A University of California faculty committee wants to end guaranteed admissions for the top 12.5 percent of graduating seniors, part of the state’s higher education master plan. Instead, only the top 4 percent — measured by grades and test scores — would be guaranteed a place. Other students would compete, campus by campus, with whoever wants to apply. The change would expand the applicant pool by 30 percent, advocates say.
Who would be in that expanded pool? From the San Francisco Chronicle:
(Advocates of the change) believe the guarantee works to the disadvantage of some students — mainly those in rural and inner-city high schools that do not offer all the college preparatory classes required by UC and that do not have enough counselors to properly guide students to take the required courses and tests.
The proposal also would eliminate the requirement that students take two SAT II subject exams to be eligible for the UC system.
In short, kids who go to high schools that aren’t preparing them for college will get a chance to go directly to the top university system in the state instead of catching up in community college. At UC, competing against the top 4 percent, they almost certainly will be assigned to remedial classes; few will earn a degree.
The proposal is in its early stages of review, but committee chairman Mark Rashid, an engineering professor at UC Davis, believes the move could raise standards by eliminating those seniors who currently slide in by doing the minimum work to be eligible.
“There would be a slice of students … that previously enjoyed a guarantee who would no longer be guaranteed a seat in the system,” he said.
So students who earn good grades and test scores would be eliminated in favor of students with lower grades and no test scores. In theory, admissions officers can’t choose on the basis of race or ethnicity, but they have a lot of flexibility to decide on factors other than academic performance.
Rashid said that some students who may have worked hard and deserve a UC education are currently not eligible because of the very rigid technical requirements of eligibility. For example, he said, some didn’t take the exact courses required by UC and others didn’t take the two SAT II subject tests required.
The required courses for UC, known as the A-G courses, also are required by the second-tier California State University system. Students must take four years of English, three of math up to advanced algebra, two of history, two of science, two of foreign language, one arts class and an elective. These are not exotic subjects. If there really are non-vocational high schools that don’t offer these classes or tell students how to qualify for college, they should be put under new management. And eliminating the SAT IIs eliminates the only check against rampant grade inflation.
Well, it won’t happen. Politically, the idea is a dead duck. Guaranteed admission for high achievers is very, very popular with middle-class parents in California. They know that if their children take the A-G classes, earn good grades and test reasonably well, they will have a place at a UC campus. It may not be Berkeley or UCLA, which require very high grades and scores, but UC-Somewhere is a lot better than paying private college tuition. Middle-voters will force legislators to defend the sanctity of the master plan.
Update: Peter Schrag has more at the Sacramento Bee under the headline, “Slouching toward affirmative action?”
I assume the top 4% would be the segment most likely to attend elite private colleges. Thus, such a change would effectively wipe out assured admissions, by decreasing by more than 60% the number of students who are guaranteed admission, _and_ choose to avail themselves of the opportunity.
This would be a boon for admissions officers. Not only would the pool “increase by 30%,” but every applicant’s file would require attention. The university system would have to hire many more people to read applications.
For the California college bound high school student pool, this would increase tension immensely. As almost no student could count on admission, they’d all apply to multiple back-up schools. A student in the top 5%, but below the top 4%, might apply to 10+ schools, instead of one application, to the UC system.
How does this change make any sense?
I don’t have a position about whether this is a good idea, but it wouldn’t change the admission process for the UC colleges that much. A top 10% student is guaranteed admission to some UC, but not necessarily the one he wants. All the UCs, therefore, are making admission decisions on each of the applicants individually anyway.
Students in the top 5% typically apply to 8-10 colleges now, because they only want admission to a top UC, and if they don’t get it, they’ll go to a non-UC school. So again, not much of a change.
Very interesting post!
The idea seems to be very similar to the approach that used to work for admission ito soviet institutes/colleges. There was no garanteed admission (only if you graduated with the so-called “gold medal” you could partially skip the entrance exams – take one out of three).
We had to take tree entrance exams administered directly by the colledge/university and two exams were on the content of intended major (For veterinary medicine I had to take exam in biology, chemistry, and literature/language – all exams were cumulative for the complete school program). The school transcript played a role only when the copetening students had the equal exam scores – then the one with better transcript would be admitted.
I think that eliminated the disparity of having bad school, bad teachers , no AP classes etc – every abiturient could study on his/her own since the testing scopes were published and self-study books were available.
So only well-prepared students were admitted.
The context of this, of course, is that ever since Ward Connerly convinced Californians to end affirmative action for UC admissions, they’ve been working overtime figuring out back-door ways to increase minority enrollment. Note the reference in the first quote to “those in rural and inner-city schools”, i.e. Hispanics and blacks.
This bad scheme enhances the reputation of the UC system in that their prestige ranking in US News & World Report will rise now that they turn away even more students than they did before.
Remember that the 12 percent rule was recently redefined. It used to be the top 12 percent of the kids in CA, as defined by their performance on their SATs and GPA. Then it was changed to the top 12 percent per school. Now they’re working hard to do away with the SAT at all.
But all of this fails to see what the original problem was with 12%–and it wasn’t one of ability. It was one of size. The UCs can’t support 12% of any population. They don’t have the room. They’ve filled the lesser UCs to the brim already, and UC Merced didn’t bleed off enough people. The reason the community colleges were brought into the picture (with the “take 2 years at cc, hit a certain level of performance, and you’re guaranteed acceptance”) at all was to bleed off people from going in the first place, so they didn’t have to meet the demand of the sheer numbers of 12% of graduating seniors.
They tried creating a summer program at most campuses so they would move kids through the system faster. But the students didn’t respond that way–most use the summer for makeup work, remedial work, or to lighten their load during the year.
The goal of this system, from the faculty perspective, is to improve the rankings of the lesser UCs by making them choosier. The goal of this system from the administration’s perspective would be that they wouldn’t be constrained by their charter to actually serve 12%. They could serve less.
Bright idea: Ruin the finest public university system in the country.
Honestly, the obsession with “diversity” is twisted.
“The goal of this system, from the faculty perspective, is to improve the rankings of the lesser UCs by making them choosier. ”
You have got to be kidding. The rankings of the lesser UCs might be better, but they won’t get there by eliminating the 2 subject test requirement.
Cardinal Fang, you are simply not correct. I tutor and help a lot of wealthy students in the top 10% apply to the UC system, and they don’t go to a private school just because they don’t get into Berkeley. In fact, for white students, UCSB and UCSC are highly desirable campuses. I know a number of students who choose SB over SD.
This really is a repellent idea, and again, it’s all about the ideology of “diversity”.
The lies in that article are astonishing. As it is, the UC campuses–particularly Berkeley and UCLA–are admitting woefully unprepared candidates. They aren’t turning down any URMs who, poor dears, just don’t have one year of an a-g class. Not only are they accepting those kids, but many of them don’t take the tests.
As for students “sliding by doing the minimum work”–that would be the students getting in through the top 4% plan, not the kids coming in through statewide eligibility. There’s nothing “rigid” about the requirements.
But as Joanne points out, this doesn’t matter. It doesn’t have a chance in hell of succeeding. If it did, all it would do is ruin the university system, as taxpayers would cut funding even more and stop supporting the system at all. Why bother, if you’re going to spend money sending your kid somewhere else?
Greifer, currently the top 12.5 percent statewide, as measured by grades and test scores, are guaranteed admission to a UC campus; in addition, the top 4 percent at each high school, as measured by grades in the A-G courses, are guaranteed admission. In most cases, the top kids at a school are in the top 12.5 percent anyhow, but apparently there are some low-performing high schools where that’s not the case. A student who meets the minimum standard will get into UC Riverside, Merced and probably Santa Cruz. It is very hard to get into Berkeley, UCLA and UC-San Diego.
A lot of stupid ideas coming out of UC Davis lately. Must be something in the water.
Depending on how it’s implemented, it might work to further the UC’s interests.
1) It obviously allows the UC’s to accept more Blacks and Hispanics
BUT
2) It also allows them to be selective about non-minorities. At the moment a student at a mediocre high school with the right grades/classes gets in, while a student in the top 15% of a very strong high school gets cut. Now they can adjust for high school quality.
3) It allows them to accept some borderline students who are hooks on other margins — not least of which are political connections.
The new system would allow discretion in “balancing” the class.
4) As a bonus, their selectivity numbers on USNews would improve.
If done well, this could raise the average academic quality of the UC’s while also [unfortunately] further dooming the poor beneficiaries of Affirmative Action to 4 years of suffering at the bottom of their classes. Then again, this sort of strategy — accept a large helping of genuinely top students, and then adjust the mix with some AA, legacies, politically connected, athletes, and “creative” types is par for the course at most top schools.
It will of course, lead to further grade inflation to make sure that AA and athletes have some classes that they can take to allow them to graduate. It’s not like these new admits will be majoring in Econ, EE, or Math.
The big losers: Asian-Americans and suburban whites.
What else is new?
Ha! California is way behind the times. At my so-called private college, we’ve been admitting unprepared students for 20 years. And, we don’t need any fancy shmancy schemes (um, programs) to do it. They just bring their “vouchers” (Pell grants, federal loans, etc.) and they’re in! Ruined a once great, small private college. But, hey, we’re still open and we are “diverse.”
“apparently there are some low-performing high schools where that’s not the case.”
“Apparently”? Is that a joke? Without question, kids from the top 4% of low-performing high schools are nowhere close to the top 12.5% percent.
“A student who meets the minimum standard will get into UC Riverside, Merced and probably Santa Cruz.”
I can’t say much about Merced, as there’s not enough data, but it is simply inaccurate to link Santa Cruz with Riverside. Riverside is the dumping ground for the top 4% that can’t qualify anywhere else, and its numbers are lower than Cal Poly and a few other state schools.
Only 25% of its students get above 540 on either section of the SAT. That’s an appallingly low number.
Santa Cruz, in contrast, has numbers similar to UCSB–about 75% of its students get above 540 on either section of the SAT.
At UCSC, you need to have scores in the high 500s *and* a good GPA or scores in the 600-700s with a slightly lower GPA in order to get in. YOu will be unlikely to get into Santa Cruz with scores below mid-500s. In contrast, that’s pretty much all Riverside has.
Cal, thanks for correcting me.
I guess you tutor students in good suburban schools? What kind of GPA and SATs get you in the top 10% there? What are typical stats of your students who are in the top 10%, are rejected at UCLA and Berkeley and end up at UCD, UCSB or UCSC? (I’m curious in general, and also because I have a homeschooled son, who is now a HS junior, and I’m wondering about the competition.)
Again: The top 12.5 percent is not calculated per school. It’s the combination of grades and test scores that’s estimated to include the top 12.5 percent of seniors statewide. At a high-performing school, half the students might be UC eligible; at a low-performing school, less than 4 percent could be eligible. That’s where the second criteria, added a few years ago, comes in: The top 4 percent at the school are now UC eligible, if they’ve passed the A-G courses with a C or better and taken the SAT IIs.
A student who takes the A-G college prep sequence needs only a a 3.3 grade point average to be eligible, even if the SAT scores are very low. If the high school’s standards for an “A” are low, poorly prepared students who take college-prep courses will be UC eligible. Only when the GPA dips below 3.3 do test scores count for eligibility.
Santa Cruz used to be one step above Riverside in selectivity, but it’s become harder to get in. It takes very high grades and very high test scores to get into Berkeley, UCLA and San Diego, with Davis not far behind.
It is time to limit U admission to those with an AA. Of course tht will play hell with the football programs.
what percent of UC admits don’t meet the A-G requirements?
The Dept of Ed DATAQUEST computes the number of graduates fulfilling the A-G requirements (although any type of passing grade qualifies) the stat of A-6 complete as a % of 9th graders four years earlier stands out as a measure of excellence.
perhaps too strict an acid test is A-G grads compared to total budget: cost of finished product.
Joanne, UCSB has a much higher test score requirement than Davis and is widely considered much more difficult to get into. I know kids who made it into UCSD on special consideration (family health issues, for example), who also got into Davis but turned down for UCSB. In fact, that’s probably how Cathy Seipp’s daughter, Maia, got into UCSD despite what would ordinarily be considered insufficient academics–and why so many people were shocked that the LA Times would allow her to write about it as if it were normalnto get into UCSD with SAT scores in the 500s and low 600s.
Cardinal, the “top 10%” thing has nothing to do with GPA or test scores per se. When people refer to the UC mandate of “top 12.5%”, they are referring to the “statewide eligibility”. That’s what Joanne is trying to tell you.
The test score requirement for Berkeley and UCLA is, er, flexible. That’s how they get away with committing affirmative action. Their GPA requirements are not–again, that’s how they get away with committing affirmative action.
So if you have scores in the high 600s and a 4.5 GPA with a few AP courses (tests or not), you stand a much better chance of getting into the top three UCs than you do if you have scores in the high 700s, a lot of AP courses with tests, and a 3.8 GPA.
I know very few UCSB students these days who got in with lower than 600 average scores. I know a fair amount of UC Davis students who got in with solid GPAs and high 500 scores. I don’t see much difference between UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz these days.
One of the real distinctions between the UC campuses is race. You have the hybrids (40-20 split), all of which are now Asian dominant, and the enclaves (over 50%), which are either white or Asian. Hybrids: Davis, Berkeley, UCLA. Enclaves: Irvine, UCSD, UCSB, UCSC. Then there’s Riverside, which is turning into a URM enclave.
Ten years ago, the UCLA, UC Davis, and UCSD were majority white hybrids. But the emphasis on grades as a work around for affirmative action rewards Asians more than it does whites, so UC Davis picked up the kids who used to go to Riverside, and UCLA and UC San Diego picked up the Asians who used to go to Irvine.
This discussion prompted me to look up the UCs in one of the college guides that litter my house these days. At UC Berkeley, the 25th percentile of SAT Critical Reading scores is 580. At UCLA, 570. At Davis, 500. At UCSD, 540.
Those are very low scores for schools as selective as Berkeley and UCLA.
You do understand that the 25th percentile is the number that over 75% achieve, right? The 75th percentile for Berkeley critical reading is 710.
Berkeley:
R: 580/710
M: 620/740
W: 590/710
% below 500:
R: 9%
M: 5%
W: 7%
UCSD:
R: 540/660
M: 600/700
W: 560/670
% below 500
R: 13%
M: 6%
W: 10%$
UC Davis:
R: 490/620
M: 540/660
W: 500/630
% below 500:
R: 25%
M: 13%
W: 22%
UCSB (2005, no writing results):
R: 530/650
M: 560/670
% below 500:
R: 14%
M: 8%
UCSC:
R: 500/630
M: 520/640
W: 510/620
% below 500:
R: 23%
M: 18%
W: 20%
Irvine (from 2005, no writing)
V: 520/620
M: 570/680
% below 500:
R: 14
M: 6
Riverside:
R: 440/560
M: 470/610
W: 450/570
% below 500
R: 48%
M: 34%
W: 45%
The odd thing is that UCSC’s ranking is so relatively low, given that it has as good to better numbers than Davis and Irvine. Santa Barbara, likewise, is much closer to the top schools than its “peers” Davis and Irvine.
In general, though, you can also see that the low scores are generated based on the composition of the minorities. UCSC has more Hispanics than Santa Barbara, which is what accounts for its slightly lower scores. UCSD, Irvine and Davis reflect their predominantly Asian populations, with high math scores and low reading. Riverside shows its Asian population in its relatively high math score, but also its 30% URM population in everything else.
Really, I see no reason to consider Riverside a UC. I think its numbers should be seriously called into question. Under no circumstances is it meeting the UC goal of educating the top 12%.
Of course I know what the 25th percentile means. It means that at Berkeley, one in four students could manage no better than an anemic 580 on the SAT reading. And, as Cal reports, 9% of the students score a terrible 500 or below on the reading (though perhaps most of those students are not native English speakers).