Some of the strongest repercussions of California’s
rehabilitated fiscal policy will be felt on University of
California campuses, where beginning next year, enrollment numbers
for new freshmen will be cut by about 10 percent.
Arguing over the merits and demerits of our governor’s new
vision is futile. Far more important, and of immediate
significance, is the course the UC should take to cope with
inevitable budget pitfalls. More specifically, the UC must answer
one crucial question: Which 10 percent of students should be
rejected?
To be sure, the question is a tough one. But by readopting
California’s time-tested strategy for higher education, the
UC can meet the demands of the state budget and retain its robust
academic record at the same time.
In 1970, California’s legislature passed the Master Plan
for Higher Education, which set guidelines and standards for
colleges and universities. In the matter of enrollment, the master
plan envisions the UC admitting the top 12.5 percent of public high
school graduates. The remaining 87.5 percent should be deferred to
California State University schools and community colleges.
Despite of this recommendation, the UC has greatly lowered its
benchmark in past years. According to a report released by the
Legislative Analyst’s Office this month, the system currently
draws from the top 20.5 percent of high school graduates.
Meanwhile, the CSU system draws from the top 29.6 percent of
applicants. The master plan’s target number is 33.3 percent
for the CSU.
This means the UC has been accepting students that should be
attending CSU schools. This has surely contributed to towering UC
enrollment rates which have, in turn, drained its resources.
California’s budget for 2005 will not require the UC to
conform entirely with the plan. Yet it will be necessary to reduce
the 20.5 figure by a reasonable factor, and to ensure CSUs pick up
those students who are left out.
To minimize the degree to which the recalculated number must
approach the originally gauged 12.5 percent, a much more dire
problem must be considered.
Though objective standards in admissions are ideal and largely
necessary, each school system must allow for
“exceptions.” If a student who is not in the top 12.5
percent of his class has a particularly good justification for
lower academic performance ““ such as holding multiple jobs
while going to school ““ he should still be considered.
Everyone can agree with this.
Nonetheless, the UC system has taken “special
circumstances” admissions too far and now 6 percent of
students are exempt from standard admissions criteria.
The master plan envisions a sound figure of 2 percent as a cap
on special admissions rates. In other words, of the freshmen
accepted to the university in a given year, only 2 percent could be
exempt from meeting standard admissions criteria.
In recent years, however, that number has tripled. According to
the LAO report, “The UC permits each campus to admit by
exception up to 6 percent of newly enrolled freshmen and up to 6
percent of newly enrolled transfer students.”
These students are not necessarily required to take Advanced
Placement classes, have a minimum GPA, perform well on the SAT, or
participate in extracurricular activities in high school. By
expanding 2 percent to 6 percent, the UC has changed the special
admissions system from one that promotes good faith to a system of
subjective evaluation and free lunches.
Today’s California is different from that of the late
’90s. In the past, we got away with fiscal irresponsibility,
poor admissions criteria and apathy. But the meaner and leaner
California budget is forcing us to examine and redefine our
priorities as Californians. It is compelling us to make tough
decisions and enact harsh changes.
By tightening the eligibility pool and restoring the special
admissions cap to 2 percent, the UC will not only return dignity
and pride to eligible students, but will also more easily cope with
a slimmer budget. With the cooperation of the CSU and community
college systems, the UC can still admit all eligible students.
By reconsidering California’s master plan, we can deal
with our problems and emerge triumphant in spite of them. In the
end, we can educate more students and have a stronger educational
system.
But first, we must learn the lessons of financial accountability
and institutional flexibility ““ economic principles that
California’s university system has ignored for too long.
Hovannisian is a first-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.