UC System Eyes Admission Changes

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - GENERAL
21

<p>My school like never ever went into explaining the actual a-g stuff. just told us like take x of this class y of this class. My parents and most of my friend's parents don't really involved in class picking unless they really really want to ( like make their kids take 5 AP classes).
pretty much we HAVE to take 4 years of english, 3 years of history, you can't get out of it anyways. math is required for the first 2 years, so is science. PE is also required for the first 2 years. First 2 years of hs schedule is pretty much set, we only have space to pick 2 elective. 11th and 12th grade schedule has English and history automatically on them.
But i guess the graduation requirement at my school is harder than the a-g stuff. Maybe your school is just not doing a great job at explaining these to parents, giving them too much un-needed information. However, you can always ask your counselors when you have questions.</p>

<p>And as I said. I know people who got in (Berk, ucla, etc) without fulfilling the a-g.</p>

<p>edit://
University</a> of California - a-g Guide</p>

<p>you can't get much more straight forward than that. Most other colleges have very similar requirements.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
Plus, it's not that hard to understand the a-g requirements is it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, it's not too hard if your parents have some kind of college education, are familiar with college preparation, and you are an above average and a college-minded student. But for the majority of CA parents and average students entering 9th grade, these a-g specifications seem like the language of legal document that makes an average person resort to the assistance of a lawyer to understand. Besides that the UC strictly adheres to these requirement to reject students at admission time. You can say that someone people admitted to UCB or UCLA without meeting the requirement. But those people must be stellar or have some special circumstances, or what you say are just anecdotes. </p>

<p>If an average parent or student looks at the following sites (assuming that he/she knows how to find them):</p>

<p>UC</a> & CSU Admissions Page and this site CaliforniaColleges.edu</a> - Freshman Admission Requirements</p>

<p>then he/she probably wonders a meeting with a counselor is necessary (and sometimes the counselor may not be very clear).</p>

<p>Students entering 9th grade in CA HS don't really know whether they will enter the UC system or the CSU system. But these two systems have 2 different sets of requirement. And some shool districts add additional requirements to these requirements. Besides, the state of CA already its our curriculum for students in the entire state.</p>

<p>I am a UC graduate and hang around CC for 2 years but I did not know about the UC ELC requirement until I received a letter about from my kid's school about 2 or 3 months ago. The person who handles the ELC paperwork does not even know that courses take in community, UC, and CSU colleges can be counted for the ELC requirement.</p>

<p>In short, my whole point is:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>CA highschools are not different from nationwide highschools in term of college preparation. If nationwide colleges, even the most selective colleges can simply state the basic requirements for college admission then the UC and CSU systems should be able to do so so that everyone can easily understand.</p></li>
<li><p>Only the basic requirements should be specified. Variations in highschool curriculum should not be a rigid standard for college admission. There is no single college that students have in mind at the time they start HS, don't expect that students follow the UC requirement.</p></li>
<li><p>If the UC and CSU want to promote students to go to college then they should make easy for an average person to understand the requirement.</p></li>
</ol>

23

<p>It's just another power play to de facto overturn the requirement that admissions to the UCs be race blind and based solely on individual merit. They keep pushing the envelope and forcing court tests in the hopes of reestablishing their unbridled discretion. Their will be no winners in this and the big losers will be the asians, who have seen their numbers increase dramatically under the merit system.</p>

24

<p>I disagree slightly as to the reasons, mia, even though I agree with you on how misguided the proposal is. I think the effect of the proposal if, God forbid, it's implemented, will be to undercut meritorious achievement across the board, by all racial & ethnic groups. I don't think it's specifically a 'back-door' way, shall we say, to re-institute the previous overt AA policy --which, at UC, unlike at many (not all) privates, was not a success, in terms either of result or of public perception. Nor i.m.o. is it some supposedly sly attempt to hold the lid on Asian acceptances. I think it's a statement of surrender regarding the underperformance of many CA students, and a wish to admit them anyway. (Because it is true that many are Hispanic & Black.)</p>

<p>The more achieving in-state students generally come from middle-class & upper-middle class strata. They could be from any ethnicity, while granted, there are more Asians & Caucasians in those subgroups than Blacks & Hispanics.</p>

<p>I think this is truly perverse. It's saying, "poor things; they can't handle rigorous academics, so they won't be admitted to U.C. We'd better fix that." Partly, from the statements of the policymakers, this is about admitting more URM's. However, it's also an acknowledgement that those who do not perform are being left behind. This sounds so obvious, & I don't mean to be: I mean that it's a way of UC admitting silently that the public high schools, except for the upper end, are failing, & that these schools are not prepared independently to reverse that, so "we" need to admit all segments of society anyway, because the schools are not, & never, going to prepare them adequately.</p>

<p>That's quite a statement.</p>

<p>The part that's overkill about it is that the UC pathways process <em>already</em> takes into account, & majorly ;), economic challenges. It's just that you have to prove yourself against that challenge. That's what I mean about how despairing & cynical this policy is: it's saying that they need to admit <em>despite</em> lack of achievement. That is a complete unraveling of UC admissions philosophy & practice. It's acknowledging that there is a very large critical mass of very poorly performing CA public school students, but that they should be in the <em>UC</em> system, anyway.</p>

<p>Unbelievable.</p>

25

<p>Once again, California is at the head of the pack. I think the changes in admissions policy to be implemented are awesome. It will improve the system to make it fairer for everyone and emphasize the things that are most valuable. </p>

<p>To the people who say that the policy de-emphasizes merit and doesn't reward people for hard work: I disagree, I think the policy will do the opposite. The increased emphasis on class rank will reward those who are successful in high school. I don't see how automatic admission for being in the top 9% of your class ISN'T merit-based. It rewards those who do well while still allowing others who don't meet specific requirements an opportunity for admission. It's a better system all around.</p>

26

<p>liketotally (hey, I love your screen name), I think people may be looking skeptically because of experience with similarly crowded states. Texas, I believe, is top 10% for UT. Because now of the differentials in levels of preparation for college in TX (more so than previously, I take it), & because of the size of the school population itself, it may not be working as it had been.</p>

<p>In the case of CA, with which I am much more familiar, I care very much how prepared entering college students are for work at an elite research U. Some high schools are SO underperforming & have <em>such</em> minimal standards, that "top 9%" will not translate well into UC-level academics, & will endanger the success of those students once they get there.</p>

<p>Alternatively, these students can be admitted to the lowest ranked campuses, but that also works against both their college careers & the strength of that campus & reputation of UC as a whole.</p>

<p>I can see examining more carefully that top 9%, in some measure, but automatic admission I do not support. At least for ELC the bar is higher at 4%.</p>

27

<p>Hey epiphany,</p>

<p>As for the concerns with overcrowding, I understand that: I'm from Florida, and I hear the same things here. The UC administration seems to think the numbers will work out; if 9 percent is too much, they might end up having to adjust the policy one or two points. But the policy is different from that of Texas in a key way: In Texas, you are guaranteed admission to ANY public university if you're in the top 10 percent, and apparently UT Austin has had trouble keeping that promise and has had to cap enrollment by that plan. The UCs are not making any promises about particular campuses, and can therefore adjust enrollments at particular campuses accordingly. </p>

<p>I think the addition of more students will be better for now less-popular campuses, not worse. More students, students who were in the top 9% of their high school classes -- it's a good deal for them. You're right that there is a large variance in the quality of high schools but being able to achieve top 9% at any school is an accomplishment that shows many of the traits necessary for success in college -- dedication, willingness to study, etc. It's not all about raw cognitive skill as measured by the SAT. </p>

<p>As far as students being prepared for college academics: universities are already dealing with lots of students from all kinds of backgrounds who do not have the skills they need to be successful in college classes, and it's a problem that needs to be and is considered in plans for reform of the public elementary and secondary schools. Regardless of the failures of public secondary schools, these percent plans do what they're designed to do: identify students who have demonstrated the motivation and dedication necessary to succeed in college. Also, thankfully, California's plan leaves room for other people to "make their case".</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
Students entering 9th grade in CA HS don't really know whether they will enter the UC system or the CSU system. But these two systems have 2 different sets of requirement.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>With the exception of the Subject Tests, the UC and Cal State eligibility (a-g) requirements are the same.</p>

29

<p>From the <em>San Francisco Chronicle</em>:</p>

<p>UC</a> regents OK admissions overhaul</p>

<p>Other changes:</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>The changes go into effect for the freshman class of 2012.</p>

30

<p>The new policy will increase the number of UC admits from bad schools to as much as 9% at the expense of reducing the number of middle-tier students from the good schools.
Under today's system, even with the mysterious holistic approach, these middle-tier students from the good schools are beating the top-tier students from the bad schools. So the new policy is in essence affirmative action for students in bad schools.
I suspect that the reason for dropping SAT2 is to increase the bad schools yield to as close to 9% as possibe.
Instead of figuring out how to make students better in the bad schools, they decided to take a short cut.</p>

31

<p>Will SAT-I weight be increased when SAT-II is dropped? It will be interesting to see the new formula.</p>

32

<p>Why would they drop SAT II's? In my opinion, those are the tests that actually test your knowledge and how well your teacher taught you, in contrast to the SAT I which was pure preparation either by oneself or by spending ridonkulous amounts of money on a prep class.</p>

33

<p>Because the UC's want to give the poor a chance at the UC's. Did you taking the two subject tests costs over $100? That is money that some families may not have.</p>

34

<p>^Yeah and there's something called a fee waiver...which makes the SAT free.</p>

35

<p>
[Quote]
Because the UC's want to give the poor a chance at the UC's. Did you taking the two subject tests costs over $100? That is money that some families may not have.

[/Quote]

First, it only costs $38 to take two subject tests; second, college board gives 2 free SAT 2 seatings to poor students.</p>

36

<p>For more information on the decision please also review University</a> of California - UC Newsroom | UC Board of Regents approves changes to UC's policy on undergraduate admission requirements</p>

37

<p>I mean like,it costs money to take SAT I/ACT plus SAT II. Plus, most poor minorities will be the first to go to college so they wont know the procedure. Many thousands don't even know the SAT II requirements.</p>

38

<p>
[Quote]
so they wont know the procedure. Many thousands don't even know the SAT II requirements.

[/Quote]

If this is true, it would be the fault of the school districts as well as UC for not providing better outreach support. However, it can be remedied relatively easily. Dropping SAT 2 is like amputating your leg due to some cuts and bruises.</p>

39

<p>True. I myself didn't want the subject tests to be dropped because I thought it was totally unfair for the class of 2010 and 2011 to take these tests.</p>

<p>Personally, I don't feel sorry for the poor family because those parents decided not to get a formal education.</p>

40

<p>Why are you generalizing poor people? Do you really see yourself above them? Superior to them?</p>

<p>You're a freak.</p>

<p>Just because you go to college doesn't mean that you're guaranteed a better job.</p>