Following the decline in enrollment capacity, as called for by the UC Board of Regents, pressure on high school students to gain acceptance to a University of California campus has increased significantly. The recent decision by the UC Regents to lower enrollment standards and to increase financial aid available to low-income students is imprudent at a time when our state is deeply in debt and the selection process to gain entry to a UC is already highly competitive.
The main change in the application process will be the elimination of the requirement to complete two SAT Subject Tests. The requirement of the SAT or ACT, along with at least a weighted 3.0 GPA, will remain unchanged. The UC Regents are quick to point out that studies have shown over the last four years that subject tests are not significantly tied to success at the university, but this claim is contradicted by a study conducted by the UC in 2001 that said that the SAT Subject Tests are actually a more effective way to predict freshman success than the SAT is. Because the merits of the SAT Subject Tests are still debated, the tests should not be removed from the application requirements.
The SAT Subject Tests are a good way to gauge the comparative intensity of course work at different high schools and demonstrate the skills of students who excel in certain subject areas. The subject tests show a student’s ability to retain more specific types of information.
Many intelligent and hardworking students may struggle with the seemingly arbitrary questions on the SAT but may find the subject tests a much better way to exhibit their academic prowess. It also can be useful when comparing one school’s grading scale with another’s. An A in AP United States History at school A may translate into an 800 on the history subject test, while an A at school B may translate to a 500.
The plan is admirable in that it is trying to increase the chance of potential applicants from socioeconomically disadvantaged high schools to gain acceptance. But when qualified students are presently facing rejection, despite their hard work, it is difficult to justify lowering current standards.
Less qualified students are less likely to succeed than their more qualified counterparts, requiring funding from the university to supply remedial programs. We do not have the funding for these programs. The suspension of Covel Composition and ESL tutoring lab this summer and continuing for the next academic year proves that the UC system is already short on funds for academic assistance.
These students may have an equal or greater intellect compared to other students who have more advantages when it comes to jumping through hoops to get into college, such as college prep and test counseling. But that does not mean they are prepared to handle college-level work. Attending a junior college, or perhaps a school less vigorous than UCLA, is a better solution than denying applicants who are qualified and who are more likely to perform better.
Accompanying the UC Regents’ decision to lower admissions standards was the Blue and Gold initiative plan, which provides a year’s worth of financial aid to cover all educational and registration fees for students whose family’s annual income is $60,000 or less.
This plan would affect an estimated 48,100 eligible California students and cost approximately $355 million. The money needed to finance this program would come from both an increase in student fees and from Cal Grants. Though the majority of the aid would come from Cal Grants, $3.1 million would come directly from the UC system.
The UC is currently in debt and forcing cutbacks in departments that are already in need of more money. It makes no sense to take more money from the university system for these students to have all of their fees covered publicly. Students who do not fall into the income bracket for this scholarship money, but still have trouble affording higher education, must seek private loans and have a portion of their fees go to the Blue and Gold initiative plan for which they were not qualified.
I do not see equity in this plan. It is taking money the entire student body disparately needs to fund many of the school’s enjoyed programs and distributing it to a minority of the student population. Besides, this plan relies on increased taxes for Cal Grants, which very few Californians would be excited to endorse right now.
It is important to reassure students that they can find the funding they need to attend higher education, but using state funding for this is not the best solution.
The recent decision to decrease admission standards and increase academic scholarships for the financially disadvantaged demonstrates shortsightedness by the UC Regents. They are failing to encourage and reward highly qualified students, as well as realistically consider the budget crisis. Though all California residents should have an equal opportunity to attend higher education institutions, the UC system should maintain its standard of excellence and make prudent decisions.
E-mail Mier at smier@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.