McLaughlin is a first-year transfer student majoring in
English.
By Kate McLaughlin
Observers of America’s current educational abyss blame
much of the nation’s academic decline on the lowering of
standards in the classroom. But for the critics of UCLA’s
two-tiered admissions system, the standards are not yet quite low
enough.
The powers said that they want to replace traditional admissions
standards with kinder, gentler criteria. This, they say, will
broaden access to the school.
I say the issue isn’t access ““ the issue is
preparation.
Under the current admissions system, 25 to 50 percent of
incoming freshmen are selected based on special talents or the
overcoming of personal hardships. The rest have to get in the
traditional way, with exceptional grades, high SAT scores and other
outstanding personal achievements.
Abolishing the current admissions system in favor of a fuzzy,
amorphous “comprehensive review,” simply because some
students can’t earn adequate GPAs or score high enough on the
SAT test, would be a huge mistake. It would harm not just the
school, but the very students it purports to help. Eliminating the
SAT, a tool that helps to evaluate a student’s preparedness
and serves to maintain high academic standards, would give rise to
some very serious problems, beyond sacrificing the integrity of a
UCLA degree.
First, and most obviously, rather than truly helping
under-prepared students, the proposed changes will simply mask the
ugly dysfunction at the heart of the K-12 system. It’s a
simple cover-up, really: can’t get the students to meet basic
standards? Let’s just lower the standards.
Granted, less demanding entrance requirements may increase the
number of disadvantaged students attending UCLA, but the real
problem ““ the woeful state of public education ““ will
continue to go unaddressed.
Education on the front end, not the back end, is what
desperately needs our attention. But the issue is, as usual, being
swept under the rug. (It’s what the educational establishment
does best, after all). Meanwhile, because accepting under-prepared
students not only sets them up for failure but also ignores the
root problem; our campus is guaranteed a near-endless stream of
disadvantaged students in the future.
Worse than helping to perpetuate the mediocrity of our
educational system, the proposed changes will encourage individual
mediocrity as well. Let’s be honest: making UCLA entrance
standards more arbitrary will not exactly spur high school students
to try harder and study more. If the university doesn’t
prioritize academic excellence, why should the students? Why work
hard for a good GPA or high SAT scores if they are to be judged by
other less objective, less quantifiable criteria? Fuzzy admissions
standards will be a disincentive to achievement.
And fuzzy is not always fair. Nebulous admissions criteria will
lead to abuse. Changes meant to benefit underrepresented students
could easily be used to the advantage of the privileged and
well-connected. The “old-boy” network is already quite
good at sneaking in unqualified students under the radar. Turn off
the radar, and the number of pampered slackers will only
increase.
If you get the impression, by now, that I’m firmly in
favor of the admissions office maintaining it’s current
policy, you probably did well in the reading comprehension section
of the SAT ““ not that we would actually judge anyone by that.
This is not to say that I’m averse to a simple, Solomonic
compromise.
Why not just tweak the current system by balancing the numbers?
Instead of 50 to 75 percent of incoming freshmen accepted solely on
academic merit, let’s go halfsies: Let’s split the
application pool right down the middle, fifty-fifty. What could be
fairer or more sensible than that?
And for those students who don’t make the cut, often for
no other reason than having been born and educated in the wrong zip
code, let me propose a simple solution, a convenient, affordable,
powerfully effective alternative offered by the state of
California. Yes, the same government entity that has failed so
sadly to assure a quality education for all of its children has, to
its credit, provided a last chance for those who have somehow
survived K-12. The solution is called Community College, and it
works. I know, because that’s how I got here.
When I was growing up back East, my family and I subsisted on
food stamps.
To pay the two big mortgages on our one little house we cleaned
office buildings. Every morning before school and every night after
school my brothers and I scrubbed dozens of toilets, vacuumed acres
of office space and dumped thousands of wastepaper baskets. I
didn’t get much studying done.
To get an education, I had to travel more than 3,000 miles to
California, where I spent three years at a community college,
eventually earning, albeit the hard way, my admission to UCLA. El
Camino College prepared me for university-level work.
Community colleges are a vital resource, one of the last real
routes to the American dream of equal educational access. UC
admission is virtually guaranteed as a reward for hard work and
dedication at the community college. For those unprepared by high
school, community colleges offer inexpensive tuition, smaller
classes, individualized attention and limitless opportunity.
So take it from me, an underrepresented, disadvantaged,
life-challenged, non-traditional transfer student who happens to be
a woman: forget comprehensive review. Keep the existing two-tiered
admissions system, with adjusted percentages for greater
inclusiveness.
De-emphasizing traditional academic admissions criteria sounds
too much like dumbing down. We just need to smarten up.