A proposed alteration to the UC admissions process, via a
policy that would provide admissions consideration to applicants who have not
met all required “a-g” courses, among other changes, is simply another naive
attempt by the university to boost the admission rates of underrepresented
applicants.

In actuality, the changes outlined by the UC Board of
Admissions and Relations with Schools will do little to improve access to the
nation’s premier public university system.

The policy, known as “entitled to review,” would scrap the
university’s Eligibility Index, which is aimed at the state’s top 12.5 percent
of high school graduates. Using a combination of factors such as GPA and
standardized test scores, the index currently sets a minimum threshold for
those students’ admission eligibility.

It also eliminates SAT II Subject Tests, which B.O.A.R.S.
members say contribute “very little to [the university’s] ability to predict
which applicants will perform well initially” at a UC campus.

However, the new policy’s most troubling aspect is its plan
to coddle certain applicants who do not complete all required “a-g” classes,
but who demonstrate “substantially equivalent academic preparation.” These
applicants would be granted a campus-based comprehensive review through which
they could be offered admission.

B.O.A.R.S. claims that the current admissions guidelines
favor “affluent” high schools made up of “large proportions of white and Asian
students,” and that the new policy will better reflect the state’s other high
schools.

But skirting the “a-g” requirements does nothing to address
the social factors contributing to low application rates among minority
students. The university also fails to clarify what “equivalent academic
preparation” means, leaving admissions officials armed with a vague policy that
could easily be subject to abuse.

The minimum requirements were put in place to ensure applicants
can succeed at the university level, and most admitted students complete well
beyond the 30 semesters currently required for admission, in addition to
numerous community and personal achievements.

Upon enrolling, students missing a year or more of English,
math or laboratory science would inevitably find themselves disadvantaged when
compared to other students who have completed those classes, whether they were
student body president or not.

If enacted, the policy will also undoubtedly lead to an
increase in the number of applications to each UC campus, thus increasing
competition among all students regardless of their level of academic
preparation.

According to B.O.A.R.S., students accepted under the new
policy will be offered admission on a “by-exception basis entirely consistent
with the existing Admission by Exception policy.”

If this is the case, then high-achieving students missing
one or two required courses already have an available option. So changing the
entire admissions policy is, in effect, pointless.

Although some ideas detailed in the proposal, such as the
elimination of the SAT II Subject Tests, are worth exploring further,
encouraging students who do not meet minimum requirements to apply is
ultimately a disservice to qualified students who do.