Whittaker on increasing to 50%+ "under-represented"

[UCFBS]

With UCF now claiming around a 25% Hispanic enrollment rate, which closely matches UCF's population demographics (we're #6, New Mexico is the largest, nearly 45%), we've long 'patted ourselves on-the-back' at our addressing minority opportunity.

Spoiler

And yet, it bothers me that we only seem to focus on Hispanic-Americans. I mean, let's face it, the US is becoming bi-lingual and one could make the strong argument that Hispanic-Americans, after facing discriminatory and other issues for a few generations, are now mirroring Irish-Americans a century earlier.

I.e., discriminated against, slowly took various positions of leadership, and then became leaders and normalized, if not a majority in many locales (like Boston and Chicago/mid-west in the case of the Irish).

Because while we're 'patting ourselves on the back' by claiming we've 'addressed minorities,' we're overlooking some of the longest-standing Americans who are still enrolling (let alone graduating) at half the rate of their demographics -- Native and African-Americans.

So I'm curious if Whittaker's claim to make UCF enrollment grow to over 50% the 'under-represented,' is going to adequately address our fellow, Native and African-Americans, and not just help -- again, very laudable, but ... -- traditionally Hispanic-American growth?

It's great to have many first-generation graduates, and I don't want to downplay the importance of that in our fellow Hispanic communities. I'm just a little concerned that we're overlooking all minorities, especially the two (2) aforementioned in particular.

Spoiler

The 4-year/DirectConnect has worked very well for some. But then there's the counter-argument that it's limiting them and/or racist, and we need more affirmative action to get more Native and African-Americans into UCF as Freshmen. There's a lot of politicking on this, which I won't touch.

I could care less what the strategy is, much less any 'political correctness' -- i.e., nothing upsets me more than 'affluent minorities' speaking for 'under-privileged minorities' (just like any affluent over poor) -- I just want to see the enrollment representation increased, and even more so, the graduation rates, especially of first-generation college graduates (and not just already privileged minorities, like anyone already privileged).

If it works, let's target it. But we need to target it for the sake of the future generations of our fellow Native and African-Americans. I feel we've overlooked them far too long, and have distracted ourselves by feeling good about how well our fellow Hispanic-American have done in the past couple of generations.

Thoughts? Views? Comments? Criticisms? Let's not drop into the common blame-duopoly pary rhetoric either. Let's be Floridians that care, Knights that want to see progress, and no longer just quote the Hispanic-American results as 'all minorities.'

I know some of you have ties to the UCF administration, so I'd love to hear what you're hearing.


[1] http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/state/fl/

 

[UCFWayne]

i dont care what color the students are. just accept the best.

 

[UCFBS]

i dont care what color the students are. just accept the best.

Well, that's not directly the argument ... although maybe indirectly.

You see, I actually think the DirectConnect route makes the best, for a lot of people, especially select minorities -- because the numbers show that. We shouldn't try to push everyone directly into UCF as a Freshman, if it doesn't bode well for their success.

This is very, politically contentious, and even Justice Scalia was demonized by the US media, and countless groups, for making that point during the Texas ruling. But regardless of how people were upset with Scalia, his point wasn't one that should be avoided, and it should be discussed further. The university system has a duty to channel people through the most successful solutions, and UCF DirectConnect does that very well.

So if select minorities -- and underprivileged in general -- are having higher rates of success by starting in an AA program, not at the university, once they get to the university ... shouldn't that be the primary pursuit, and not setting them up for a lower rate of graduation with another rule? Because it really wasn't THE argument that everyone was trying to make out of Scalia's statement, and trying to say, "This is another racist saying minorities aren't as capable as whites."

It was just A consideration. Again, while some people see that as, "Oh, blacks cannot succeed as well as whites at the direct-to-university Freshman-Sophomore level," but maybe it's actually "Poorer families and off-spring, like first-generation college students, have more challenges that are better addressed the first 2 years in an AA program, that graduates them at higher rates through the university later."

Which goes back to what Whittaker plans on doing with this 50%+ "under-privileged" comment, especially when it comes to raising the rates of Native and African Americans graduating, not just Hispanic-Americans, which UCF can already be very proud of serving well.

 

[Knight_Light]

i dont care what color the students are. just accept the best.

That's never been the focus when Dr Hitt was in charge....as that's why UCF guaranteed admission to any Community College Grad for 6 nearby schools.

This lead to more Community College enrollees per calendar year (approx 10,000-11,000) vs approx 7,400 HS Senior enrollees (where immediate acceptance is much harder to achieve).

 

[UCFBS]

That's never been the focus when Dr Hitt was in charge....as that's why UCF guaranteed admission to any Community College Grad for 6 nearby schools.
This lead to more Community College enrollees per calendar year (approx 10,000-11,000) vs approx 7,400 HS Senior enrollees (where immediate acceptance is much harder to achieve).

Indeed. In fact, the DirectConnect graduation rate isn't just higher in most cases, but bringing in a significant number of minorities who are first-generation graduates in their history ... and graduating at a rate several times over the national average. That is what is unreal!

There's something to be said about graduating people who have been limited by their opportunities, but succeed -- and are more hungry -- than others. And UCF has proved it.

I mean, I have no problem with real 'affirmative action' in the end, especially when it works wonders for the under-privileged minorities. What I get tired of is the popular 'affirmative action' where minority politicians and the already affluent benefit, over both poor minorities (not even looking at the alleged 'white trash'). That's the BS that dominates too much.

If you want to see an even far worse example of this reality than our rather still limited issues in the US, check out South Africa, it's utterly stunning. Unlike the US, where you have a much smaller black population, you have a huge black population, heavily under-privileged, and all 'affirmative action' is doing is preferring already affluent blacks, or existing, upper middle class, over the poor.

It's not even about white at all. In fact, most talented blacks and whites, who have been overlooked, have been leaving the country since Mandella was no longer in office. It's like his administration only 'post-poned' the 'to the victors go the spoils' that was still underneath.

It's resulting in a major 'brain drain' outside of the defense industries. I have a number of South African colleagues, and they are in that situation -- either in defense, or trying to get out of the country. And yes, both black and white, all lower, working middle class.

What we're doing at UCF is reaching those 'stars' who weren't 'labeled the best' at high school graduation, but clearly showed themselves in AA programs, and definitely in their graduation rates at UCF. Give me a student who wants to learn, and I'll take them over anyone 'gifted' or allegedly with 'all the tools to succeed.'