UC System Eyes Admission Changes

[Sally_Rubenstone]

<p>In the Chronicle of Education and multiple newspapers today:</p>

<p>

The University of California is moving toward a major revision in its admissions policy that would de-emphasize test scores and give the system’s nine undergraduate campuses greater flexibility in choosing their freshman classes.</p>

<p>The plan, which was discussed on Wednesday at a meeting of the system’s Board of Regents, would be the biggest change in how the university evaluates prospective students in at least a decade. It was proposed last month by faculty leaders who argue that the system’s strict eligibility formula disqualifies deserving students, especially those from low-income and minority backgrounds.

</p>

<p>Here’s a link to the story in the MercuryNews:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9874965[/url]”>http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9874965</a></p>

<p>The new plan would reduce the percentage of in-state students who are guaranteed admission and would put more decision-making in the hands of officials at individual campuses. </p>

<p>There’s sure to be lots of controversy to follow. For instance …</p>

<p>(from the Chronicle story)</p>

<p>

The new admissions proposal has been attacked from both sides of the affirmative-action debate, with some people arguing it would serve as an impediment to minority students and others saying it would be a back-door way of renewing affirmative action, which has been banned in California since 1996.

</p>

[MonoTombo]

<p>Ahh, America...effective reforms yet they take forever to be put in effect.</p>

<p>They're taking out the 2 SAT subject tests? <<em>< Why couldn't they do that earlier... ></em>></p>

<p>I do agree what they're doing is a lot more fair. It's kind of sad when an above-average student forgets just the art requirement.</p>

[Risinghigh]

<p>So this won't take effect until 2012 ... ??????? Is that right?????</p>

[MonoTombo]

<p>^ From the article-"Starting with the freshmen class of 2012"</p>

[Calcruzer]

<p>Typical California bureaucracy if you ask me.</p>

<p>While other states are toughening up their standards for admission to their public university systems (take for example, Florida and Indiana), the California administrators are making their standards looser and more subjective for public college admission.</p>

<p>It used to be that you had a target to shoot at to get admitted to a top school here. Now, you'll just do your best and hope that you fall into some university administrator's preference group.</p>

<p>Note that it was just reported two days ago that 25% of all California students drop out of high school:</p>

<p>1</a> in 4 California high school students drop out, state says - Los Angeles Times</p>

<p>And that the high school dropout rate is now 1 out of 3 in the LA area. </p>

<p>This new UC policy would now allow a greater percentage of those that do manage to graduate from the terrible schools to get into college. "Let's reward mediocracy" seems to be their plan. </p>

<p>I do understand their motivation, however. One of the biggest problems is that the districts are being required to spend all their money on English language classes for all foreign immigrants--thus leaving no money to offer the very basic courses one needs to meet the current UC standards (4 years of English grammar and composition, 3 years of math, 2 years of social science/history, and 1 year of natural science (such as Chemistry of Physics), 1 year of art or fine arts). Some estimates put the costs for these English as a Second Language classes at 20% to 30% of the total budget for a school.</p>

<p>Thus, the inner city districts (like those listed in LA--Jefferson, Belmont, Locke, Crenshaw, and Roosevelt)--are stripped of money for college preparatory programs because they are required to provide all of the remedial classes for people who just crossed the border--and who still speak Spanish or some other foreign language at home, and who can't even add (much less do algebra) in order that these people might graduate high school. They simply can't cater to both those wanting to prepare for college and also to those who are simply trying to do well enough to graduate high school--and apparently, according to the article above--they can't even achieve one of the two goals.</p>

<p>My answer is that if the students can't even speak English, then they shouldn't be in high school. They should be learning English on their own prior to enrolling, or they should be learning this stuff in elementary and middle schools (maybe even ones just for older-age foreigners if necessary)--and they should attend such schools despite whatever age they may be. High school should be for learning skills (like english composition, social interactions/history, and math), and not a bunch of "make-up" courses for those that can't master the extremely simple basics of reading or speaking English. Pulling these people out and admitting that they need extra classes before going to high school would do two things: (1) it would motivate people to learn English before thinking they can just move here, enroll locally in a HS for two to three years and get a diploma, and (2) it would free up the High Schools to focus on their actual responsibilities of graduating an educated student population and help prepare those who want to go on to college to do so.</p>

[bartleby]

<p>Idiots. I should have went to USC.</p>

[fangsup15]

<p>Just a sidenote to Cal, it's definately not that immigrants are not motivated enough to learn English before coming here. English education may be mandatory in a lot of parts of Latin America but it's very minimal and definately not up to anyones standards. If those who came here from south of the border had an adequate and affordable way of learning English, they would've pounced on the opportunity. And it's not just Latin America, my school gets a class of Japanese exchange every year, most of the kids who have been taking English for years and have made only rudimentary progress and can form only the most basic of sentences. </p>

<p>At schools like Crenshaw, which happens to be my local public high school along with Inglewood and Morningside, most local students can't even succeed at a college-prep level. Those that can flock to the new charter and independent schools that have been popping up across LA. Education reform should start from the ground up since the grim reality is that you could pick out which students won't finish high school/go to college by the time students enter junior high.</p>

[Kicharo]

<p>This should not be surprising considering UCLA's move to "holistic admissions" in the last few years, but it is no less upsetting to me. This is essentially a way to get around what voters mandated in 1996.</p>

[yummymango]

<p>So, basically, this doesn't apply to the high school class of 2009... which sucks. Ah, my brother's getting it easy. However, private universities/colleges still prefer it if you took the two SAT II tests, so it wouldn't make much of a difference for those applying to private schools. Correct?</p>

[epiphany]

<p>I am strongly opposed to the proposed changes. "Strict eligibility requirements" are actually quite liberal and have been a key element of fairness in the process since they were instituted. Much flexibility is allowed, much more than is traditionally & currently true at private colleges. There have been many ways to qualify based on merit, and the index itself is a ratio. </p>

<p>I am opposed to the proposal as a policy, philosophically & practically, even though there is no downside to my own family, as their admissions are in already. Eligibility as it was designed is not only an admissions indicator: it's a college-performance indicator. Not a lot of hand-holding at U.C. Previous admissions policies -- many years ago -- that were ill-conceived, admitted students not prepared to manage & master tough University-level material.
That was a previous AA era of which I never approved, & which resulted in UC regrets. Those admitted under that loose & standard-free concept were viewed skeptically, even those who later proved capable of handling the academics independently. Before & after admission, that 'exceptional' policy was ill-managed.</p>

<p>Standard-free, or standard-reduced, is not the path to excellence & advancement for minorities. The path is better preparation. I could actually envision a pilot project by U.C., designed to bridge the underperformance of the public high schools and the rigorous demands of a research U: it would be better spent in true college prep level courses at communitiy colleges, sponsored & led by U.C., designed to fill the gaps which the high schools are unfortunately not doing. There is no point in matriculating to a U.C. if one cannot write adequately, even if there is no language barrier, or if one cannot read critically & inferentially, if one cannot connect theories across platforms, etc.</p>

<p>I can agree with anyone who raises eyebrows at my suggestion that it is up to U.C. to rescue students from failing schools. It isn't actually their responsibility of course, not at all. However, if they want to admit more minorities, they would make better use of resources prior to those admissions, by bringing them up to eligibility, instead of abandoning the need for eligibility -- which is essentially proficiency. Yes, sad -- & an outrage -- that the schools are not graduating students proficient enough to perform at the University level.</p>

<p>Finally, as I read the policy earlier, it invites chaos into admissions, which as a practical matter will confuse the public & jeopardize faith in the system. The current system includes the dual poles of objective & subjective evaluation; considering how large the system is, it has actually overall succeeded quite well, especially in the last several years with the inclusion of ELC, which ensures that the most capable students will not be locked out of the system regardless of the quality of their high school.</p>

[an_enigma]

<p>De-emphasizing test scores != Encouraging Mediocrity
I think that they have realized that standardized tests are simply one way that an individual can show how much intelligence he/she has but certainly not the only way. By no longer requiring amazing test scores for admissions into these good colleges, they can admit kids who are intelligent and displayed academic merit solely through their grades in school and in extracurricular activities.</p>

[coolweather]

<p>I don't like the proposed eligibility but I want them to get rid of the A-G subject requirement. The requirement is hard for school administrators and students to follow. Each year the schools have to hold meeting about A-G requiremnt for parents and students, school course catalogs have to indicate which courses can be used to satisfy the requirements, counselors have to spend time to go over transcripts with students, students have to juggle the class schedules,... Why don't they just state the requirement like other colleges: 4 year English, 3-4 year math, 3 year foreign languages, 2-3 year science, 2 year history, and let students decide the rest?</p>

[Kicharo]

<p>Epiphany=best post..</p>

[gprime]

<p>In general, I think there is a good case to be made for keeping the requirements, particularly because it is a network of public institutions. However, the requirements as they stand have some problems. While art may be culturally relevant, albeit increasingly less so, it is not the sort of thing that should typically influence college admissions. True, a student trying to apply to Curtis without any sort of musical background should have his application burned. But the UC's? Last I checked, all the students going to study Economics, Physics, or any range of other subjects don't need training in the visual or performing arts. Creating more flexibility in admissions standards means the overachiever who packed his schedule as heavily as possible, and never spent time taking art, isn't locked out of competing for spots he is otherwise clearly qualified for. </p>

<p>Frankly, I'd like to see the language requirement nixed as well, but there is at least justification for it. After all, at the rate things are going, it'll be Aztlan soon enough, not California. </p>

<p>Given the problems that exist in the present requirements, I think that it ought to be regarded as a positive that steps are being taken to at least review the status quo, and possibly facilitate changes. With some modest adjustments, ones that emphasize academics above electives (like the arts), the system would be great. But it seems highly doubtful that the system will head in that direction, for fear of "discriminating" against the "disadvantaged" poor students whose schools offer an insufficiently tough curriculum to meet such elevated expectations. So, with that in mind, I think this is perhaps the best available option, and certainly a step forward.</p>

[rainynightstarz]

<p>@ coolweather
isn't the a-g already like that? 4 years English ,like 2 years math ,2 years history, 1 semester of gov and econ etc etc. I went through hs never worried about the actual a-g stuff. I just followed the requirements at my school. I know there is a fine art requirement, but I know a friend who got into all UCs without any art classes. If you are qualified enough, they won't care about the random electives.</p>

<p>@an_enigma
They should totally keep the 2 SATs though. it is not that hard to take, you don't have get perfects on them... Takes only 2-3 hours of your live.
There are very few things that are consistent throughout the high schools in California. The class difficulty varies from teacher to teacher, course to course, school to school, and district to district. I know AP classes that a 5 scorer on the AP test might only get B-C borderline grade. I also heard of AP classes that and A might only help you just pass the AP test (using AP test so I have some standards to measure against). So in the end some of the really smart students get rejected by the better UCs simply because they try to challenge themselves in hard classes and go to a competitive hs and got a few B's.
Extracurriculars are great, but could be even more elusive. Being president of a club could mean spending anywhere from 30min/ week to 10+ hours a week. Even just being a member of some club could vary from spending 0 min/ week to hours after school every week. How are you going to compare? Anyone can put number of hours on the application without evidence. lying about GPA or SAT scores? not as easy.</p>

<p>@yummymango
I doubt it will be easier... just less predictable, which isn't always a good thing. A guaranteed space at UC could be anything from Berkeley to Merced, so just getting the ELC status won't help much if you are aiming for one of the top UCs.</p>

<p>IMO they should keep the consistent stuff (standardized tests) if they want to evaluate everyone at least somewhat fairly. Don't mean to base everything on the standard things (it's not like they do that). Just from the sheer size of the applicants, I seriously doubt they'll be able to accurately rely on too much of the "subjective" stuff and evaluate. Private school who do the a lot of the holistic evaluation have like close to 10 rounds of reading, but even the first round is still based on the basic scores and GPA (they also have a lot fewer applicants). UCs simply don't have that sort of resource for that many applicants. Furthermore, I am sure using much more of the "holistic" stuff will cause even more controversies.</p>

<p>They are already copying their essay topics from private schools. UCs seriously don't have to try to do everything like private schools. What works for private schools might not be the best for UCs.
Also, just because a wider range of people will have spaces at a UC, doesn't mean they will all be successful and not drop out of college. Keeping retention rate high without sacrificing academic expectations and excellence is just as important. After all, college is about learning. I agree with epiphany's point about using community college courses to fill in the gaps. UCs don't have to pick up everything after the high school systems. It's not like the UC graduate school programs are picking after the undergraduate system's problems.</p>

<p>The UC system is the best public university system in the US or even possibly the world (at least in my mind). Please don't change too much!</p>

<p></ rant></p>

[epiphany]

<p>gprime, a thoughtful post, even though I disagree a little with it. :) It does sometimes appear to students that the arts are 'non-academic' or just nonessential. However, there is cognitive value to the practice & knowledge of the arts that is not readily apparent. The Japanese have known this for centuries. It is one of the many ways I respect their society, actually. The right brain & left brain do work together in cognitive processing; one aids the other. For example, people tend to think of scientists as very left-brained, yet many hypotheses that are generated for breakthrough discoveries are intuitively derived. </p>

<p>As to languages, it is not only or even primarily a practical justification that drives that requirement, but again, a cognitive one. Language involving symbols & decoding, the ability to speak in an entirely different set of symbols & have some facility with them is a lateral assist in 'speaking' in the language of other symbol-heavy fields, such as mathematics & music. (I know you weren't arguing about the language requirement, but you seemed to focus on its practical value; it's beyond that, actually.)</p>

[butchokoy]

<p>Good proposal, but what about the issue of overpopulation and congestion? Are they looking into this? Will they solve this problem somehow? When will they start solving this problem?</p>

[epiphany]

<p>Yes, butchokoy also adds an important element. (Which I thought of when I first saw the proposal but never discussed here.) Absolutely this should be a concern. The admit rate vs. apps is barely manageable as it is. (If you meant congestion in UC admissions! Which I mean.) That's why I said, but didn't explain earlier, that it will invite chaos into the system -- not just in the decision-making procedure, but in the volume of subjective evaluations replacing objective ones.</p>

[coolweather]

<p>rainynightstaz:

[quote]
isn't the a-g already like that? 4 years English ,like 2 years math ,2 years history, 1 semester of gov and econ etc etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, they are not different. Even when there is some difference it does not matter much. So why bother to be meticulous and put too much attention on it?
I would be easier for parents who don't have much education to understand a simpler statement to help their kids select classes. It is too scary for them to look up a-g requirements to understand.</p>

[blueyoshi]

<p>Maybe, but I've noticed that high school students generally choose their own classes. There are a few words of advice from parents of course, though that's mostly for whether the student should take AP's or honors. The subjects you're required to take are pretty much set. When you register, your school counselor should explain to you everything. Parents really don't need to hold their child's hand through selecting classes. Plus, it's not that hard to understand the a-g requirements is it? The important points are bolded, 4 years of English etc.</p>