The UC Board of Regents defended its recent overhaul of systemwide freshman admissions standards before a state legislative panel on Tuesday. The hearing was scheduled in response to vocal outcry from critics of the changes.
Facing scrutiny from interest groups and legislators who assert that the university should have sought greater public input before approving the new eligibility guidelines, representatives from the UC Academic Senate ‘mdash; who conducted the research behind the changes ‘mdash; insisted that underprivileged students now have a better opportunity to attend a UC campus.
The regents approved the changes at their February meeting in San Francisco. Beginning fall 2012, applicants will not be required to take the SAT subject tests, which university officials found prevented students with fewer resources from applying. The new policy will also create an ‘entitled to review’ option that allows applicants who have completed only a portion of required courses by their junior year in high school to submit an application for consideration.
The panel also addressed concerns over the changes in admission demographics that could be brought on by the new standards, an issue that first arose after a number of Asian-American organizations expressed concern over the university’s projection that the modified admissions standards could result in up to 7 percent fewer Asian admits due to the elimination of the SAT subject tests. Research has shown that Asian Americans tend to perform well on these exams. The same estimates found that admission of white applicants could rise by as much as 10 percent under the new policy, while that of black and Chicano applicants would barely increase.’
Retired UC Berkeley admissions officer Patrick Hayashi said the university should suspend the policy and begin consultations with members of the public before proceeding with the changes.
‘The UC has an obligation to consult widely when it makes a major change in admissions eligibility policies,’ Hayashi said.
However, UC Academic Senate chair Mary Croughan, who also attended Tuesday’s hearing, said the policy had been under development for two years and that lawmakers and members of the public were kept well informed during the process.
Hayashi also griped that the new policy shrouds the admissions process in uncertainty by declarifying admissions requirements.
‘If you do the minimum required, you don’t know what will happen,’ he said. ‘Thousands of people will be denied and they won’t know why. The move from clarity and transparency to uncertainty and ambiguity is bad public policy.’
A leaflet distributed at the hearing emphasized that the main objective of the new policy is to ‘invite and consider applications from the broadest possible group of qualified students, thereby improving the overall fairness and educational soundness of UC’s freshman admission outcomes.’
Steve Boilard, director of higher education for the Legislative Analyst’s Office, said the university overstepped its authority by implementing the new admissions requirements.
‘We are concerned that the new policy increases uncertainty for students, that it departs from the Master Plan, that it could create cost pressures for enrollment growth and that there is no clear, consistent rationale for the changes,’ he said.
Readers can contact Vanessa Do at [email protected].