Posted on 02/05/2009 7:49:34 PM PST by freespirited
A lot more young people will have a shot at getting into the University of California under new eligibility rules, approved by the UC Board of Regents today, that represent the most sweeping changes in admission standards in almost 50 years.
"The bottom line is that it will be more diverse and more fair," said UC President Mark Yudof.
The board approved these changes today:
-- SAT subject tests will no longer be necessary.
-- The pool of applicants who will be considered will widen, but the number guaranteed entry into one of the university's nine undergraduate campuses will shrink.
-- The top 9 percent of high school graduates statewide will be ensured entry, compared with 12.5 percent previously, as well as those in the top 9 percent of their graduating class - up from 4 percent in the past.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Right you are Comrade Yudof! It's always fairer when less qualified applicants are accepted over more qualified ones.
/sarc
Bookmark
The UC system must keep statistics on the fail rate of lesser qualified entrants. I suspect it correlates well.
My son started this year at UCSD in engineering and was shocked at how many really smart people there were there.
He was pretty much accustomed to being a big fish at his high school. After the initial shock, he decided he likes being around smart people.
He’s having a great time and doing really well.
Code for 'the primary standard will now be color of skin'
I wonder how many folks may decide to High School shop the decision semester for entry into one of the UC schools. If the bar is now 9% per each High School(based on what?), then what sets the 9% (ACT/SAT scores - how is the GPA of a transfer handled etc?).
Getting into one of the UC Engineering schools has such a big dollar pay off down the line that it might be worth it. They have an excellent national reputation and a low tuition given their reputation (compare them to Penn State for example).
I see one consequence of the decision - it might promote integration in ways only dreamed of by the social planners.
The question becomes is a pure meritocracy politically sustainable in subsidized education? Those folks at UC are paying $6K/yr for something that could easily be valued at $20K-$30K/yr at other places.
Obviously the effect of extending the 9% rule to each school district instead of state wide is to increase access of less qualified students statewide. I can imagine school districts in which you won’t even get 9% of the students to apply (those may be great places to shop your decision semester).
The real question is.....how many of these are illegal and paying less for a UC education than Americans from outside California?
During the time I was at UCSD, the bottom 5% was "reserved" for the affirmative action admissions. Statistically, 85% of those students dropped out before graduation. It was a waste of taxpayer money. It was a waste of the time and money of the under qualified students. It was an injustice to the 5% of qualified students who were excluded to make room for the unqualified applicants.
Fairness = letting in the “oppressed minorities” who didn’t score well enough to get in on their own. Asians and Whites do well, and still cannot get accepted because of the Diversity folks say that achievement and sacrifice are subordinate to skin pigment and Communist Social Engineering.
Look at all industries affected by AA, they all suffer due to the advancement of those unqualified and untested (un-fireable).
I wonder when whites are minority if they will be afforded preferential treatment into colleges in 20 years? Highly doubtful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.