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

Parent Cafe
21

<p>the ironic thing about the new proposal to lower the minimum gpa is that the UC just raised it effective with this year's applicant class. The former minimum was a 2.8 bcos which meant that ~14% of HS students were qualified for UC, But, since the Master Plan for Higher Ed designed the UCs for only top 12.5%, the gpa was increased to 3.0. Iterestingly, the recommendation is to lower the minimum below what it was previously.</p>

<p>Notably, the UCs already give a big tip factor to under-represented and, in particulary, low income high schools in admissions. Indeed, approx. 33% of each campus is comprised of Pell Grantees.</p>

22

<p>I think that this is the beginning of all colleges beginning to change their rules to become somewhat less selective. Why? In the year 2010 and thereafter there will be less students to fill these colleges as the # of HS graduates decreases. Universities will be fighting over the same students and will have to accept less qualified students just to keep their numbers up.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
n the year 2010 and thereafter there will be less students to fill these colleges as the # of HS graduates decreases.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Son #2 (high school class of '10) will be delighted to hear that!</p>

24

<p>You beat me to it, blue. I was about to say the same thing about the recent previous <em>upward</em> GPA adjustment of eligibility. I remember that there was a hue and cry about it then. (Ridiculous, since for some of the State U's now, you need a 3.0, & slightly higher, I think, if you're "out of the [immediate] region.") Some students complained then about becoming ineligible for UC, but I was glad that UC stuck to its guns with that decision.</p>

<p>Also to note is that one of the reasons for the implementation of ELC was a disappointment in the level of student often admitted. ELC was instituted as a pure merit-based admission track on the opposite end of the spectrum, to counter-balance.</p>

25

<p>Sorry to say Rick that around 2009/2010 it is supposed to be the most competitive ever unless colleges increase their total # of admits. Numbers start to slowly decrese right about this time.</p>

26

<br>


<br>

<p>I hope this doesn't happen. The UC is the destination of "choice" for many middle class Californian bright kids--the kind that won't qualify for need-based aid or merit aid. "Generous need based aid" either wouldn't cover their situations or would be cut in future years.</p>

27

<p>Rick:</p>

<p>Cal already costs $25k per year to attend. Raising the fees another $4-5k would just mean that more kids would work part time and take longer to graduate, which would only exacerbate the space issue.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>CCsurfer: Good point, but I think what will really happen is that the top students will still get accepted. It's those currently near the bottom of the acceptance pool (those B students, 1100-1200 SAT kids) who will be denied at the middle and lower UCs. </p>

<p>Marite, I'm surprised to see the Times article that appeared Sunday in LA showing up in Boston.</p>