As the competition for entering four-year public universities in
California becomes more intense, more students are becoming
qualified enough to be considered eligible for the University of
California.
To adjust the number of students meeting the eligibility from
2003’s 14.4 percent, to the required 12.5 percent, the
faculty of the UC voted to stiffen the eligibility standards.
To achieve the goal of reducing the percentage of eligible
students, there are three proposed changes including one to raise
the minimum grade point average from 2.8 to 3.1.
None of the changes are finalized until they are approved by the
UC regents during their meeting on July 15.
In theory, all eligible students are guaranteed a spot in one of
the UC campuses. But the number of eligible students is expected to
be at 12.5 percent of all graduating seniors in the state,
according to a standard set by the 1960 Master Plan for Higher
Education in California made between UC officials and the
state.
Other than the GPA modification, the other two proposed changes
included a modification in the way GPA is calculated and also a
requirement put in place for those in the top 4 percent of their
graduating class who were previously considered eligible.
These students who used to be eligible solely on the basis of
class standing, are now expected to complete UC requirements like
all other students interested in attending the university.
Before, these students were eligible for a spot in the UC
without being expected to complete all the other requirements such
as the UC required A-G courses or they were not expected to take
the tests, said Keith Stolzenbach, chairman of the UCLA faculty
admission committee and UCLA representative in the UC board of
admissions and relations with schools.
These changes will not put a demographic of students at a
disadvantage since all California public high schools offer the
adequate A-G courses, said Lawrence Pitts, chairman of the UC
Academic Senate.
This is an important factor since while making the decision, the
possibility of putting a specific and already underrepresented
group at a disadvantage had to be considered.
Pitts explained that the changes will affect the timing of when
a student is considered eligible and redefine eligibility overall,
and this is mostly done through the procedural changes that will
cut the 14.4 percent down to 13 percent.
One of the procedural changes solely focuses on the way GPA is
calculated when eligibility is at hand.
Previously, only the top eight grades from tenth and eleventh
grade were calculated when evaluating a student eligibility.
Meanwhile, a number of UC campuses were already considering the
GPA from all courses taken in tenth and eleventh grade when
evaluating students.
“The switch was almost already made,” Pitts
said.
The procedural modifications will be effective for the
university’s entering class of 2005.
Stolzenbach said students were not aware of the existence of
these procedures behind the scenes, since they are made on an
administrative level.
Regarding the GPA raise, he added that there will be a two-year
gap until it is put into effect for the entering class of 2007.
Stolzenbach explained that the increase from 2.8 to 3.1 may be
further modified since there is ample time to do so.
Another factor that could lead to the modification in the GPA
minimum requirement could be the revised SAT and ACT tests.
Jodi Anderson, the student regent for the 2004-2005 school year
said that as a result of the new tests, there might be the need for
more statistical analysis to be done in order to arrive at a new
minimum GPA.
Though she agreed that the GPA change is one that would be most
fair when compared to some of the other options such as a raise in
the minimum test scores.
“GPA is the single best predictor. … It’s a better
reflection of students’ efforts during their high school
years than the tests,” Anderson said.
She said one of the reasons that these changes came now is the
budget problems in California and the fact that public education
has to compete with other public services.
Others also feel that though the Master Plan exists, the new
state budget did make it more urgent to make changes that would be
immediately effective.
Pitts said after the compact, they knew that there was no money
to grow and that the freshman class needed to be cut.
“We wanted to get the best students with the numbers
allocated to us,” he added.
Pitts said raising the GPA will keep the quality of the entering
class high and “(it) has the least adverse effect on various
subgroups.”
He added that with the cut as a whole, everyone gets hurt.
“There is no way to make this painless,” Pitts
said.
He also explained that it was important to be in compliance with
the Master Plan, since it would give the UC the opportunity to tell
the Legislature that they have held their part of the bargain.
Therefore the university could ask the Legislature to do their part
by providing adequate funding the UC needs in order to grant all
eligible students a spot.
Those opposing the possible changes believe that the university,
though taking more than the 12.5 percent, has done a fine job
educating that number and there should be no reason to cut back on
admission.
Anderson also said the main concern is to provide access to all
students.
“I would rather see the UC offer more access as opposed to
less,” she added.
In addition to providing access, Anderson believes that the UC
needs to be providing support along the way, to ensure that
students can finish their education and graduate from the
system.
She added that the budget problems in the state, make it hard to
try and bring new ideas to the table.
Anderson said she has been talking to both students and
researchers of higher education regarding the matter and the
effects these changes can have both immediately and in the long
run.
She said the consensus among students seems to be an emphasis on
the importance of a transition period to give students more time to
get used to the changes and more specifically the change in the GPA
standard.
Anderson said though these changes are important right now,
there might be a bigger policy question regarding the Master
Plan.
As for the current situation, the guarantee is a policy that has
been affected by the budget.
Stolzenbach said the Legislature wants to get back those offers
of admission and is asking the governor for more money.
He added that funding is a problem since university receives
money for each student and currently they did not get enough money
to cover all the eligible students and grant them the spots that
they were eligible for based on the Master Plan.
As for UCLA, these changes would not be very visible on the
campus.
“These changes affect students where the line is “¦
students with the lowest qualifications,” Stolzenbach said,
adding that most competitive campuses like UCLA, have a smaller
number of the students on the borderline.
“We expect these changes to have very small effect on UCLA
admissions,” he added.
Stolzenbach said as a system wide committee, they looked at a
great number of possibilities that would help them achieve these
results.
They even considered the possibility of raising the percentage
of students who were eligible because of their ranking within their
class, in order to compensate for some of the changes.
Though that modification is not part of recommendation for this
change, it is one of the future options to be considered and
possibly recommended.
The three recommendations were finalized three weeks ago and the
proposed changes have already passed the system wide academic
council and academic assembly and are now waiting to be passed by
the regents.
“The regents have to approve … something has to
happen,” Stolzenbach said, adding that, “There are good
educational and system wide reasons to do this.”
Though these changes were made in accordance with the Master
Plan and as a result of the budget, they will decrease the number
admitted by more than 6,000 students based on the statistics from
the 2003 entering class.
The GPA increase, the most controversial of three, will have the
least effect in terms of numbers.
It will only cut back on eligibility by half of a percent, which
is equivalent to about 1,700 students.