UC panel urges eligibility change to cut guaranteed admissions

<p>Exactly what the proposal is is hard to figure out. The 9 campuses are not full under the 12.5 plan (Riverside and Merced, the least selective ones, have room to take more students) so exactly what is the significance of lowering that to 4% and making the balance "competitive?" It's hard to figure out the goal other than to reject some who would qualify under the current standards in favor of some who would not, but who those kids are and why they would be reshuffled is hard to understand.</p>

<p>I'm with those who say that the claim that there are schools which don't provide the required courses is bunk. And frankly, if a kid hasn't completed those basic college prep courses they're really not ready for UC anyway.</p>

<p>While the current UC standards don't work well for my kids (high test scores coupled with good but not spectacular grades are not rewarded by the UC criteria) I personally think that they are politically, socially, and morally defensible as the basis for admissions into a first rate public university. Other options - good options - exists for those who don't benefit from the current standards. As far as I'm concerned, it ain't broke.</p>

<p>kluge:</p>

<p>It appears that BOARS has several goals: </p>

<p>1) capture kids who, for whatever reason, did not take the Subject Tests, but yet have strong a-g coursework.<br>
2) Lower the statewide threshold for UC admission from the top ~12.5% of high school eligibles to something lower. (12.5% is the goal of the MasterPlan, but admisssions had been as high as 14% which is why UC recently raised the minimum gpa tp 3.0.) Of course, actually assessing the top 12.5% in the state would be an interesting study.
3) Change the a-g requirements, or at least allow some flexibility. (Of course, this is the exact opposite of transparency.)</p>

<p>In these case, UC must be looking to attract kids who would otherwise attend a Cal State. However, the article also states: "The committee's proposal could widen the applicant pool by as much as 30 percent he said."</p>

<p>Thus, it appears that the intent is to expand the statewide pool of UC eligibles to ~16%.</p>

<p>^^ i.e. expand the pool of lower income kids? maybe?</p>

<p>^^, possibly, but each campus is already comprised of 33% Pell Grantees, which is 4 times that of UVa or twice that of UMich....so atracting more lower SES kids ought not be the problem.</p>

<p>It looks to an outsider to be a move to a more holistic criteria. Open up more spots. Give more discretion. Move away from the clearly definable. Oh, boy. Won't the "Princeton is Racist" folks on the board that are from California be thrilled at this?</p>

<p>From the report:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/boars/boars.supplmnt..eligibility.propsl.09.07.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/boars/boars.supplmnt..eligibility.propsl.09.07.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Why is BOARS proposing these changes?
BOARS’ overarching goal is to better honor its Master-Plan obligations, and to
strengthen UC’s commitment to the social contract they imply. If the proposal is enacted, two main benefits are expected to result. First, enriching the applicant pool should enable campuses to select a group of students who are better prepared academically. UC’s current requirements for guaranteed admission to the system, which are presented in UC publications and web sites, deter applications from some students who are academically strong, but whose records have some technical deficiency. For example, the 2003 CPEC study estimated that about 10,000 seniors completed the required a-g courses, took the SAT I, and graduated with GPAs of 3.5 or better, but were ineligible for UC because they did not take the required SAT II exams. If campuses could receive and review applications from such students, they would likely find students who are better qualified overall than some students who are currently deemed eligible by the present version of the eligibility construct.</p>

<p>While eligibility, and therefore guaranteed admission to the system, involves meeting a GPA/test-score performance index, this index is set at such a modest level that nearly all students who take all required a-g courses and complete UC's test pattern are, in fact, UC eligible. At present, guaranteed admission to UC hinges primarily on students' course and test-taking behaviors, and, to a much lesser extent, on the grades and scores they
earn. Campuses can make better and more accurate decisions by reviewing all the information in the application, and by considering applicants’ accomplishments in the context of their particular schools and personal circumstances. Not surprisingly, BOARS has found that considering other information from the application, in addition to average grades and composite test scores, does result in more accurate prediction of students’ performance at UC.</p>

<p>The second expected benefit is better representation of California’s various communities. Under current procedures, nearly half of UC’s admitted freshmen come from high schools that account for only one-fifth of the state’s public high school graduates, and the trend is toward more stratification, not less. UC’s admitted freshmen come from households that have higher incomes and education levels than the general population of California. And the percentage of California high school graduates who are Chicano, Latino, African American or Native American is about two times bigger, and growing
faster, than the percentage of UC freshmen from these groups.</p>

<p>The admission guarantee to the UC system, with its attendant rigidly-applied eligibility rules, has failed to attract high-achieving students from less-advantaged backgrounds. The current requirements for guaranteed admission instead favor students from high schools where curricula, counseling, and administrative procedures are geared toward maximizing the number of students who meet UC’s requirements. These high schools tend to be affluent, enrolling relatively large proportions of white and Asian students.
Enacting the BOARS proposal should increase the number of applications from the rest of the high schools. As the applicant pool draws from more high schools, it should also become more representative in terms of income, education, race, and ethnicity. A more representative pool should result in a more representative group of admitted freshmen. From this larger and more inclusive pool of applicants, campuses should be able to select students who are more qualified academically and who better represent California."</p>

<p>Like I said, it's another attempt to use affirmative action after it has been prohibited in California. Whether you like it or not, it is what it is happening.</p>

<p>By the way, I wonder if the BOARS proposal included admitting more males in their attempt to achieve a "more representative group of admitted freshmen." I bet not.</p>

<p>The report is assuming that widening the applicant pool will result in identification of academically qualified students who would otherwise be excluded. How likely is that? One part of the report mentions that some students are getting in who aren't qualified. How can widening the pool offset that? Admitting students who aren't able to do the work doesn't help anybody. I wonder what the reaction of the CSU administration is...</p>

<p>blue- thank you for looking up the report itself.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And the percentage of California high school graduates who are Chicano, Latino, African American or Native American is about two times bigger, and growing
faster, than the percentage of UC freshmen from these groups.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Washdad, yup. It's affirmative action. </p>

<p>Since the CSUs are currently very busy giving remedial English and math classes to nearly half their incoming freshman classes, I can't think they will be too happy to have their high-achieving but UC ineligible (due to what the report seems to infer are mere technicalities) students pulled from their cream. I guess the CSUs might respond in kind by lowering their own admission standards to pull from the community colleges. </p>

<p>What I would like to project is the profile of the average student who would be turned away from the UCs if the BOARS changes are implemented.</p>

<p>
[quote]
At present, guaranteed admission to UC hinges primarily on students' course and test-taking behaviors, and, to a much lesser extent, on the grades and scores they
earn. Campuses can make better and more accurate decisions by reviewing all the information in the application, and by considering applicants’ accomplishments in the context of their particular schools and personal circumstances. Not surprisingly, BOARS has found that considering other information from the application, in addition to average grades and composite test scores, does result in more accurate prediction of students’ performance at UC.</p>

<p>The second expected benefit is better representation of California’s various communities. Under current procedures, nearly half of UC’s admitted freshmen come from high schools that account for only one-fifth of the state’s public high school graduates, and the trend is toward more stratification, not less. UC’s admitted freshmen come from households that have higher incomes and education levels than the general population of California. And the percentage of California high school graduates who are Chicano, Latino, African American or Native American is about two times bigger, and growing
faster, than the percentage of UC freshmen from these groups.

[/quote]
Please , oh please let the supporters of Li's discrimination claim against Princeton see this. I'm going to hook my fusebox at the cabin to this thread and let the energy expended by them power my home this month. Come on all of you "by the numbers only" folks. Baby needs new e-lec-tricity.</p>

<p>For the record, it looks like a step in the right direction to me. Others might disagree a wee bit. I believe the section I bolded to be the heart of the matter. It is the guiding force behind my version of holistic admissions and IMHO the only reasonable way to proceed that gives any sense of fairness to the process.</p>

<p>I think I remember reading that the immediate result of the California voters' proposition to end race based affirmative action was a massive drop of African-Americans at Cal, a large drop in Hispanics, status quo for whites, and a very large leap for Asian-Americans.
To add to the irony, I always figured the out-sized percentage of Pell Grant students at Cal and UCLA compared to their public peers was due to a high number of children of immigrants, often Asian-Americans.</p>

<p>cur:</p>

<p>the UC's already have holistic admissions for all that meet the minimum gpa-test score threshold. But, from a practical standpoint, methinks this proposals is much ado about nothing (and the BOARS comittee lives in a dream land). The Cal States and UC system have the exact same course requirements today and the same application deadline, November 30. To me, the dreamy part is that a student who had planned to attend a Cal State will, in late November, suddenly decide s/he would like to throw in an app to UC, but would not bcos they do not have the Subject Tests to do so. Possibly, but not probable. First, the UCs will accept December test scores, so that UC wannabe can still sign up for the Dec test in mid-Nov. Second, most kids would much rather attend Long Beach, San Francisco or San Diego State than UC Merced or UC Riverside. I would submit that they have not taken the Subject Tests bcos they don't aspire to the UC campus that might accept them, or they need to stay close to home for work and/or personal reasons. [The Cal States are primarily commuter schools.]</p>

<p>danas:</p>

<p>I think the percentage of whites attending Cal/UCLA/UCSD dropped as well once race was no longer considered on admissions.</p>

<p>blue. I don't have dog in this fight. I just think I know what's coming in California if they try to move forward with this.</p>

<p>cur:</p>

<p>ok, spill the beans. WHAT is coming?</p>

<p>I wasn't trying to make a precise prediction though I wish I had that power for the big game Sunday at 3:00.</p>

<p>My take? A political $@#*storm of Old Testament proportions. </p>

<p>My sis in law is a Nor Cal teacher and has for years expressed great antipathy to the UC admissions system . She is white and feels that her 3 high achieving kids were treated unfairly (two CSU's and a U of Arizona). True? I have no idea but I bet she speaks for more than herself. Lots of emotion there. Lots of emotion with the Li supporters among the Asian American families, or it may even be they speak for the majority. AA and NA folks certainly can't be pleased with the status quo. </p>

<p>To some , this is their hot button issue. Political careers will be won and lost over this IMO. But like I said
[quote]
I just think I know what's coming in California if they try to move forward with this.

[/quote]
It's speculation on my part. Y'all are closer to the flames (so to speak).</p>