With increased financial roadblocks and an overwhelming surplus of applicants, college in California is becoming more of dream and less a reality for many young hopefuls.
In a lukewarm effort to soften this reality, state Sen. Jack Scott (D-Pasadena) proposed a bill last month that would guarantee students admission to a California community college or at least one UC or CSU campus given they meet university minimum requirements and pledge to attend college in middle school.
But the heedless attempt to “”motivate pupils to stay in school, graduate from high school, take rigorous coursework and, if they choose to do so, seek postsecondary opportunities”” takes into consideration none of the effects of the bill.
One of the biggest challenges would be accommodating the influx of students that would surely result from implementing Scott’s Early College Commitment Act. UCLA has already struggled with fitting students in on-campus housing units and was forced to place 82 percent of freshmen in triples this year compared to 52 percent last year, according to UCLA’s Daily Bruin. Any more dramatic increases in enrollment would require a serious plan for building additional housing to accommodate the additional students – a task both costly and time consuming for the university.
Housing, however, is not the only cost associated with boosting admissions numbers. There are classrooms to be built, professors to be paid, counselors to be employed – the list goes on and on. But Scott’s bill takes none of these variables into account. In fact, it mentions no plan for funding the project at all.
Furthermore, it requires that all pledges fill out a Free Application for Federal Student Aid and apply for financial aid and guarantees at least two years of community college aid to all qualified students, as well as access to the Cal Grant and federal Pell Grant programs. While this may seem like a very generous offer, the bill provides no plan for where the money would come be pulled or generated. Not to mention that the financial burden would come at a time when the tensions between UC students and state lawmakers have reached an all-time high over ever-increasing student fees.
But the bill’s lack of financial planning is only half of its downfall. The push to boost California’s lagging number of college-bound high school seniors does so by discouraging competition. If students are guaranteed admission into the University of California and California State University by merely meeting minimum “”a-g”” subject area requirements, like four years of English literature, for example, there is less incentive for students to push themselves academically. Stripped of the worry to impress applicant judges with Advanced Placement classes and high SAT scores, students would to some extent be encouraged to perform only at a satisfactory level.
Scott’s Early College Commitment Act would undermine the current California Master Plan for Higher Education set up by Clark Kerr. Created in 1960, the system guarantees admission onto one UC campus for the top 12.5 percent of graduating high school students and admission into one CSU campus for the top third. In addition, all high school graduates are eligible for community college.
The proposed plan, however, would force the University of California and California State University to accept all high school graduates meeting minimum requirements instead of only the more qualified, expanding their annual admit numbers to figures beyond their current capacity.
So while Scott’s noble goal may succeed in motivating more students to attend college, we have to wonder if we’re really ready for all these added students.
Rather than lobbying for bigger applicant pools, government officials should focus attention on supporting already-admitted students. Or, if they must promote their “”Save Me a Spot”” program, they ought to have a better plan for financing their revolutionary and pricey endeavor.
