Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the authors
OK
Cheating: An Insider's Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA Paperback – April 24, 2014
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.
- Print length212 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherDog Ear Publishing, LLC
- Publication dateApril 24, 2014
- Dimensions5.51 x 0.48 x 8.5 inches
- ISBN-101457528290
- ISBN-13978-1457528293
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Product details
- Publisher : Dog Ear Publishing, LLC (April 24, 2014)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 212 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1457528290
- ISBN-13 : 978-1457528293
- Item Weight : 9.6 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.51 x 0.48 x 8.5 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #3,931,983 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #36,302 in Higher & Continuing Education
- Customer Reviews:
Important information
To report an issue with this product or seller, click here.
About the authors

(from http://timgroseclose.com/)
Dr. Tim Groseclose is the Marvin Hoffenberg Professor of American Politics at UCLA. He has joint appointments in the political science and economics departments. He has held previous faculty appointments at Caltech, Stanford University, Ohio State University, Harvard University, and Carnegie Mellon University.
In 1987 Groseclose received his B.S. degree in Mathematical and Computational Sciences from Stanford University. In 1992 he received his PhD from the Stanford Graduate School of Business (specializing in the School's Political Economics field).
His research has focused on Congress, the media, and mathematical models of politics. He has recently published a book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. He has published more than two dozen scholarly articles, including several published in the American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics.
He currently lives in Los Angeles, California, with his wife and two children.
In Left Turn (Chapter 3: "But I've Been to Oklahoma"), Groseclose notes the following about his birthplace, upbringing, and political views:
"On September 22, 1964, Barry Goldwater made a campaign stop in Tulsa, Oklahoma. That morning, Tulsa residents awoke to read on the front page of their newspaper: 'Tulsa World Endorses Goldwater.'
"I was born on that day in Tulsa. To this day, I consider Goldwater one of my political heroes. Four others are Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Four other heroes, in addition to being successful politicians, are true scholars: Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, and Dick Cheney.[1]
"My own PQ is approximately 13. This means that I usually side with conservatives on controversial issues. For instance, I favor lower taxes, less government regulation in the economy, a stronger military, and fewer restrictions on guns. I believe that "Roe vs. Wade" was unconstitutional--namely, it violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves abortion-law decisions for the states. On some issues, however, I agree with liberals. These include: (i) allowing the government to pay for stem-cell research; (ii) giving partial amnesty to illegal immigrants (as would have been required by the 2007 Comprehensive Immigration bill, sponsored by John McCain and Ted Kennedy, and endorsed by President Bush); and (iii) increasing gasoline taxes. Although it is based only on casual observation, I believe that if you conducted a systematic study, you'd find that my views are to the right of Bill O'Reilly's, while left of Sean Hannity's.
"Six politicians who have PQs similar to mine are (i) Governor John Kasich (R-Ohio) (PQ=14), (ii) former Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) (PQ=16), (iii) Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) (PQ=15), (iv) former Senator Bob Dole (R-Kan.) (PQ=12), (v) former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (PQ=11), and (vi) Senator John McCain (R-Az.) (PQ=16). Nearly everyone who has studied their voting records would agree that they are significantly more conservative than all Democrats currently serving in Congress. And they are more conservative than moderate Republicans, such as Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Meanwhile, however, they are not as conservative as far-right Republicans such as Michele Bachmann or Jim DeMint.
"There. I have now done something that almost no journalist will ever do. I've given you a detailed account of my political views, including some information about my political heroes and the birthplace that influenced those views.
"Is this book biased? On one level, it matters not a whit where I was born or what my political views are. The methods that I use to measure media bias are completely objective--indeed, a computer executes them.
"But on another level my views and background do matter. As I will explain, the topics that journalists choose depend partly upon their political views and the views of the people who surround them. So let me admit, I don't think I would have written a book about media bias if I weren't conservative or if my parents hadn't instilled Central Time Zone values in me."
[1] Gingrich, Gramm, and Armey earned PhDs--Gingrich in history, and Gramm and Armey in economics. All three began their careers as professors. Although Cheney was never a professor, nor obtained his PhD, he was once enrolled in the political science PhD program at University of Wisconsin. Unlike 66% of political science professors in the Ivy League, and 56% of the political science professors at Harvard, Cheney has published in the top academic journal in political science, the American Political Science Review. Another academic credential of Cheney is the fact that he has an Erdos number. Named after the great mathematician, Paul Erdos, who was famous for his prolific scholarship and his numerous co-authors--an Erodos number is calculated as follows. All of Erdos's coauthors have an Erodos number of one. Anyone who has co-authored with one of Erdos's coauthors has an Erdos number of two. Anyone who has co-authored with a co-author of one of Erdos's coauthors has an Erdos number of three. And so on. Cheney's Erdos number is no more than seven. He wrote his American Political Science Review article with Aage Clausen, who has coauthored with Greg Caldeira, who has co-authored with me, who has co-authored with Keith Krebiel, who has co-authored with John Ferejohn, who has co-authored with Peter Fishburn, who has co-authored with Erdos.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
A bit of background first that inspired Tim Groseclose writing 'Cheating'. In 2012 the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools (CUARS) at UCLA intentionally obfuscated the conclusions of the 'independent' researcher originally hired to investigate whether or not UCLA used race as a determining factor in admissions. I write the word independent in quotes because Robert Mare, just like Groseclose and his research partner Richard Sander (author 'Mismatch'), also works for UCLA. Mare was extremely thorough in his research, using more variables than were provided to Groseclose/Sander. Even when Mare's work was released, UCLA turned a blind eye to the results and, in Groseclose's words, used a bit of "groupthink mixed with tiny perturbations of the truth" to gloss over the clear bullet points in Mare's executive summary. CUARS only publicly acknowledged 3 out of 9 points; the other 6 points, which underscored Mare's findings, were conveniently disregarded.
For those outside of California, and I'm one of you, Prop 209 is a "provision in the California Constitution [that states] public universities cannot use race as a factor in admission decisions." Many states have similar laws for state run universities, and many universities likely have this rule in their charters. In fact, I think most of us know this rule HAS to be posted at every place of employment. (You may be asking yourself why we have to provide our race on every government form...I wonder that myself.) In 2006, there was an anomaly in the admissions of African American students - a lower number were admitted than in preceding years. People noticed, both inside and outside of UCLA. As a result, great social pressure was placed upon CUARS to increase African American enrollment. CUARS scrapped their old admissions policy and adopted a holistic approach, trying to duplicate the system at UC Berkley. Yes - African American enrollment increased significantly with implementation of the holistic system - but did it really work? Was it fair? Was it honest? Asians, Latinos, and others who are underrepresented - will likely find this book eyeopening. The truth, as discovered by Groseclose/Sander, is that the holistic approach was merely a smokescreen covering a darker secret...one that speaks to the very heart of the problems in academia today; institutional dishonesty, groupthink, and (for 1984 fans) doublethink.
One of the best aspects of Groseclose's work is that he has posted the data set from which he drew his conclusions online. It is accessible to anyone with a computer, and he encourages those who might challenge his conclusions to study the data set. [...]
Even though this study only covers UCLA, it speaks to a larger problem at all universities. I think if universities were to be as honest as Dr. Groseclose is in presenting his findings, perhaps there might be a solution to the diversity / fairness issues that plague admissions teams. His closing words sum up , but don't entirely capture, the importance of 'Cheating':
"...UCLA turned a true statement into its exact opposite. Remember, the distortion was the product of a highly esteemed university, which, in theory, is one of society's guardians of truth. When people place other values above honesty, and when those people live and work in an environment where there is no true diversity of thought, such instances...can become commonplace. Such distortions, I believe, are more common than people outside academia realize. Perhaps it's time we rethink the values that pervade most American universities."
Riveting work, with a sum greater than its parts.
The book shows not only the results of the analysis, but also correspondences (meeting transcripts, letters) between the author and UCLA. These correspondences strongly suggest that the motivation for using the new admissions process was to increase URM enrollment, particularly African American's. The fact that the author supports race-based affirmative action done in the open makes his claims more damning and convincing. Thought-provoking, the book elicits several personal reactions. First, while good people on both sides can argue whether racial preferences are good or bad, doing so secretively through an opaque process to get around the mandate of the California voters is shameful. Second, many of the race-neutral measures that the UC has adopted since Proposition 209 to increase racial diversity invariably serve to de-emphasize the importance of objective academic factors in the admissions process and, therefore, weaken the overall academic quality of the student body. This not only disadvantages high-achieving students from well-off households, but also devalues the effort and talent of all students. Why would one strive for academic excellence, perfect GPAs, and perfect standardized test scores when in the end these are devalued in the admissions process at elite universities? Third, as a 4-time UC graduate (UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Santa Barbara) and a UC stakeholder for more than 30 years, I am disheartened to see that the UC is willing to compromise its academic excellence and hard-earned reputation by resorting to lowering admissions standards for all students in order to marginally increase racial diversity. Finally, UCLA's decision to misrepresent Professor Mare's findings is troubling. The book also raises several important questions. What good is a racial preference ban if universities are allowed to circumvent it through holistic admissions? Is an admissions criterion race neutral when the intent of its use is to have disparate racial outcomes? Holistic admissions and the heavy reliance on nonacademic criteria (geographical preferences, legacy preferences, interview, leadership, essay, character) were first exercised by Harvard, Yale, and Princeton in the 1920s to limit the Jewish presence on their campuses. Such admissions practices have since been institutionalized at those and other elite universities. Should these practices be allowed, given their sinister origin and their persistent use by universities as cover for discrimination?
Even with tenure, it is difficult to speak openly against one's own university and colleagues, so I commend the author for his courage and honesty. The book is an easy read and makes me think more deeply about a number of issues related to higher education, morality, fairness, and racial preferences, but some of the side discussions, such as those on the mismatch thesis, could have been left out. All in all, this is an excellent book, but I knock off one star for the minor padding.
He is a neighbor of mine, though we do not have a social relationship. I will be sorry to see him leave UCLA and move East to another university that has more integrity and more respect for truth than his current one.
