<p>From the site UC</a> considers changes to guaranteed admissions
"What would change:
The University of California's faculty has proposed a change to the university's freshman eligibility policy for fall 2012 admissions:
Current policy
Applicants are considered to be eligible for guaranteed admission to the UC system if they are in the top 12.5 percent of California high school graduates and:
-- Complete or enroll in 15 UC-approved college-preparatory courses before applying.
-- Score adequately on the SAT or ACT plus writing, and two SAT subject tests
-- Earn the required combination of GPA and test scores specified in the university's eligibility index.
Proposed policy
Under the policy changes, all California high school graduates would be entitled to a review and considered eligible for admission if they:
-- Complete 11 of the UC-approved college-preparatory courses before applying and all 15 courses before enrolling in UC.
-- No SAT subject tests would be required. The ACT (with writing exam) or the SAT core exam would still be required.
Students would be considered eligible for guaranteed admission to the UC system if they:
-- Fall within the top 9 percent of their high school graduating class and have taken the required 11 courses or if they take the required courses and fall within the top 9 percent statewide by the required combination of GPA and test scores specified in the university's eligibility index. (Together would total approximately 10 percent of California's graduating seniors).</p>
<p>I do not like the proposal. I agree with the comment by someone in the cited sfgate.com article that the policy reduces the important transparency that has characterized the UC process. Under current policy, eligibility and guarantee are both quantitatively based, with ultimate admission to a particular campus related to the quality/size of that localized pool & the variations in priorities and weighting specific to that campus. This tends to promote both student quality and overall diversity, on a variety of diversity measures. </p>
<p>Let me tell you where the committee is way off in their information; I know first hand: Every high school student I have recently counseled at work has been horribly led astray, or simply neglected (to be led by their "expert" peers), with the result that, yes, they're being put in the wrong classes for UC eligibility. Interestingly, this more often than not means being allowed to take classes way over their preparation (an underprepared freshman in AP Bio? I think not!). The result is F's in those classes, requiring later makeup in summer school or the following year, which in turn leaves them with fewer a-g units, etc. I could go and on. The "counseling" in the MIDDLE CLASS AND UPPER MIDDLE CLASS SCHOOLS, consisting of few to no URM's, is pathetic. These counselors are not earning their salaries, and/or are being used in roles other than academic counseling. All the recent cases of horrendous "guidance" counseling that I have encountered have been for Chinese, Korean, and Indian students of solid economic standing. Absolutely none of them is economically compromised or otherwise opportunity-compromised. However, what characterizes them all is that their parents, even if not very recent immigrants, are still not acquainted enough with our public education system to take charge and realize when information is wrong or absent. They assume that the "officials" and "professionals" know what they're doing! (They tell me -- because in their own countries they can make that assumption.) Several of my students right now, because of that counselor neglect, will be lucky to quailfy for one of the 3 lowest-rung UC campuses, whereas they should all be mid-level eligible. </p>
<p>Fix the problem at the root -- at the high schools. It is not my observation that URM's are much more or any more jeopardized by absence of counseling & lack of available classes than non-URM's are, nor are richer public school students less affected than poorer ones. EDIT: I should add that outside of work I have also observed a similar syndrome in very white, very very upper middle-class students from posh neighborhoods at posh public schools. In one case, the "guidance" counselor was simply absent for the critical half-year during which essential junior year make-or-break classes were being approved, resulting in missed opportunities for students. In this case, these were native-born parents without that immigrant hurdle, but who still were being forced to be dependent on the ultimate authority of the school for class selection. One student I'm thinking of ended up accepted only to her least-favorite UC campuses & is now attending college out of the country. She was CSF, etc.</p>
<p>If the net effect is to make more California students eligible for admission, then I am for it.</p>
<p>I don't agree that it will do that, and certainly I don't see the process being as or more transparent with the changes being proposed. The point is that reduced transparency affects URM's & low-income possibly even more than it affects the rest of the population! The response of the committee seems to be, "I't too difficult/confusing/compromised to qualify for admission; therefore, reduce/eliminate the qualifications." </p>
<p>Yes, that makes perfect sense.</p>
<p>The way I read it, more students will be UC-eligible, but fewer will be guaranteed admission.</p>
<p>That's part of it, but that doesn't cover the results of it all -- when the committee was expounding on what the expected results would be, segmented by population. I disagree with their assumptions, based on my daily experience with UC-aspirants. Again, they believe that minority populations are significantly more affected by poor class choices & poor counseling. They're simply wrong.</p>
<p>It's not the UC system that needs "fixing," so much as the public high school system that needs fixing. The latter would improve transparency AND still make the kinds of distinctions that they're looking for, in terms of opportunity. (Good students with good counselors, who had no opportunity to take challenging classes, would be juxtaposed with a similar population which did have such opportunities.)</p>
<p>The new proposal as stated in the opening post seems MORE transparent to me, and far more open with the dropping of the SAT II requirements --- since it is a lot easier for a student to only have to worry about scheduling ONE test than scheduling 4 tests. The only change in "transparency" would be at the bottom end of the admission pool, for students who rank lower than 9%. While it is true that would represent a loss of certainty for the kids in the 9-12.5% range, the policy is opening up the door to kids with even lower ranking -- which would tend to benefit kids at very competitive schools as well as kids who had an uneven performance over time. But it seems to me that the the benefits outweigh the losses, given the fact that this opens up opportunity to those who miss the arbitrary cut offs. </p>
<p>I don't really get the complaints about the 11/15 required courses. It would have been almost impossible for either of my kids to graduate high school at their respective public high schools without them, as high school graduation requirements are set with those courses in mind. It might be possible that some kids on a remedial track meet their local graduation requirements without the UC requirements -- but I don't think those are the kids who would be UC-bound in any case.</p>
<p>It's interesting how it appears to be an effort to get more URMs eligible but that it might have the opposite effect. It proposes to reduce the admissions requirements/standards but also to decrease the 'guaranteed admission' percentage - presumably to make way for those who wouldn't have made it in otherwise (would have fallen outside of the 12.5%). </p>
<p>I agree with 'epiphany' that the focus shouldn't be on the UC system but rather, the high schools as well as education of the parents. The UC system shouldn't have to contend with students who are less well prepared for the work required of them at the UCs. The high schools have IMO an 'obligation' to provide better college admission counseling to the students and provide adequate information to parents regarding the admissions requirements of the UCs as well as the CalStates and even some information as to basic requirements for admission to top private colleges. It's important that students get 'on the right track' starting in 9th grade to ensure they take the appropriate courses for the level of college they're targeting and in order to do this the counselors and parents need to provide the info and direction and then it's up to the students and parents to follow the guidance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is perhaps the single most important thing in college admissions. Is there anything UC can do to get this information to students? If so, they will have more students eligible and will serve a broader spectrum of the population.</p>
<p>UC provides the information on the UC Pathways website so it's pretty clear. They have a site targeted at students/parents and another targeted at HS counselors -
UC</a> PATHWAYS
and
University</a> of California - Counselors</p>
<p>I was fairly disappointed though when I once had to explain to a HS counselor at my D's HS (public HS of about 2200) exactly what the UC a-g requirements were and then tell her about the UC Pathways website that outlined these requirements - she didn't know and she'd been a counselor there for at least several years. That counselor was incompetent and demonstrated her incompetence many times. The school however did have another counselor who actually knew what he was doing and even served on the admissions review board for UCSD so we forced a change to him even though our last name didn't start with his assigned 'group of letters'.</p>
<p>I think this is a matter of basic (very basic) training of counselors and quality control to make sure they have the basic knowledge themselves, have a process in place where the info is disseminated and explained to students and parents, and then a method to see how effective their process is. I know I'm trying to apply business processes to the public school system but I think it could help.</p>
<p>So, as 'epiphany' stated, there's a real problem with the competence of some counselors in our high schools. It's hit or miss where there are some good ones and some bad ones. </p>
<p>On top of this I also am surprised at how many parents, including high-income college educated parents, don't know the basic requirements and haven't taken the time to find out what they are. In some cases, by the time they find out (if they ever do while their kid is in HS) it's too late to get the right classes in. </p>
<p>As long as the HS allows students to graduate with less than the minimum course requirements of the UCs, there'll always be some who graduate HS without the basic UC requirements whether by choice or by ignorance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Proposed policy
-- No SAT subject tests would be required. The ACT (with writing exam) or the SAT core exam would still be required.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What a gem! I guess they did figure out that the research "commissioned" by Atkinson was as bogus as the UC threats to drop the SAT. Of course, the rest of the country that has to suffer through a longer and more expensive test won't remember the UC system morons who helped create this boondoggle.</p>
<p>The College Board should pay Atkinson's pension with the extra fees generated from making a rather insignificant Writing SAT II a quasi universal requirement. Or at least send him a Dear Clueless Christmas card.</p>
<p>Xiggi, the research about the SAT II years ago all really fell to the SAT II writing. Once the writing exam became part of the SAT I, then the landscape changed. The UCs had considered dropping SAT I in favor of SAT II because they wanted the writing and the math. The College Board bolstered up the SAT I math and incorporated writing ... which entirely changed the relevant definitions.</p>
<p>In other words, the only reason they now want to keep the SAT is that the SAT was changed from the time they wanted to drop it.</p>
<p>I supposed it would have been better if the regents had realized immediately that with the changes to the SAT I they could afford to drop the SAT II ... bu thtis is not a "boondoggle" but rather a simple fact of the College Board changing the tests on their own. (The UC regents didn't ask them to - the CB just didn't want to lose the business -- though my prediction is that if the UC's drop the SAT II requirements, then that will doom the SAT II's. All but a few colleges will soon follow suit).</p>
<p>Calmom, there are still plenty of historical accounts of the Atkinson/TCB saga to permit a correct rendition of the facts.</p>
<p>The UC system "thought" the Subject Tests they know plan to abandon were BETTER! </p>
<p>Fwiw, Atkinson was recommending that UC continue to require that students take the SAT II exams in writing, mathematics and a third subject test chosen by the student from a UC-approved list. He stated that "the SAT II begins to approximate what I judge to be an appropriate test for the university's admissions process. It tests students on specific subject areas that are well defined and readily described."</p>
<p>After being dismayed by his grand-daughter required study skills (and putting his foot in his mouth at American Council on Education annual meeting in Washington, D.C.) he commissioned/ordered studies that served to demonstrated that the SATII were better predictors than the regular SAT. Atkinson favored abandoning the SAT I because it "did not have a demonstrable relationship with the student's course of study and often led to a preoccupation with improving test-taking skills at the expense of mastering high school subject matter."</p>
<p>The College Board readied for battle with the formidable UC by preparing documents based on the meta-analysis studies (which were confirmed a few ago.) However, the battle never took place as Atkinson offered them a "loss" on a silver plate. In exchange of "recognizing" the limitations of the SAT, they were given the green light by their largest customer to increase the scope and cost of the test WITHOUT having to push it down he throats of the remaining members of CEEB. As I wrote before, Gaston could probably not believe his good fortune and the bubbly must have flowed quite freely on the Gulfstream flying back to the East Coast. Ka-shing! Cash-ing!</p>
<p>In addition, if the idea turned out to be a bad one, TCB could point the finger to the UC and claim it was merely responsive to the demands of its members. </p>
<p>A few years later, could you please tell me how the SAT Reasoning Test of today is a better combination that the former SAT + 2 or SAT II tests? Most selective schools still ask for a number of Subject Tests and the handful of schools that require three additional tests have simply increased the difficulty for students. In the meantime, millions of students have to sit through additional sections that few colleges ...value. </p>
<p>Fwiw, nothing would have precluded the College Board to incorporate the subtle changes in the pre-2005 SAT test and added the more advanced math. While the Writing was incorporated, we still have Math Level I and Math Level II! </p>
<p>And come to think about, didn't the UC USED to think that the SATII Math were the greatest? Of course, they thought the same about the SATII Chinese or Korean as they rewarded those great academic equalizers with abandon.</p>
<p>Only in California!</p>
<p>Xiggi, you know my opinion of the tests. I think they all have the value of toilet paper and I wish that my daughter could have flushed them where they belonged. rather than going through all that stress of repeated testing and all the expense entailed. But the last SAT II sitting was a total waste of time -- by that time I had calculated that my d. was UC-eligible as long as she scored above about 240 on each of the 2 remaining SAT II's she needed and I told her as much -- she took one test pretty much cold, without having taken the underlying course & scored in the low 500's.... but the point was UC wanted its tests and they got them. Had it not been for the UC requirements, then we would have saved our money and a Saturday morning. (I'm thinking that might be the Saturday that my d. got the $75 parking ticket in San Francisco ????)</p>
<p>Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the less testing the better.</p>