UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ‘mdash; The University of California Board of Regents voted last week to drastically change the requirements for freshman admission. Under the new system, applicants for the class of 2016 will not need to submit scores from the SAT Subject Tests ‘mdash; and perhaps more significantly, a greater pool of applicants will be considered eligible for admission and will receive a comprehensive review of their applications. Though the regents have touted the possibility of a more racially diverse student body as a proposal selling point, what’s more important (and what’s also provided by these changes) is an increase in socioeconomic diversity.
The University of California is presently the only public university in the nation to require two SAT Subject Tests for admission ‘mdash; a standard that prevents many highly qualified applicants from being eligible, according to UC Academic Senate Chair Mary Croughan. Eliminating the requirement is undoubtedly part of a larger plan to increase racial diversity, as black and Latino applicants are statistically less likely to take the exams. Subject Tests currently function as another way more affluent students get an unintentional leg up, with the added availability of SAT test preparation courses that less-privileged students of all colors lack. Yet extensive university research shows SAT Subject Tests to be a poor indicator of collegiate success, making the test all the more expendable.
There’s also a great disparity between the number of underrepresented minority students (blacks, Latinos and American Indians) who graduate from California public high schools and those who enter the University of California as freshmen. In 2005, the disparity was at a 20-year high of 26.3 percent ‘mdash; minority students accounted for 45.5 percent of graduating high school seniors, but a scant 19.2 percent of incoming UC freshmen. That gap will narrow, given the changes to admission review.
The UC system released statistics that apply the new changes to the admitted freshman class of 2007-08, which illustrate how greatly these standards might have influenced the makeup of the current sophomore class had they been in effect two years ago. Given altered eligibility requirements for full application review (students would complete 11, rather than 15, core high-school courses by the end of their junior year and would have a minimum GPA of 3.0), black students would see a dramatic 117 percent increase in eligibility for full application review and Latino students would see an increase of 86 percent. But it’s not, of course, just minority students who will gain from the changes: Applicants of every ethnicity stand to gain from the expanded definition of eligibility. These increases illustrate perhaps the most significant change to current policy ‘mdash; having your application reviewed is a fundamental first step to admission,
and one that far more freshman hopefuls can now expect to take.
Had the sophomore class been subjected to these dramatically different standards, the percentage of black and Latino admits would have increased incrementally (by 1 and 3 percent at most, respectively). But what’s most impressive is the fact that the percentage of admits from disadvantaged schools (as identified by the state’s Academic Performance Index) would have increased up to 7 percent ‘mdash; comprising a much-improved 21 percent of admitted freshmen. Though the importance of a racially diverse student body is certainly not to be denied, in implementing these changes the university is increasing accessibility to low-income, high-achieving students of every race and ethnicity.
Of course, as with most significant policy changes, this one has been met with great resistance from certain interest groups. Vincent Pan, president of Chinese for Affirmative Action, cautions against the admission losses Asian-American students will suffer with the new policies. Granted, UC projections do indeed indicate a decline in the projected number of Asian-American admits, at least based on the makeup of the 2007-08 applicant pool. Statistically, however, there’s no way to increase the representation of blacks and Latinos without the representation of other races taking a slight hit. It’s not as though UC class rosters will imminently be wiped clean of Asian surnames. The regents’ motivations aren’t anti-Asian whatsoever: Theirs is the most reasonable plan to increase socioeconomic diversity and, in turn, racial diversity by increasing the pool of eligible applicants.
The fact remains that education is the foundation of our country. Making it more accessible to the well-qualified but underprivileged can only aid our progress as a state. The fact that the regents approved of these changes in spite of current economic woes certainly speaks to the university’s commitment to change, and its conviction in this very ideal. And really, what wiser investment is there than one in the future?
Readers can contact Trevor Cox at [email protected].