Out-Of-State Argument Analysis

This statistic is important because it shows how much Chicano students have struggled in school at every grade level. Compare these numbers with the white community, “84 graduate from high school, 26 graduate with a bachelor 's degree and 10 earn a professional degree...Chicanas and Chicanos, have the lowest educational attainment of any group” there is great cause for concern (Marquez). These realities have a variety of causes as these students “usually attend racially segregated, overcrowded schools” and with “poorly maintained facilities, students are often enrolled in classes where undertrained, under credentialed faculty attempt to teach with minimal resources” many as "tracked into remedial or vocational program” (Marquez). David Scott ran data in academic performances by ethnic-studies students and states that Chicano students do better in school when having these programs available because they are a "substantial boost" for those poorest students (Scott 2012). If they don’t have these programs the result then is that “they drop out, or are pushed, out of the educational pipeline in higher numbers than any other group” (Marquez). While enrolled, “students often describe graduate school as a place where they feel invisible” as most programs “tend to be racially exclusive with predominately white students, faculty and curricula that omit Chicano histories and perspectives” (Marquez). For this reason, it is suggested by Scott for imperative

Racial preference has indisputably favored Caucasian males in society. Recently this dynamic has been debated in all aspects of life, including college admission. Racial bias has intruded on the students’ rights to being treated fairly. Admitting students on merit puts the best individuals into the professional environment. A university’s unprejudiced attitude towards race in applicants eliminates biases, empowers universities to harness the full potential of students’ intellect, and gives students an equal chance at admission.

The amount of students that attend an out-of-state university for college is about 13.7% (“Percentage of Out-of-State Students at Public Universities”). This statistic is remarkably low, considering the growing amount of young adults attending college. In-state tuition is expensive for most citizens, as out-of-state costs are completely unaffordable. Out-of-state tuition costs can easily triple the amount of in-state costs, meaning most students find themselves attending an in-state university without a second thought. The reason for these high out-of-state tuition fees is due to the state government believing that these extra costs are necessary because of tax dollars. State schools are funded by the state’s

There is an examination of the admission rates that demonstrates the mechanism by which the freshman pool of African American and Latino students has shrunk so dramatically” (Patricia Gandara). In California, these supposed benefits of affirmative action are not being seen. A study run by Liliana Garces “documented a 5% decline (from 2,010 to 1,906 students) from 1995 to 1996” of the minority group that was attending “five selective public law schools in California, Texas, and Washington” (Garces). These statistics help notify the public that affirmative action in these few states is actually having a reverse effect on these people, and in this situation affirmative action is creating no benefits for minorities. A similar study performed at UC Berkeley stated that “even as Chicano/Latinos increased their representation in the applicant pool at UC Berkeley from approximately 13 percent in 1995 to 19 percent in 2010, they experienced… nearly [a] 75 percent decline in the rate of admissions compared to just over 40 percent decline for whites” (Gandara). The facts prove that affirmative action at prestigious colleges is not helping minorities become accepted. It is a useless effort that the government is wasting their time on. Therefore concluding that affirmative action within this area is useless and leads many to wonder if we should even waste time on the

High school and college students across the country face the decision of whether or not to stay in state for their college education. The financial requirements of college can put a strain on many families. Young adults can also become lonely, scared, and lost without their families when attending college in an unfamiliar place. While college is already life changing enough the hassle of adjusting to new surroundings can be hard as well. Many Americans think that getting into a prestigious college and spending a ton for an education that someone can get for a much cheaper price at their local university is wise. The choice to go to an out-of-state college can affect the rest of someone’s life and send

Cal State University, San Marcos (CSUSM) paints itself as a champion of diversity and inclusiveness1. Recently, in an email entitled, Enhancing Campus Support for Undocumented Students, which was sent out to our campus community on March 28, 2017 these ideals were showcased. In this opinion piece, I am going to broadly address some of the points made about the AB 540 student population on campus; Specifically, their denial to paid student positions on campus and how despite CSUSM efforts to appear diverse and inclusive it falls short of these ideals.

Jerome Karabel has explored many areas of the college admissions process and is unhappy with his findings. In his text, “The Battle Over Merit”, Karabel concludes that the college admissions process has to be updated, so that everyone gets a fair and equal chance to get into these institutions. He includes a substantial argument of how college admissions have evolved and has been initially favoring one social group. This justification shows the concept of privilege and a need for inclusion. Karabel believes that race shouldn 't be a factor of change, but socio-economic backgrounds should be a way for students to get help and get into these schools, because they need it the most. He also brings up the idea of power and politics and that the

Elite colleges in California are strenuous to enroll into, even more so if you’re a student of color. Many elite colleges in California are impacted with incoming freshman, that they have to turn to other factors. More specifically the students test scores, essays, letters of recommendation, and the life of the student are used to determine which freshman to admit. Today, there are fewer pathways to middle class jobs that result in a push to go to college. Mt. Eden student Marcela Alvarez must be admitted to UC Berkeley because she had an accumulation of advanced or weighted courses.

The majority of students in the U.S. are in an endeavor to continue higher education. Most students will end up taking student loans that will take years and even decades to pay back. But, in a country where higher education is needed to succeed in a competitive job market, the debacle arises as to what happens to those who aren’t citizens trying to continue unto higher learning. Certain laws have prevented undocumented students from attending universities because of a rise in immigration. However, to those students that had no say in arriving, they now seem stuck in the crossfire of uncertainty. Many believe giving financial aid to the undocumented is a gateway to flash flood migration.“Allowing illegal immigrant students to pay in-state college

The equal opportunity that affirmative action provides has also increased the amount of minority applicants applying to each school. It has “resulted in doubling or tripling the number of minority applications to colleges or universities, and have made colleges and universities more representative of their surrounding community” (Messerli). Since the playing field has been evened, it has encouraged more of those who are disadvantaged because of their ethnicity to apply for and get admitted into college. However, the quotas cause schools to admit under qualified students of minor races who don’t meet the limit over highly qualified students who’s race has reached the limit.

comes to Prop 209’s categories - ethnicity. Proposition 209’s case bans affirmative action here in

Looking into Clinton’s plan and how it would evolve over the next five years, the themes of access and affordability shine through. She believes that all students should be able to obtain a public post-secondary education (Clinton on the Issues: College, 2016). The current truth is that “access and success in higher education continue to be stratified according to income…” (Eckel & King, 2004). With Clinton’s plan access would increase, and with that enrollment would increase. Increased enrollment at college campuses strikes as an initially positive thought; more students can gain and education and contribute that education to bettering society. However, increase enrollment could lead to increase selectivity, if enrollment increased in extreme enough amounts. State schools, that were founded to offer quality education would now have a larger pool of student to pick from. For the state school’s fortunate enough to the capacity to educate more student’s their success would continue to increase. But what about the state schools that are already struggling with enrollment issues? Will they continue to live out their mission and increase enrollment at the expense of the student’s education quality. For campuses that are already filled with students, larger incoming classes would lead to less enrollment options, larger classroom sizes, and the same campus resources spread thinner across a larger student body. Schools in this category would be forced to decide between decreasing

As Zumeta (2005) reported, the decline in degree completion rates is, in part, due to institutions enrolling more disadvantaged students; however, elite institutions have higher graduation rates. Thus, “the surest route to success is to reduce the ‘risk profile’ of the students admitted” (p. 50). Because retention and graduation rates are significantly influenced by the characteristics of the students they admit, institutions would be forced to admit fewer disadvantaged students in order to meet accreditation standards. Rather than increasing diversity on college campuses, such actions would likely “further stratify student bodies socioeconomically across these different types of schools” (p. 50). This has far reaching implications for higher

In 2004, David Card and Alan B. Krueger performed a research study to find out whether the elimination of affirmative action caused a change in the college applications of minority groups in the two states of California and Texas. Card and Krueger’s main concern is that highly qualified minority students would be discouraged from applying to elite schools because of uncertainty regarding their admission, or the deterioration of interest in campus diversity. Card and Krueger begin their study by using information from SAT takers in California and Texas to compare the fractions of minority students who sent their test scores to certain state universities before and after the elimination of affirmative action.

In today 's world where the population, especially of the United States, is growing gloriously diverse, institutions of higher education must also reflect this aspect in their student body. The purpose of colleges and universities is to provide students with the education and experience they need to succeed after graduating as well as expand their thoughts and perspectives. Thus, they must create and maintain a similar environment in which students will live and work in the future. Although diversity has been emphasized as a priority for many schools, socioeconomic diversity is often disregarded. However, socioeconomic diversity plays an important role in developing the perspectives and minds of students. Thus, it is essential for the admission offices, especially of prestigious universities like the University of Pennsylvania, to recruit and admit more economically disadvantaged students as well as for the schools to meet the needs of and maintain those students.