I’ve been outspoken about the bureaucracy of UCI and it’s admin in the past, this event simply validates my experiences with administration. I do believe UCI is changing for the better, but holy cow, they’ve got some real characters in high places that should imo lose their jobs.
If Vasich would have honestly owned up to the University’s mistake and sincerely apologized and made arrangements to help the afflicted students this could have been an unfortunate, but sobering event. Instead, the University decides to try and pull a cover-up at the last minute (2 months before classes begin!) and rationalize their decisions by smugly stating that they followed University policy – as if to say that they do not personally care one way or the other how their admits are impacted. This should speak volumes to how one is treated at UCI as a student, and future students should consider how this administration sees you before deciding to enroll here. Just a thought. This attitude should not really be OK.
Fortunately I do believe change is coming to UCI, making it a matter of time before the culture shifts away from hard-buns administration. I’m also happy to see the Associated Student Body stand up to the bureaucracy for once! It’s about time!
We don’t know that they haven’t followed the policy in the past. In fact, I think the rescinding of acceptance for students who didn’t maintain the 3.0 or had D’s and F’s in courses as hs seniors has been followed before, just based on CC threads in years past.
How could the school have known before July 1 that transcripts weren’t received by the July 1 deadline? Or that student hadn’t met the 3.0/no D’s or F’s requirement, as that information would be on the transcripts, which couldn’t have been received until after the students graduated? Many schools in California have graduation in mid to late June. They only sent the letters with 2 months notice because that’s all they had.
It seems Riverside has been a little more lenient on the D’s and F’s, but not UCLA or Cal or Davis. UCI wants to run with the big dogs.
^^ Yup, over on the UCLA forum every May/June there’s a lot of “OMG will UCLA rescind me for getting a D?!?!” posts. So kids are very well aware that tanking a senior year class could have serious consequences. If that’s also the official policy at UCI it’s a little bit of a shaky argument that UCI should continue not enforcing it indefinitely.
Jeeze, some people really will take any opportunity to bash public education now won’t they? As pointed out, private schools aren’t perfect peaches either.
@anomander just to counter, I had zero problems ever getting into any courses at my large public U- including the courses I had capped at 20 students. It’s a school by school and even department by department issue, not public v private as some are indicating (not saying you are).
This is beyond unfortunate and could have and should have been managed much better. I don’t know what the answer is but it seems that the UC system has had overcrowding problems for years.
UC-I claims this has nothing to do with missing the yield target, but they do admit there was a change in enforcement of the rules this year and that the university “didn’t manage the process well”.
Actions speak louder than words; this has everything to do with missing yield expectations and then changing past practices to get themselves out of a mess but creating a serious issue for the rescinded students.
“But he also acknowledged that there was a change in enforcement of the rules this year and that the university didn’t manage the process well”
I should clarify. I support recindment of those who receive D’s or F’s, but to be off on yield estimates and then scan the system for kids whose high school didn’t stamp their graduation date seems patently wrong. We all know students don’t get to look inside a sealed official transcript without making it unofficial. Perhaps UCI should not admit 30,000 students if an extra 500 can cause such a dire situation.
As it’s popularity grows, and it’s ranking climbs, yield will also climb. I hope the campus realizes this.
This has always been one of college admissions officers greatest nightmares. That is why wait list were developed. They should have been more conservative on acceptances and admitted students as needed off of a wait list after the return count. It is much better for the applicant as they are able to make plans based on known results rather than unanticipated results.
My experience was with a much smaller school. It is easier to deal with a 2% variance on 3000 acceptance offers than a 2% variance on 25,000 accepted applicants offers.
Everyone dumps on wait list, but there is a good reason for them. They are actually fairer to the applicant. In our experience, the wait list return was quit reliable for the college.
According to news report, Irvine reviews student applications upon request and has readmitted a number is students who were rejected after initial acceptance.
That was a surprisingly straightforward statement and turnaround. A bunch of affected incoming freshmen must be jumping for joy right about now. Having seen the pain a rejection brings, I’m thrilled for every student that is having their rescission reversed.
“Editorial: UC Irvine just sucker punched hundreds of incoming students. It needs to make things right.
If admissions officials at UC Irvine had to write the sort of college application essays that high school seniors dread each year, this might make the perfect prompt: Tell us about the time you sucker punched hundreds of incoming students by canceling their college education over what appears to be a trivial issue. How did your thinking go wrong, and what did you learn?..”
Reversal is good, but what next? Do they have facilities and resources to support additional students. Will there be long term impact to classes and availability? Should be interesting to watch.
They will probably pull more TAs into the big frosh level courses to increase overall class size.
But then it would not be surprising if the GPA thresholds to get into popular majors were raised to prevent overenrollment in limited-capacity upper division courses.