When I read that AP and IB units are no longer eligible enrollment units, I was surprised at how fast the policy is going to effectuate and worried if I could still enroll in the classes I planned for the winter quarter.
UCLA announced that all credits evaluated from AP or IB courses, university preparatory courses taken in high school, will not count towards eligible units for enrollment standing starting from next quarter, but they do count for everything else — such as class standing and degree requirement. This means enrollment standing will only depend on units obtained from UCLA and other equivalent college level courses. For students who took AP and IB courses, they might have to accept the fact that their first pass enrollment period will be later than usual.
The news ignited a fiery debate as many people share the same concerns as mine. Because of the sudden change, students commented and debated on the Daily Bruin website or on social media website like Facebook. Many said they worried that their efforts in high school would be discredited and that class planning would entirely be altered.
Indeed, people are not prepared for the sudden change and they can not anticipate how it will affect their plans. But the policy itself is legitimate because it will benefit a majority of UCLA students.
The true culprit – other than the policy itself – that causes the policy to be received with negative feelings is the lack of transparency in the decision-making process. For most continuing students, there was no prior notice before the Daily Bruin article informing them on the policy change and they were not prepared to respond to such a sudden change. UCLA should increase transparency and bring in students’ feedback into the policymaking process. This will help the administration to enact policies smoothly and effectively, with students’ support and cooperation if the administration can share their plans with students via Facebook discussions or focus group discussions with a diverse representation of students when they are making any decision that pertains to class enrollment and planning.
Right now, because students are only being informed just before they can enroll in their winter quarter classes, some of them have to change their class plan and redo their class research to calculate the possibilities they might get into one of the impacted classes with a late enrollment appointment time.
Students might feel all their efforts spent in high school taking advanced classes and doing well in AP exams are discredited because they are losing the advantage brought along by AP courses. This might deter prospective students from applying into UCLA because their AP units are more valuable at other institutions.
Transparency would have solved most of these problems. The administration should have shared their plans with students through an online platform or created a focus-group discussion. In this way, it could have gotten the most useful feedback from the community its policy is going to affect as well as improve the nuances in the policy to maximize its positive effects.
Similarly, students should be updated with the progress in the policymaking process. Students will be able to appreciate the pros and cons of a policy and understand the price tag they have to pay in order to benefit the majority of Bruins. The enhanced communication with increased transparency will promote understanding from both sides and eventually allow policies to be better enacted with student communities’ support.
And there are many benefits. Not all high schools offer AP or IB courses and those units are upsetting the class enrollment balance so much so that many seniors have to pay more to take summer school or an extra quarter at UCLA to graduate; such a policy trying to restore the level playing field is justifiable. In fact, more than 30 percent of students have higher class standing than the year they are in and are competing with upperclassmen for courses.
The other 70 percent of the general student population will benefit from this policy as they will able to compete equally with their peers for classes. Moreover, all of us will benefit from this policy when we are in our senior year because we will face lesser competition from juniors and sophomores and get the classes we need for graduation. And if there had been greater transparency or input, the harmed student community might have been more amenable to the benefits of this system.
The workload of surveying students regarding each and every class planning and enrollment issue might seem huge. But for the administration, it is rather easy as they only need to increase the diversity of the students they already are surveying or simply post on Facebook and gather students’ feedback from there.
If the administration reaches out to more students than its student advisers, it will both convey a concern for equality to a larger portion of the student population and gain valuable feedback. Likewise, students will be able to plan in advance and make alternative plans so that they will be more prepared when the policy effectuates. Students will also be able to appreciate the dynamics of such a policy and understand that it is not fixed – the administration would be constantly reviewing the policy to help students and they will be thus less worried.
At first sight, policy planning might seem to be the sole responsibility of the administration because they are paid to do it. However, a good policy comes from the communication and cooperation from its policymakers and its target audience. UCLA administration should learn the art of policy planning and incorporate transparency into it. Otherwise, it will have to deal with heightening negative sentiments, misunderstanding from students and lose its reputation.