UC talks of wider entrance policy: NON-ACADEMIC SUCCESS WEIGHED

Parent Cafe
1

<p>UC system considers admissions policy reforms to broaden access:</p>

<p>
[quote]
A panel of influential educational scholars recommends an overhaul of the 40-year-old University of California eligibility process, urging a shift away from the current focus on grades and SAT scores to a broader review of students' personal achievements, such as initiative and leadership.</p>

<p>The move, presented for the first time at a UC-Berkeley conference Friday, is seen as a way to expand economic, racial and geographic diversity in one of America's premier public educational institutions. It could enable the UC system to admit more students, boosting the number of educated people in a state that is falling far behind others. But the program would require more state spending because campuses would have to be expanded for additional students.</p>

<p>It also could stiffen competition for slots at the most popular campuses for Santa Clara County high school students, whose strong academic credentials have traditionally assured them entry...</p>

<p>The recommendation would mean that students with a C+ (2.75 GPA) average, who were likely to be shut out under the old system, would now be eligible to have their applications reviewed -- giving them the opportunity to list leadership positions, jobs or ways in which they have triumphed over adversity. Low SAT scores, while still considered, would not close the door.</p>

<p>However, acceptance to a specific campus -- say, Berkeley or Los Angeles -- would still require stellar performance in both academic and non-academic realms...</p>

<p>If the UC system is allowed to expand, increased access for some does not mean decreased access for others, said William Kidder of UC-Davis, another contributor to the paper.</p>

<p>``As a practical matter, if a student has a very high GPA and has taken a large number of honors classes and has very solid SATs, that student is still very likely to be admitted to a UC campus, although perhaps not the campus of first choice,'' he said.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/15871854.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/15871854.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>Two words: affirmative action. </p>

<p>This opens the door to allowing schools to evaluate and weigh race, socio-economic status, educational disadvantage, and other fun stuff.</p>

3

<p>Three more words - better football teams ;).</p>

4

<p>Four words: oboes in school orchestra.</p>

<p>Anyone have five? :)</p>

5

<p>Five words:</p>

<p>Gross political correctness in America.</p>

6

<p>Seriously, or unseriously, it is football after all! Has the admission competitiveness of the UCs affected the football programs? Numerically, they should field several BCS teams, but all I can think of are Cal and UCLA. SJ State and SD State have had some success, but on a lower level.</p>

<p>In our state, the general population supports the BCS teams, and the most rabid fans are those who never set foot on campus, and could never attend a game - so if a few spots are held for players, or the overall stats of the university are extremely low so that the players can be admitted, the general pop doesn't care. If I lived in CA, and my kid got bumped for a football player, I might be a little miffed.</p>

7

<p>Boston Globe: Lack of funds strains California university</p>

<p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/10/30/lack_of_funds_strains_california_university/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/10/30/lack_of_funds_strains_california_university/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

8

<p>Thanks for that link, marite. Don't know whether it directly relates to the posted topic, but the straining of the funds has been a prolonged crisis for the entire public higher education system, for some time. This is what happens when a State agrees to become the social services breadbasket for millions of underemployed & impoverished people -- both immigrants & non-immigrants. The dollars just run out at some point. For many years CA has made decisions to allocate increasing amounts of money -- including for specialty social services that would never be considered in most other states. The same population that benefits from this generosity now, may find itself without public college options later. (Or is that part of the point of the "new admissions policy"? Is this really a lowering of the bar.)</p>

<p>I know that earthquake needs are exceptional in CA, but again, considering the levels of other kinds of needs in the State, the budget is seriously affected.</p>

<p>I am not arguing against social services, or support for the survival of one's fellow citizens -- merely being realistic about the finite quality of dollars & the finite tolerance for a richer group of citizens to fund those without. (And being one who once in a while has needed those support services herself.) I am also not arguing against the <em>inclusion</em> of leadership qualities (as opposed to the substitution of those for academics). But I found in my recent interviewing of students that the highest performing in the e.c./community service/ etc. area were also very strong performers academically. They merely chose to make personal sacrifices (in the "prestige" realm) sometimes for the good of others, while maintaining very high stats nevertheless. That shows a lot of character & an amazing commitment to a wider community. (Speaking of citizenship.) But it is not necessary to employ a substitution formula.</p>

9

<p>Those 2 articles taken together do raise another issue that was been debated here before - do the public universities exist to educate their immediate public, primarily, or is their most important mission to be a bastion of research? Note that the prof left because of lack of funding for research, not because the lecture rooms lacked any modern teaching equipment. I don't know the answer, I just pose the question. I know that in my little state, gaps in state funding have been met by one university through partnerships with the private sector, and subsequent philanthropy. whil that has been great for the engineering and business depts, it doesn't necessarily keep the lights on, because the programs funded by the partnership would never have existed without the partnership.</p>

10

<p>cangel, the problem is that being a bastion of research is what brings in the money to educate. When research suffers, so do the schools finances. American universities are so strong in terms of research because they are not government subsidized and must compete for money through research. Partnerships with the private sector and philanthropy already exist on a big level at the UCs... but clearly more is needed. BTW, in California at least, schools with a mandate to educate also exist in the form of community colleges and, to a lesser degree, state university system.</p>

11

<p>Important points, cangel. But of course as katlia noted, one situation does affect the other, & could affect UC's success in attracting the top students needed to contribute to fine research.</p>

12

<p>The UC used to accept the "top 1/8th" of high school grads in California. At least twice on this forum I've seen references to "the top 4%." I'm not in California any longer, although I lived there for 42 years and went to a UC, so I can only share a couple of partially-uninformed opinions. First, the population of California has grown faster than the capacity of the UCs to deal with it. Merced is the first new campus since 1966 (or thereabouts). The population of the state has tripled in that time. While populations at campuses like Irvine, San Diego and Davis have increased greatly, the capacity increase just hasn't kept up. Second, the system needs money. If the UC needs to go to the heavily-endowed system of setting higher tuitions and then offering generous need-based aid, they should consider it. The UC is still taxpayer supported so I would think that a base tuition of $22,000 is outrageous, but I can see it going to $12-14, with generous in-state need-based aid. Third, as long as the avoid things like the UW "everyone is a victim" essay topic, making the admissions criteria broader doesn't seem all that bad to me. There are so many things that go into adolescence that using a single morning-long test and grades -- I'll do my rant on high school grades some time -- as the only measures is sadly lacking.</p>

13

<p>The research brings in money argument certainly has some validity. But, if the whole "institute" is non-existent prior to the grant money being received, then it doesn't offset any already allocated funds for general education purposes or for painting the hallways. Yes, Famous Professor teaches a few classes, and his post docs and grad students may cover a few more, but if they are doing high level neuroscience research, they won't cover that many freshman bio classes!
California isn't a great example of research colliding with undergrad education (except for those wild propositions you guys seem to pass which throws a monkey wrench into everything), because the state is large enough and has such a high caliber and well-organized system of CCs and "lesser" colleges. UCB could become a purely grad school, and the young people of CA would still be well served with excellent undergrad opportunities - there's room in the system for both, but I'm not sure there is money in the system for both.</p>

<p>Maybe it is because of the mandated social services. I am a "guest member" of the California Society of my specialty - it is so large that it has excellent cont ed opportunities, and lots of OOS members. SO I periodically get their newsletter which outlines in great detail any changes in MediCal, and other big insurers in CA - Medicaid in California is quite generous.</p>

14

<p>Call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe that with current economic conditions in California, the UC's are going to be expanded to accomodate a large number of students whose stats suggest they could be better served at Cal State Universities, from which they could transfer to UC's should their stats improve to the current level required for UC admission. Instead, I imagine that the current admissions criteria will be changed in the way this proposal spells out, so that fewer top students will be accepted in favor of students who previously did not meet admissions criteria but can now make up for it with their initiative and other non-quantifiable qualities.</p>

15

<p>I hope the UCs stick with their mandate to serve the top 12% of California students. People not familiar with the California system may assume this shuts people out of public college but it doesn't since the remainder are served by the CalState system (rather than UC) or by the CCs. I can think of no reason for this change other than as an excuse to dip further to target particuar groups or individuals. </p>

<p>It's true that being in the top 12% doesn't guarantee admission into a particular UC but one s/b able to get into one of the UCs. I believe that UCM could have accepted more students this year (they're still in their infancy) and UCR can generally take any UC qualified student.</p>

<p>Rick - the 4% number is for 'eligibility in the local context - ELC' which means that the top 4% of any particular HS are guaranteed admission into the UC system (but not a guarantee to any particular one). This is to ensure that those who may be attending a small school that doesn't offer APs, attend school in an under-performing area, etc. aren't shut out from the UC system. The theory is that if you're in the top 4% regardless of where you are, you're likely to succeed well at a UC.</p>

16

<p><a href="http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/email/news/15872086.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/email/news/15872086.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>UC officials eye rollback of Prop. 209
BERKELEY: Chancellor calls 1996 voter ban on affirmative action 'profoundly wrong, morally wrong'</p>

<p>cangel:</p>

<p>definitely not about sports. Not that many UCs even field a football team -- UC Davis just moved up to D1A from AA, however. The Cal States are in a different system and leagues (Cal State University) and have different requirements -- a 2.0 plus test scores. And, of course, there is absolutely no way that the Pac 10 will ever get two BCS teams since most voters reside in the east and southeast and midwest. :)</p>

17

<p>Cangel,
"Yes, Famous Professor teaches a few classes, and his post docs and grad students may cover a few more, but if they are doing high level neuroscience research, they won't cover that many freshman bio classes!" </p>

<p>-- you're right, the difference one Famous Professor makes doesn't add up to a heap of beans, but it's a moot point since no Famous Professor would want to work in a vaccum. He'd want to be with other Famous Professors, at a major research institituion. </p>

<p>CCSurfer, I don't think it's especially easy to transfer from a Cal State to a UC: most 'transfer' spots are generally for those who come in from the CC system. At least, that's the way it used to be - since you can't get a BA/BS at a CC but the Cal States were created specifically with the idea of producing BAs/BCs.</p>

18

<p>The slippery slope of political correctness in America will eventually lead to the abolition of standards.</p>

<p>Everyone has a chance to be admitted to an elite UC institution, but not everyone CAN be admitted. There is scarcity and competition involved.</p>

19

<p>Bluebayou, honestly I was being facetious about the sports - although that may be an unintended consequence. Wouldn't it just be easier if they favored the top 4% from underrepresented high schools at the "more" elite UCs?</p>

<p>One of the problems I have with all AA and AA-but-not-really programs particularly in public institutions, is that they seem to use resources to benefit the institution, not the kids. I grew up in a very poor area, and knew kids, mostly white, but in later years some black as well, that would have benefitted greatly from a small leg up - the equivalent today of increased Pell Grant monies, perhaps enough flexible cash to buy an old car, rent a trailer near the Uni so that they could finish their studies after community college. Better K-12 education so that they could have had the academic credentials to get to college. It's even more important nowadays, because the good blue collar jobs these students used to take are gone.</p>

<p>I'm a little ashamed to post this on a thread about UCs, because the whole system - CCs, Cal States, etc overall seems lightyears ahead of most states, even teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.</p>

<p>My state has a huge (not in CA terms, but comparatively speaking) CC/JC/technical school bureaucracy, that is fairly corrupt, and run like little independent fiefdoms. Some of the underlying corruption is now being exposed, and maybe it will get better - right now it sucks down lots of money with not so much benefit.</p>

20

<p>20 years later, they would come back and develop a new system that depends more on grades and test scores.</p>