The University of California Board of Regents decided Wednesday
to delay voting on a controversial undergraduate admissions
eligibility change in minimum GPA requirements but still voted to
stiffen other eligibility standards.
With an 11-2 vote at their bimonthly meeting, the regents gave
their approval to adjust the calculation of applicants’ GPAs,
which now will be based on all of the university’s
“A-G” required high school courses. With the same vote,
the board also altered the definition of an eligible student to one
who has completed eligibility requirements rather than one who
simply plans on doing so.
These changes and a stricter GPA admissions requirement ““
raised from 2.8 to 3.1 ““ had been approved by the UC Academic
Senate last month. The change would decrease the number of students
attending the university by 6,400.
Changes in eligibility requirements are being considered in
order to decrease the percentage of eligible students from 14.4
percent last year to 12.5 percent as required by the 1960 Master
Plan for Higher Education in California.
The board delayed its vote on stiffening the GPA requirements in
order to further study the affects the change would have on
underrepresented groups and quality of the university.
UC President Robert Dynes said the plan to raise the minimum GPA
is the best plan the UC system has to deal with its limited
resources and to provide quality education without
disproportionately affecting any group.
UC students present at the meeting expressed concern that
minority groups would be unfairly hurt by the proposed changes in
eligibility.
Justin Kastenbaum, a UCLA graduate student, said the board
should reject the increase in GPA or at least delay the vote until
students can attend the regents’ meetings during the regular
academic year.
Some board members, including Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante,
questioned whether the university had to stick to its 12.5 percent
eligibility standard.
Bustamante said having 14.4 percent of students eligible for the
UC should be viewed as a cause for celebration.
“We should interpret 12.5 percent as a floor, not a
ceiling,” he said.
Other regents were concerned the UC did not have adequate
resources to maintain the quality of the university and to provide
access to more students at the same time.
"My only reaction is that the Master Plan has served California
extremely well,” Dynes said. “It is the envy of the
country and the world. And surely there is nothing sacred about the
12.5 percent, but, before we go about changing it, we should look
very carefully to see if we are eroding the quality of the
University of California.”