The Fullerton First Year Program: Fill & Download for Free

I am applying for MS Computer Science for the Fall 2018 semester and thus have researched quite a lot on American Universities to pursue my masters from.Try looking into the following universities and research these on Yocket, US News, Quora and Edulix apart from their official websites.SJSU (Excellent location, good job opportunities, value for money) - might be mod-safe for youUFL (Value for money, quality education) - might be moderate for you.UIC (Location, jobs) - might be mod-ambitious for youNortheastern (Excellent program structure, jobs) - might be moderate for youCSU Fullerton - not sure if mod-safe or safe for youSUNY, Buffalo - Mod-AmbiI tried to answer based on the numbers you gave in your question. But remember, a lot depends on the SOP and the work profile you had during your four years of experience. Different universities look for different things in candidates.Your best bet would be to ask seniors from your job or college with a similar profile. That'll give you a clearer idea. Internet strangers can only guess vaguely with the numbers you gave.Good luck with your admissions!

One of the key differences between UC and CSU is their academic offerings. The CSU system awards mostly bachelor's degrees, and does not offer as many advanced-level degrees as UC. Meanwhile, the UC system has an excellent reputation for research and theory-based teaching.Changes to University of California SchoolsYour admission won't be automatically rescinded if you can't get your transcript to the school by July 1, 2021, as long as you contact the admissions department well ahead of time and work with an admissions counselor.If you can't finalize your admissions decision by the deadline to accept (May 1 for freshmen, June 1 for transfer students), you can contact the admissions office about deferment. UC schools are being flexible and working with students who've been affected by COVID-19.UC schools have gone test optional in 2021, meaning that you can submit your test scores, but they aren't a required part of your application.Additionally, all UC schools will stop requiring the ACT and SAT as part of the admissions process for in-state students by 2025. For more information about what that means for you, check out this FAQ. For the most up-to-date information on UC schools and the coronavirus, be sure to check out the COVID-19 page for UC schools.Changes to CSU SchoolsLike the University of California, California State schools have also made some pretty substantial changes for the 2020-2021 academic year. If you're applying for Fall 2021 admission to a CSU school, here are some changes you can expect:CSU schools will accept grades of "Credit" or "Pass" to fulfill course requirements for spring or summer 2020 terms. These pass/fail grades won't be calculated into students' GPAs, though.Students who can't submit their transcripts by the July 15, 2020 deadline won't have their admission rescinded. Instead, they'll be accepted on a provisional status until they can have their transcripts sent to their school. Transcripts must be received during the Fall 2020 semester.CSU will honor all existing transferable credit for 2020 AP exams where students score a 3, 4, or a 5.CSU will temporarily suspend the use of ACT/SAT examinations in determining admission eligibility for all CSU campuses for the 2021-2022 academic year.What Are the UC Schools?The University of California system is a group of highly prestigious public research universities in California. Established in 1869, UC has grown to include over 280,000 students and 227,000 staff and faculty members.There are 10 campuses, nine of which offer both undergraduate and graduate education:UC BerkeleyUC DavisUC IrvineUCLAUC MercedUC RiversideUC San DiegoUC San Francisco (graduate programs only)UC Santa BarbaraUC Santa CruzThe UC schools are large schools, typically with 20,000 or more undergrads. UCLA has the biggest undergrad enrollment of the UC schools at 31,600, while UC Merced has the smallest enrollment at around 8,000 (it's also the newest of the UC schools, having opened its doors in 2005).As a whole, the UC system offers 160 academic disciplines and 800 degree programs.UC schools are highly regarded and top-ranked. They are extremely competitive to get into and are considered some of the best public universities in the nation.What Are the CSU Schools?The California State University system is a group of public universities based in California. It is the largest public four-year university system in the US.Even though the CSU schools aren't nearly as competitive as are the UC schools, they're still pretty popular because they offer quality academics at an affordable price for California residents.Officially established in 1972, the CSU system comprises 23 schools, which all have undergraduate programs available:CSU BakersfieldCSU Channel IslandsCSU ChicoCSU Dominguez HillsCSU East BayCSU FresnoCSU FullertonHumboldt State UniversityCSU Long BeachCSU Los AngelesCal Maritime AcademyCSU Monterey BayCSU NorthridgeCal Poly PomonaCSU SacramentoCSU San BernardinoSan Diego State UniversitySan Francisco State UniversitySan Jose State UniversityCal Poly San Luis ObispoCSU San MarcosSonoma State UniversityCSU StanislausIn total, approximately 482,000 students attend CSU, where 53,000 faculty and staff are employed.Undergrad enrollment varies tremendously at the CSU schools. CSU Fullerton has the largest enrollment at about 35,000 undergrads, while Cal Maritime has the smallest enrollment at just over 1,000 undergrads.Additionally, CSU has an incredibly diverse student body, with a high percentage of non-traditional and commuter students, and is known for catering to minority and low-income students.Unlike the UC schools, which focus more on research and academic publishing, CSU focuses more on helping students develop professional, practical skills that will lead them to great jobs right out of college.UCLA campus (Alton/Wikimedia Commons)UC vs CSU: Full ComparisonHere's a side-by-side Cal State vs UC comparison so you can see how the two university systems are both different and alike:University of CaliforniaCalifornia State UniversityNickname(s)UCCSU, Cal StateLocationMostly large cities in northern and southern CaliforniaMix of small and large cities throughout CaliforniaPublic or Private?PublicPublicTotal Enrollment285,216481,929# of Campuses9 + 1 graduate school23# of Bachelor's Programs~900~2,700US NewsRankingHighest: UCLA, #20 (Nat'l)Lowest: UC Merced, #97 (Nat'l)Highest: Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, #3 (Regional West)Lowest: CSU East Bay, #80 (Regional West)Niche GradesHighest: A+ (UCLA, UC Berkeley, UCSB)Lowest: B (UC Merced)Highest: A (Cal Poly San Luis Obispo)Lowest: B- (CSU East Bay)Acceptance RateHighest: UC Merced, 72%Lowest: UCLA, 12%Highest: CSU Bakersfield, 100%Lowest: Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, 28%6-Year Graduation Rate85.3%62.1%Gender RatioFemale: 53%Male: 47%Unknown: <1%Female: 57%Male: 43%Non-Binary: <1%Ethnicity BreakdownAsian/Pacific Islander: 30%White: 24%Hispanic/Latinx: 22%International: 16%African American: 4%Unknown: 3%Hispanic: 43%White, Non-Hispanic: 22%Asian American: 15%Non Resident Alien: 6%African American: 4%Two or More Races: 4%Unknown: 4%American Indian: <1%Pacific Islander: <1%Commuter Schools?Not really, except for UC Irvine and UC RiversideYes, most campusesAverage Tuition & FeesIn-state: $14,100Out-of-state: $43,800In-state: $6,782Out-of-state: $16,286Overall ReputationWorld-class public university system known for its premier academics, selectivity, and researchVery large, high-quality public university system known for its affordability and flexible class offeringsNicknamesThe University of California system is often shortened to "UC," which is why you'll typically see the UC schools referred to as UC Berkeley or UC Irvine, for example, instead of the University of California, Berkeley or the University of California, Irvine (both of which are definitely a mouthful!).That being said, "UC" can also refer to the University of Cincinnati, so be sure to specify which University of California school you're talking about.The California State University system is usually called "CSU" or "Cal State." So the California State University, Fullerton could be called either CSU Fullerton or Cal State Fullerton, for instance.Be aware that "CSU" can refer to several other colleges, too, such as Colorado State University, Chicago State University, and Cleveland State University.LocationThere are 10 UC schools (including one graduate-only school in San Francisco) and 23 CSU schools.The UC schools are mostly located in larger cities in either northern or southern California:CSU is a little different. Since there are more CSU schools than there are UC schools, the system is more spread out across the state and has campuses in smaller cities as well as larger cities. This element of convenience makes CSU easier to access for many people throughout California.University TypeBoth the University of California and the California State University are public state university systems, meaning that they're both funded by the California State government. For more information on how public universities differ from private ones, check out our in-depth guide.SizeCSU is by far the larger of the two systems, both in terms of number of schools and student enrollment. While UC is home to nine undergraduate schools and 280,000+ students, CSU has 23 schools and a whopping 480,000+ students.Regarding undergraduate enrollment specifically, UC currently has 285,126 undergrads while CSU has 481,929 undergrads. However, the individual campuses in the UC and CSU systems vary quite significantly in enrollment.The following chart shows total undergraduate enrollment at UC and CSU schools, from largest undergraduate student body to smallest. All UC schools have been highlighted in green.SchoolUndergrad EnrollmentCSU Fullerton​40,445CSU Northridge​38,391CSU Long Beach38,075San Diego State35,081San Jose State32,926CSU Sacramento​31,156UC Davis30,982UC San Diego30,794UC Irvine30,382San Francisco State​29,586CSU Los Angeles​27,675Cal Poly Pomona​26,443UC Santa Barbara23,349UC Riverside22,055CSU San Bernardino​20,311UC Santa Cruz17,517CSU Chico17,014CSU Dominguez Hills15,741CSU East Bay15,528CSU San Marcos13,964CSU Stanislaus​10,974CSU Bakersfield10,493Sonoma State9,459UC Merced8,151Humboldt State8,347CSU Monterey Bay​7,616CSU Channel Islands​7,093Cal Maritime1,120As you can see, the three largest schools are as follows:CSU FullertonCSU NorthridgeCSU Long BeachAnd the three smallest schools are as follows:Cal MaritimeCSU Channel IslandsCSU Monterey BayMost UC schools are very large, with around 20,000 to 30,000 students.Meanwhile, the CSU schools have a broader spread of enrollment, with some larger schools (including CSU Fullerton, CSU Long Beach, and San Diego State), some smaller, and many in the medium and medium-large range (about 10,000-20,000 students).CSU Northridge (Guanzhan Chen/Wikimedia Commons)AcademicsWhereas the UC system offers about 900 bachelor's degree programs, the CSU system offers more than 2,700 bachelor's programs. Obviously, what's available at each specific UC and CSU school will vary, so make sure to check ahead of time what majors and minors are offered at the UC and/or CSU schools you're considering.You can look at the list of UC majors by school here, and the list of CSU majors by school here.Rankings and GradesWhile both the UC system and CSU system are solid options for college, the UC schools are much more highly ranked and prestigious overall.All UC schools rank in the top 100 national universities on US News. By contrast, most CSU schools rank fairly well, but not amazingly, on the US News Best Regional Universities West list.In addition to US News rankings, we looked at student-produced grades on Niche. Niche grades for UC and CSU schools indicate high to very high student satisfaction at UC, and average to high student satisfaction at CSU.Three UC schools managed to nab an A+ rating (UCLA, UC Berkeley, and UC Santa Barbara), which no CSU schools were awarded. The highest grade a CSU school earned was an A, an honor that goes to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.SelectivityOverall, the UC schools—being very prestigious and highly ranked—are much more difficult to get into than are the CSU schools, especially UC Berkeley and UCLA, the two highest-ranked schools.In other words, acceptance rates at UC schools are often far lower than those at CSU schools.Here's an overview of the acceptance rates for all UC and CSU schools, from most selective to least. Once again, all UC schools have been highlighted in green for clarity.SchoolAcceptance RateUCLA12%UC Berkeley17%UC Irvine27%Cal Poly San Luis Obispo28%UC Santa Barbara30%UC San Diego32%San Diego State34%CSU Long Beach39%UC Davis39%CSU Fullerton41%CSU Los Angeles42%UC Santa Cruz51%Cal Poly Pomona55%CSU Northridge56%UC Riverside57%CSU Fresno58%CSU San Marcos58%San Jose State64%Cal Maritime67%CSU San Bernardino69%CSU Chico72%UC Merced72%San Francisco State72%CSU Channel Islands74%CSU East Bay74%CSU Monterey Bay75%Humboldt State79%CSU Sacramento82%CSU Dominguez Hills83%CSU Stanislaus89%Sonoma State91%CSU Bakersfield100%As you can see here, eight of the nine UC schools have acceptance rates around 50% or lower, making them all at least somewhat selective. By contrast, most of the CSU schools are much easier to get into, with many having acceptance rates of 55% or higher.Hearst Memorial Mining Building at UC Berkeley (Joe Parks/Wikimedia Commons)Student DemographicsBoth UC and CSU have slightly more female-identifying students than they do male-identifying students (as well as a nominal number of unknown or non-binary students).Ethnic demographics differ somewhat, however. At UC, the three largest ethnic/racial groups are Asians/Pacific Islanders (30%), whites (24%), and Hispanics/Latines (22%). At CSU, it's Hispanics (43%) followed by non-Hispanic whites (22%) and Asian Americans (15%).Both university systems have a clear devotion to diversity, but CSU shines a little brighter in its commitment to serving Hispanic/Latinx populations Currently, 21 out of its 23 schools are Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs).Still, the UC system is making big strides to serve this population, too. At present, six of the 10 UC schools are considered HSIs.Commuter SchoolsOne major difference between UC schools and CSU schools is undergraduates' living situations.At most UC schools (besides UC Riverside and UC Irvine), it's very common for undergraduates to live on campus in university housing. At most CSU schools, however, undergraduates commute to campus and do not usually live in university housing (if even offered).There are several advantages when it comes to commuter campuses, such as the option to save money on housing by living at home with your parents and having more flexible class options, which are often given to accommodate older, non-traditional students.Nevertheless, some of the cons of commuting to college include the following:It can be harder to make friends and socializeTraffic can be a nightmare, especially in big cities in CaliforniaYou'll likely have to race to find parking every day before classTo learn more about commuter campuses, read our in-depth guide.Tuition and FeesSince both the UC and CSU systems are public university systems, what you pay in tuition and fees will ultimately depend on whether you're a California resident or not. In-state tuition every year is$6,782 at CSU and $14,100 at UC. As you can see, CSU is far cheaper to attend than a UC school—in fact, it's more than $7,000 cheaper!When it comes to out-of-state tuition and fees, these figures jump dramatically. At UC, out-of-state students must pay $43,900 per year—over three times higher than what in-state students pay. By contrast, CSU charges tuition differently to out-of-state students, either by the semester unit ($396 each) or by the quarter unit ($264 each).Cal Poly San Luis ObispoUC vs CSU: Which Schools Should You Apply To?When it comes to Cal State vs UC, which schools should you apply to? Here are four useful tips to help you make your decision.#1: Think About Size and SettingTwo big factors for many students are the size and overall location of the school.With UC schools, most are on the larger end in terms of undergrad enrollment (with 20,000-40,000 students), whereas the CSU schools vary significantly, from as few as 1,000 undergrads to as many as 40,000.If you're interested in having a smaller, more intimate student body, first look at the CSU schools before you consider any UC schools. If you'd prefer a more bustling environment, then feel free to look at pretty much all the UC schools (except UC Merced) and about half the CSU schools.In terms of setting, location can vary a lot for both UC and CSU depending on the campus. It might help to remember, though, that UC schools are mostly based in larger cities, whereas CSU schools can be found in smaller cities as well as larger ones.If you plan on commuting to school, keep in mind that larger cities might have worse traffic.#2: Figure Out Your Academic InterestsAnother factor to consider is your academic interests and what you want to major in (if you know).UC and CSU schools don't all offer the same majors and minors, so you'll definitely have to do some research to see what kinds of programs each school offers and whether they have the ones you're interested in. You can do this by using the list of UC majors and the list of CSU majors.For example, a few CSU schools offer majors in apparel/fashion merchandising and management, whereas no UC schools offer any equivalent undergraduate program.You might also want to take into consideration whether your field has a better reputation at UC or CSU. For example, both UC Berkeley and UCLA have premier engineering programs, so you might want to prioritize applying to these schools if you're planning to be an engineering major.#3: Consider Costs and Financial AidUC and CSU differ a lot in what they charge you for tuition and fees each year, so make sure that you're fully aware of what you'll be responsible for paying. Although it's clearly a lot cheaper to attend CSU instead of UC, doing this might mean sacrificing quality of academics and overall prestige for affordability.Remember, too, that you'll need to consider financial aid packages. Despite UC's high cost, 56% of California undergrads at UC pay absolutely nothing in tuition. As for CSU, there are tons of merit-based scholarships you can apply for to try to save some money.Whether you apply to UC schools, CSU schools, or a combination of the two, it'll be a smart idea to look into external scholarships as well.#4: Compare Your Academic Profile With Those of Admitted StudentsLastly, you'll need to consider your own academic profile—that is, your GPA and SAT/ACT scores—and see how you compare with real admitted applicants to the UC and/or CSU schools you're looking at. Doing this should help you make an ideal college list that includes a balanced number ofsafety schools, target schools, and reach schools.For example, if your GPA and SAT/ACT scores are about the same as those of admitted students to a particular UC or CSU school, then that institution can be considered a match, or target, school.If your GPA and scores are higher, then that's a safety school, as you're very likely to get accepted.Finally, if your GPA and test scores are significantly lower than the averages at a certain UC or CSU school, then that institution can be considered a reach school, as you're unlikely to get in with your current academic profile (but still could, of course).UC Santa Barbara (Coolcaesar/Wikimedia Commons)Recap: What's the Difference Between UC and CSU?So when it comes to UC vs CSU, how do these two university systems actually differ?For starters, the University of California is a very renowned public university system known for its world-class research and highly accomplished professors. Meanwhile, as the largest four-year public university system in the US, the California State University is primarily known for its quality academics and affordability.Here are some other key ways these two university systems differ:Size: There are 10 UC schools, including one graduate school, and 23 CSU schools; regarding enrollment, CSU has around 200,000 more total students than UC does, and its schools have a bigger range in enrollment as wellDegree programs: UC offers around 900 bachelor's programs, while CSU has over 2,700Rankings: All UC schools are ranked extremely high, whereas CSU schools typically rank well but not greatSelectivity: UC schools are generally much harder to get into than CSU schools, which range in acceptance rate from as low as 30% to as high as 100%Tuition and fees: CSU is much cheaper than UC, especially if you are an out-of-state student; however, UC does offer a lot of financial aid that can help offset these costsIn the end, to find the right college for you—whether that happens to be a UC school, a CSU school, or something totally different!—you must consider the following four factors:Size and settingYour academic interestsCosts and financial aidHow your academic profile compares with those of admitted students

This is a big question. In order to understand why people hate the police, we first have to understand why police officers behave the way they do, and the judicial system that 9 out 10 supports them. As I read all the answers given here, I am reminded of how much work we still have to do as a society to bring positive change to law enforcement agencies. Despite what we have learnt about police brutality and misconduct, many people continued to blame the "few bad apples" for ruin the Department's reputation, and they quickly jumped into conclusion denouncing these individuals saying they only represent an extremely small group of minority.For the LAPD, the blame goes even further with the revamp of police recruiting andselection practices that focus on deterring unfit individuals to becoming members of the organization, which reinforces the Department’s framing of police misconduct as a consequence of a few “bad apple” cops who slipped through the screening process, and these individuals do not reflect the culture of the organization. I reject this argument, and I tell you why.From the Systems theoretical standpoint, law enforcement agencies are considered an organizational system, which exists within the context of a larger social system that influences the way in which the organization operates and becomes dysfunctional. I argue that the environment (social culture) within which Law Enforcement operates is the deciding factor in determining organizational culture and behavior. Social culture influences organizational culture, as police officers bring their learned assumptions to judgments and decisions in the work environment, and this interaction between a perilous social culture of urban cities and the adaptive culture of the organization that creates the perfect formula for dysfunction. Police corruption is, by and large, supported by social structures and attitudes that are embedded in local society. Conventional wisdom tells us bad apples don’t fall far from the free.Today, it is not uncommon to turn on the news and hear that somewhere in the United States somebody was hurt or killed by the police. Living and workingin Los Angeles, I get to hear about this almost on a daily basis. Because I work in the mental health field, sometimes these tragic stories hit closer to home for me than I would have liked. A few years ago, a 37 year old homeless man with mental illness named Kelly Thomas was fatally beaten by six local police officers at a bus depot in Fullerton, California. According to the Huffington Post, the beating incident was captured by a bystander with a cell phone, and bus surveillance tape released later showed how officers beat Thomas and used a stun gun on him repeatedly as he cried out for his father. In an interview, Thomas’ father reports, "When I arrived at the hospital to see him, I honestly thought that gang bangers had got a hold of him like the cowards sometimes do and just beat him with a baseball bat in the face. Immediately my thoughts were to get with Fullerton police ... and I didn't learn until a certain amount of hours later the truth. That put me in absolute shock" (Huffington Post, 2011). The beating was so unjustifiably brutal that the story quickly became international news. The Department quickly issued a statement saying that the case was an isolated incident, and the officers did receive training on how to deal with the mentally ill and the homeless. This is a classically individual-level analysis, leading to the notion that the problem lies within the character of a few “bad apples”.Another recent case of police brutality happened at the Pacific Clinics in Rosemead, California. Though this particular case did not receive the same amount of media attention given to the Thomas’ case, it felt closer tohome because of the relationship between Pacific Clinics and the agency I worked for, APCTC. One of our staff psychiatrists also worked for Pacific Clinics, and the person who was shot and killed by the deputies from the sheriff’s Temple Station was his patient. The Pasadena Star-News reports three deputies from the sheriff's Temple station were involved in the fatally shooting of a mentally ill woman sitting inside the clinic with a hammer in her lap. The victim was identified as Jazmyne Ha Eng, 40 years old, 4-foot-11, and 95-pound Cambodian woman with a history of psychological disorders, and she was wielding a "full-sized" ball-peen hammer when she was shot and killed by deputies. The initial incident report stated that a deputy tried to shock Eng with his taser gun, but it was not effective. Eng, then, advanced toward the deputies with a hammer. Fearing for his safety, a deputy fired two rounds from his duty weapon. Eng was pronounced dead at the scene. The coroner’s report reveals no trace of taser dart found on Eng’s body, only the shot wounds that killed her (SGV Tribune, 2012).Cases of police abuse and corruption often occur more frequently than publicly reported (Bayley & Perito, 2011; Weisburd, Greenspan, Hamilton, Williams, and Bryant, 2000). Of those reported, a few serious cases ignite intense public debate. For instance, the Los Angeles PoliceDepartment issued a report by a board of inquiry into the “Rampart Area Corruption Incident” in 2000, prompted allegations of bank robbery, false arrest, falsifying reports, theft of cocaine from the police property room, and beating of handcuffed suspects. The Rampart Scandal is often referred to as one of the most widespread cases of police corruption in U.S. history, with more than 70 officers implicated in the worst corruption scandal in LAPD history.The Los Angeles Police Department developed a version of the storyimplicating a very small group of Black and Hispanic officers were responsiblefor all the misconduct (LAPD, 2000). Two other high profile cases in recent memory are the Rodney King beating by LAPD police and the torture of Abner Louima by New York City police.Poverty, Ethnicity,and Crimes: A Sociocultural PerspectiveMost cases involved police misconduct occur in large urban cities, such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and so on. Studies on the intersection of urban poverty, crime, and the racial divide show a correlation between variations in crime rates and socioeconomic status and race, with crime rates (mostly gang and drug related crimes) higher in urban poor communities, as these low-socioeconomic neighborhoods experienced great levels of poverty, racial heterogeneity, transience, family disruption (Bobo, 2009; Devah, 2007; & Venkatesh,2000), high unemployment rate, unequal access to quality education, unequalaccess to police services, legal aid services, and disparities in political representation(Bartels, 2005), thus creating a society that tolerates and embraces unlawfulbehaviors of ingroup members, and thereby, providing ample opportunities forpolice abuse of power and corruption.Sociocultural theory posits that our cognitive development and learningprocesses are influenced by societal culture, leading to the notion that ourbeliefs, moral values, attitudes, manners, normative behaviors, and work ethics, embody the societal culture in which we are accustomed to (Vygotsky, 1986). Thisperspective assumes that our social mores teach us right from wrong, and that ourattitude and behavior are culturally dependent. In other words, people are simply the products of their societal culture, implicating possible consequences for those who grew up in a “bad” neighborhood because of the likelihood that they will become “bad” just like their social environment. Possibly, this may be the reasoning factorbehind the policy that mandates automatic disqualifications of any convictedfelons from becoming police officers by the LAPD, even though studies show supervisor background ratings are not useful in predicting integrity problems (Fischler, 2009).Moreover, disqualification of ex-convicts does not stop nor explain why do some police officers with clean records routinely violate the laws they publicly sworn to uphold. It is not uncommon to find some clean rookie cops turning dirty after being on the job for a relatively short time, suggesting that law enforcement, as an organization, has been influenced by the external social culture there by integrating internal processes in order to survive in the external environment in which it operates. Consequently, this need to conform and eventuallydominate the parent culture leads the organization to dysfunction. From this perspective, punishing a few “bad apples”, in addition to preventing felons from slipping through the crack during selection process, only indicates the organization has missed the mark and the “real culprit” has not yet identified, and therefore, the problem is left unchanged.While disqualifying certain criminals from becoming police officers maybe the right card to play in the game of social politics, but it does little to the effect of preventing future cases of police misconduct from reoccurring. Undoubtfully, law enforcement, as an organization, is aware of certain personality types of the men and women they select for police work, especially extensive data on personality traits of the selected, the nature of the job, and the operational structure of the organization, are readily available to assist in determining which candidate best suited for the job. It is difficult to imagine a powerful organization, such as the US law enforcement, is ignorant to the fact that there are considerable overlaps of day-to-day activities between armed police officers and criminals.Meta-analysis that compared personality traits between two adversarial groups— the police and criminals—shows a stark similarity between the two groups, including stress, long hours, tension, life threatening situations, the use of coercion, the expectation of conflict, a code of silence, and the opportunity to work in large powerful gangs (Wisenheimer, 2009). The personality traits and work attitudes of108 criminals convicted of assault and 96 armed police officers were alsocompared using the MMPI, Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire. The results reveal both groups scored significantly higher than the general population and various occupational groups on the following scales: Impulsive Sensation, Aggression-Hostility Work Activity. Both groups scored significantly lower on: Neuroticism-Anxiety, Sociability. No significant differences were observed onthe Lie scale.The study goes on to list many more variables shared by both groups, concluding that armed police officers and violent criminals are “two sides of the same coin, united in an unbreakable bond”. Wisenheimer (2009) even recommended their commission for active police duties within the anti-gang crime unit of the police department. More on psychological screening is discussed later in the article. For now, why do some law enforcement agencies, such as the Los Angeles Police Department, automatically disqualify ex-convicts of violent crimes but selectcandidates of equal potential in breaking the law, is unclear, but I speculate that the answer lies in the dynamics between the American public and the politics of law enforcement.Poverty, racial differences, social class, dense population of criminal offenders, and high crime rates are powerful aspects of urban cultures to influencepolice behavior (Weisburd, 2009). Anecdotal evidence suggests a correlation between poverty-stricken minority community and high crime rates. Conventionalwisdom suggests that residents of poor urban neighborhoods face a higher riskof criminal victimization than other city residents. In addition, racial and ethnic minorities, African-Americans in particular, are considerably more likely to be victimized and incarcerated (Raphael & Sills, 2006). In addition to high unemployment rates, these high incarceration and victimization (often use of excessive force with intention to cause serious bodily harm or kill) rates are often attributed to a higher propensity among ethnic minorities (males in particular), especially African Americans, to criminally offend, creating a dysfunctional society that perpetuates police brutality and corruption.We know that crime, whether committed by citizens or law enforcement, can and do happen in all communities. News media frequently reports crimes committed in large urban cities, with poor minority neighborhoods suffer disproportionately due to police abuse of power. (Bayley & Perito, 2011).Critics of police brutality argue that the racial/ethnic difference between citizens and the police is one of the main reasons leading to police abuse of authority (Weisburd et al, 2000). Studies show that police harassment of minorities is not an isolated occurrence (Grant, 2003; Weisburd et al, 2000; Kaplan, 2009; & Greenspan, Weisburd, & Bryant, 1997). For example, two studies conducted across two Midwestern States, Illinois and Ohio, found more than 25% of minority police officers observed police using considerably more force than necessary when apprehending a suspect of ethnic minority, and harassing a citizen because of his or her race (Martin, 1994; & Knowles, 1996). Recently, the use of racial profiling by law enforcement in the State of Arizona had the Latino community protesting in the streets across the country, accusing the enactment of the law, known as SB 1070, unconstitutional. This is because a subsection of this piece of legislator allows law enforcement agents to stop a person at any given place and time (theLatino community is implicitly targeted), whom they believed to look like an illegal alien, and demand proof of citizenship. Many Americans, especially Mexican Americans, believe SB 1070 is racially motivated, and they claimed that racial profiling constitutes harassment and a violation of basic human rights.Bad Apples Don’t Fall Far From the TreeLaws likethe SB 1070 rarely happen in a vacuum. According to the annual report issued by the Southwest Border HIDTA Arizona Partnership in 1990, a subdivision of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the two major metropolitan areas in the region, Tucson and Phoenix, are primary distribution centers and drug transit areas with theirclose proximity and easy access to the Arizona Sonora, Mexico border. An estimate of multi-ton quantities of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroine are smuggled into the cities to be distributed across the States annually. Thereport indicates drug related violence, homicides, and property crimes areincreasingly perpetuated by drug gangs and abusers. Drug proceeds are smuggled from Arizona to Mexico in bulk form by vehicles, commerce shipments, pedestrians, and so on. The report also indicates that the increased interdiction by law enforcement has frustrated narcotic smugglers, leading to increased acts of violence toward law enforcement agents.Over the course of extended interaction between two cultures—border patrol and drug gangs—many cops succumb to the dominant culture (drug gangs) at large and join in the actions, while others refuse to conform and be tainted. Not everyresident in a “ghetto neighborhood” is a gang member, as not every cop is ahero. Nevertheless, the development of a culture of poor urban society seems to embrace violence and corruption as symbol of identity, upon which economic marginalization leads to anger and resentment, and as motivation for crime and violence. Today, the national war on drugs rages on, where law enforcers and the outlawed continue to play cat-and-mouse, reflecting the external societal culture in peril shaping the culture of law enforcement agencies, as agents bring their learnedassumptions to judgments and decisions in the work environment, and finally endup either colluding with law offenders in corruptions or putting ordinarycitizens in harmed ways for personal gain. Consequently, police brutality and corruption occur routinely. Again, the same argument goes: three cops cango crazy, but more than 70 cops, for instance, embody a culture of policing,where such development of organizational culture conforms to the same identitychosen by the social culture where they grow up.The following are cases in point. A border patrolcorruption prompted a reform of immigration law in the State of Arizona leadingup to the enactment of SB 1070 in 2011. According to ABC news investigators, atotal of 134 patrol agents in Naco, Arizona were arrested or indicted forcorruption in the past 7 years (ABC News, 2011). One agent used his own patrol car to smuggle drugs. Another case concerns an agent allowing illegal aliens through a point of entry without checking their documentation. Another case involved an agent pleading guilty to selling national security documents. The border patrol relies on sensors embedded in the ground to track smugglers. Less than a year ago, an agent in Tucson pled guilty to giving a drug trafficker the locations of more than 100 of thesensors. Prosecutors say he did it for a $3,000 bribe.Clearly, the effect of social culture on organizational culture is profound. Remedies for police corruption would seem to depend upon local social dynamics and traditions, as well as the capacity of local jurisdictions to manage them. Police corruption is typically supported by social structures and attitudes that are embedded in local ways of life. Thus, changing organizational cultures requires the transformation of local cultures.Blame a Few “Bad Apples”Won’t WorkLaw enforcementorganizations have grown much more diverse in recent years (Sklansky,2006). Today’s large American cities, such as the Los Angeles PoliceDepartment and New York Police Department, are not the homogeneous workplace large numbers of female, openly gay and lesbian officers, and minority officers. Openly gay and lesbian officers, too, are well represented in Los Angeles.In social cultural system context, law enforcement as an organizational cultural system routinely experiences behavioral misdeeds of rogue officers. It is well known that police, as an organization, lie, steal, cheat, commit acts of extortion, make false arrests, plant evidence, and even commit murder for personal gain. Police corruption scandals are common (Grant, 2003), but the organization’s first defense is always to say that it is an isolated case of a few “bad apples”, and that it never reflects the core values of the organization and the officers who committed these horrendous acts should have never been hired. Institutional reforms had been made by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to weed out the “bad apples” following the Rodney King beating by LAPD police and the Rampart Police Corruption Scandal. In the report “Rampart Area CorruptionIncident,” Chief of Police, Bernard Parks, recommended pre-employment testingand screening of police officer candidates, in addition to undergo a thoroughbackground check and complete a few other assessment measures, as an ongoingeffort to weed out the “bad apples”. This perspective assumes better hiring practices will help the organization hires people who will be less likely to abuse their authorityas law enforcers. Cases like Eng, Thomas, and many others happened since the Rampart Scandal and Rodney King beating, implicate blaming a few “bad apples” hasnot been working out too well for the American public, and that business isresumed to “normal” at the Department.Pre-employment PsychologicalTesting: Does It Really Help?Though the use of psychological testing for police recruits was first suggested in 1931 by the Wickersham Commission (Dantzker, 2011), police agencies chose not to use it much until a decade ago. The Rampart Scandal in the late 1990s forced the LAPD to undergo a complete reform in personnel selection practices (LAPD, 2000). In response to the Rampart Scandal, the Board of inquiry recommended the use of psychological tests on all new recruits (LAPD, 2000). In compliance with theBoard of Inquiry’s recommendation, the Department opened its firstpsychological service program in 2000 to assist the Personnel Department withthe selection of new recruits. The goal is to weed out unqualified candidates and prevent future police misconduct.The most commonly used personality tests and inventories in departments throughout the United States are the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 (MMPI-2), the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) , the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and the Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI) (Cochrane, Tett & Vandecreek, 2003). The LAPDuses the MMPI-2 and clinical interview as psychological screening tools intheir selection process, and they use the pass-fail approach to the results,keeping candidates who pass and rejecting those who fail. Interestingly, studies have indicated that although psychological assessment appears to be valued in the selection process, very few candidates are rejected based solely on the results, anddepartments that use a pass-fail approach use psychological assessments to ruleout psychopathology (Cochrane, Tett & Vandecreek, 2003).Data on what type of psychological screening used by the LAPD prior to the Rampart Scandal was not available, but current selection practices appear to be consistent with research findings that suggest qualified candidates are pre-selected through other procedures prior to the psychological evaluation. Therefore, once thecandidates complete the evaluation, few of them are found to be outrightunqualified (Cochrane, Tett & Vandecreek, 2003). In other words, unless a candidate is mentally ill, the LAPD would hire candidates who presenting themselves as extremely masculine and having stereotypical masculine interests. A meta-analysis of MMPI measurements of common personality traits of police officers indicates both male and female police officers gave defensive profiles, with male officers presented themselves as having stereotypic male interests and attitudes, while female officers rejected traditional feminine roles and stereotyped behaviors (Kornfeld, 1995).Results of another meta-analysis on personality profiles of police show many individuals who seek admission into police training programs tend to possess personality traits good for policing, that is self-disciplined (control), socially bold (independent), extraverted, emotionally tough, and low in experienced anxiety (Eber,1991). However, one in four police officers possesses personality associated relatively high levels of schizophrenia, paranoia, psychasthenia, and other symptoms not good for being cops (Lorr & Strack, 1994). These individuals appeared just as tough and independent as the “good” cops, but they were lower in self-control and extraversion and much higher in anxiety (Lorr & Strack, 1994). Furthermore,studies that compared personality traits between cops and criminal have shownthat armed police officers and violent criminals are “two sides of the samecoin, united in an unbreakable bond” (Wisenheimer , 2009), leading to their commissions for active police duties within anti-gang crime units of the police department.ConclusionThe literature on police abuse of authority is vast, and many theories have developed since the Rampart Scandal to give meanings to, and to solve, this deeply rooted social problem. There are plenty reasons why people hate cops. When we as a society see cops as them vs us, we do not allow ourselves to see the big picture that cops reflects the kind of society we created, and therefore we have the responsibility to influence and make positive change.Social culture influences organizational culture, as police officers bring their learned assumptions to judgments and decisions in the workplace, and through this interaction between a corrupt social culture of urban cities and the adaptive culture of organizations that creates the perfect formula for organizational dysfunction. Police corruption is, by and large, supported by social structures and attitudes that are embedded in local cultures. When law enforcement agencies operate under the assumption that a few “bad apples” are to blame for the misconduct, they missed the opportunity to look at the big picture, to identify and analyze problems from outside looking in, and to understand where the problems really stem from, and then have the courage to lead, engage, unite and transform local communities toward social change through positive integration and innovation. There is no room for ego and “us versus them” attitude. Remember that organizational dysfunction is strongly influenced by social structures and attitudes embedded in local societies. Thus, changing organizational cultures requires the transformation of local cultures. The Justice Department and Law Enforcement are doing the best they can under the circumstance. They are the product of our society, and until we change as a society, things will remain the same. If we focus on this, then we would not have free time to sit around hating cops.ReferencesBayley, D., & Perito, R. (2011). Police corruption: What past scandals teach us about current challenges. United States Institute of Peace. Washington, DC: Special Report.Cochrane, R. E., Tett, R. P., & Vandecreek, L. (2003). Psychological testing and the selection of police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(5), 511–537.Dantzker, M. L. (2011). Psychological Preemployment Screening for Police Candidates: Seeking Consistency if Not Standardization. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 42(3), 276-283.Grant, J. (2003). Assault under Color of Authority: Police Corruption as Norm in the LAPD Rampart Scandal and in Popular Film. New Political Science, 25(3), 385.Kaplan, P. J. (2009). Looking Through the Gaps: A Critical Approach to the LAPD's Rampart Scandal. Social Justice, 36(1), 61-81.Knowles, J., J. (1996). The Ohio Police Behavior Study, Columbus,OH: Office of Criminal Justice Services.Kornfeld, A. D. (1995). Police officer candidate MMPI-2 performance: Gender, ethnic, and normative factors. Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 51(4), 536-540.Lorr, M., & Strack, S. (1994). Personality profiles of police candidates. Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 50(2), 200-207.Martin, C. (1994). Illinois Municipal Officers’ Perceptions of Police Ethics, Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. Pager, Devah (2007). Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass IncarcerationChicago: University of Chicago Press. Perry, A. E. (2010). The evolution of policeorganizations and leadership in the United States: potential political and social implications. Law, Policy, and Society Dissertations. Paper 20.http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20000809.Raphael, S., & Sills, M. (2007). Urban crime, race, and the criminal justice system in the United States. A Companion to Urban Economics, 515–535.Regehr, C., LeBlanc, V., Jelley, R., & Barath, I. (2008). Acute stress and performance in police recruits. Stress & Health: Journal Of The International Society For The Investigation Of Stress, 24(4), 295-303.Simmers, K. D., Bowers, T. G., & Ruiz, J. M. (2003). Pre-employment psychological testing of police officers: the MMPI and the IPI as predictors of performance. International Journal Of Police Science & Management, 5(4), 277-294.Venkatesh, S., A. (2000). American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Weisburd, D., & others. (2000). Police attitudes toward abuse of authority: Findings from a national study. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.Wisenheimer, R. (2009). Separated by birth: The personality of armed police andcriminals. Interim findings from a research study. Richard Wisenheimer Crime Research & Advisory Centre.