<p>I also disagree with the new changes to the UC requirements. After a week of thinking about this but I see the problems beginning at the high school level with the counselors. But this too is the states' fault as they do not provide enough money to adequately staff public schools with enough counselors, especially in the underperforming schools. My third child will be going to college next fall and if I hadn't been on top of things starting their freshman year, they may not have understood the importance of class selection, grades (esp. 10-11th), SAT II's and SAT/ACT scores. I had to go and fight for my children's schedules as we had limited AP classes that often conflicted with math and history classes. As a result, D took AP Bio as a sophomore and 1st chemistry class as a senior! Luckily she is smart and did well in bio. It used to be when S was HS, the counselors met with student and parent once a year in the Fall to go over college plans, SAT's, schedules, made sure the kids were on track etc. Now there is no funding for that plus they spend a lot of time just trying to keep kids in school, helping them to pass the Exit Exam and to graduate. They do meet with the kids individually but the parents are out of the loop unless we call and make a specific appointment. The counselors do hold a parent meeting (and that just started last year) once a year but most of the parents at our underperforming school don't attend. The kids are made aware of the requirements (and there are many kids in programs like AVID and Puente who are taught about the college process) but it is the parents and the counselors who need to get together and make sure the kids are doing what they're supposed to do. We have many smart kids are our school, and many don't have the support at home so counselors need to make sure they have every opportunity to succeed. The ones who take the initiative to do all the work (and they would probably qualify for the fee waivers) should be admitted. I think by dropping the SAT II's the systems has been watered down, I thought it was bad when the UC's dropped a third SAT II of one's choice. IMO, the SAT II's show more accurately what a kids has learned in a particular subject. If I was the UC Board, I would drop the SAT, and require 3 SAT II's; Math II, an English, and a subject of one's choice such as science, foreign language etc. That way, a kid could show what he/she is good at.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many thousands don't even know the SAT II requirements.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's kinda hard to believe. The Subject Tests have been required for decades -- back in the dark ages, they were called Achievement Tests. If some high school counselor does not know the UC requirement, they should be fired for incompetence.</p>
<p>California has no money. I don't understand why the keep the California High School Exit Exam for 10 graders every year. It takes 2 days for the kids to take the test. And nobody cares about the test results. The CA education department says the test is used to verify the teachers's quality. It seems the state of CA does not trust the teachers. Why the UC should trust the GPA provided by the teachers for UC applications?</p>
<p>coolweather: Its true that the CAHSEE is quite useless. Those who fail it are already failing out of HS anyways. And I don't know how much is actually impacts decisions, but the difference of a UC GPA of 4.5 from a school that has 900+ points on the STAR, versus 700 points, i would THINK influences decisions.</p>
<p>I think it is important to remember that these are changes only to Minimum Eligibility requirements for freshman applicants. Currently almost all UC campuses are selective and do not admit all eligible students that apply to their campus; minimum eligible students are only guaranteed admission to one UC campus. I'm sure the new requirements will have some effect on the comprehensive review process the selective campuses use but, we don't have any of that information at this point.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
I think it is important to remember that these are changes only to Minimum Eligibility requirements for freshman applicants. Currently almost all UC campuses are selective and do not admit all eligible students that apply to their campus; minimum eligible students are only guaranteed admission to one UC campus. I'm sure the new requirements will have some effect on the comprehensive review process the selective campuses use but, we don't have any of that information at this point.
[/Quote]
You are correct to point out that the top UC campuses will likely remain as selective as before. But what you failed to mention is that some students from more competitive high schools may be squeezed out of other UC campuses. I think we are back to the aged old argument of what higher education fairness should be.</p>
<p>Higher education fairness is affected by politics, whether it be public or private universities. We can all bite our lips over it until they bleed.</p>
<p>It's a tough process to determine whether the hurdles to entry, be it to college or a job, are set too high. I absolutely cringed when they started changing job specs at the city I work at to what I'll call equivocating language. Jobs required a college degree OR EQUIVALENT. </p>
<p>Gee thanks, and who and how does said equivalent get decided? This was thurst upon us because some consultant suggested we'd get into less hot water legally by doing so. Really, dumbing down entrance requirements when there are more college grads than even looking for jobs? I managed to keep such language away from the semi- and professional finance/accounting series of jobs in my department, by presenting the argument that we'd also like these people to sit for professional certifications and guess what, you can't do that without the college degree!</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see whether any of the selective campuses (i.e., all of those who require more than minimum eligibility) still elect to guarantee admission to ELC under the new criteria.</p>
<p>The selective campuses do not guarantee ELC admissions today.</p>
<p>Technically, any campus that requires more than minimum eligibility is considered "selective"... thus, Irvine, Santa Barbara, Davis, Santa Cruz, etc. are selective (just not as selective as Berkeley, LA, and SD).</p>
<p>And, in any given year, several of the mid-tiers have guaranteed admission to ELCs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But what you failed to mention is that some students from more competitive high schools may be squeezed out of other UC campuses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is what exactly MUST happen. A couple of kids from Lowell or Troy (to use two competitive examples) who would have gotten into Cal or UCLA will end up at D, I or SB. And, of course the trickle down will continue: a few who would have gotten into D, I or SB will now be offered at Merced, which in most cases will be turned down.</p>