they were identical, but that your statement of “race can be used in admissions as a factor, as long as it’s not THE DECIDING FACTOR” can be found in both cases.</p>
<p>What I said was “That involves Michigan, not California, and makes no difference on the effects of on Prop 209.” Proposition 209 was passed in 1996, prohibiting the use of race as a factor by public institutions in California. When the University of Michigan decisions were made by the Supreme Court, they have no effect whatsoever on the University of California, since using race was already banned by Prop 209. </p>
<p>I said it involved Michigan and not California, since we were on the subject of public institutions (and since that’s what the cases were about). That doesn’t mean the court decision involved only the University of Michigan, but that UC was unaffected by any of the cases you mentioned.</p>
<p>My initial post was a response to when you told bearclaw:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>in response to</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why are we debating about Supreme Court cases when I’m just clearing up the fact that affirmative action based on race is not done in the University of California?</p>
<p>Sorry for the lengthy conversation regarding AA everyone. On the upside, at least our UC thread is beating the USC thread…</p>
<p>27 days</p>
<p>ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh</p>
<p>^ stop debating about this race crap.</p>