It’s College, Not a Big High School : Cal State must tighten admission, but with care

The California Master Plan for Higher Education makes any high school senior graduating in the top third of his or her class eligible for admission to the California State University system. That admirable policy, written when most public schools produced competent graduates, now allows the enrollment of an increasing number of students who require remedial help. This influx of poorly prepared students has prompted an intense--and appropriate--debate about admissions standards.

The debate has been inflamed by the University of California regents’ divisive arguments over affirmative action; a vote on a clear rollback of the state’s commitment to diversity is scheduled for Thursday. However, there’s a world of difference between UC’s affirmative action, in which administrators draw from a large and diverse pool of academically qualified students, and remedial admissions, in which students who are unable to do college-level work are admitted to state universities anyway.

Cal State trustees should focus on how best to educate the state’s students. No Cal State campus should become an extension of high school, or worse, of middle school. Clearly, the high schools must do a better job. Districts must adopt tougher requirements for graduation, provide better counseling and reduce grade inflation.

That’s not to say that Cal State campuses should eliminate all remedial courses. Certain courses can provide the perfect boost for a student who needs only a little help to succeed. But no Cal State campus should waste limited resources on a substantial menu of remedial classes. Students who need a comprehensive review of the basics should take those classes at adult school, during summer school or at community colleges.

No Cal State campus should become increasingly white at a time when the state’s K-12 enrollment is becoming increasingly Latino, Asian and African American. The trustees can encourage integration by encouraging improvements throughout the public school system.

There’s legitimate concern that making a radical change in admissions policy would shut the doors to disadvantaged students, many of them from minorities. That’s why a phase-in over several years is important. Announcing a phase-in of new requirements, as proposed, would provide a wake-up call for public schools. An incremental approach would also allow high school students more time to master the basics by whatever means are necessary prior to graduation.

If California’s public universities are to retain their reputation for excellence, Cal State trustees must determine how keep a college a college without reducing access or the state’s stellar commitment to public higher education.