Level the Playing Field for Applicants

The University of California regents are scheduled this week to reconsider SP-1, a ban they imposed on affirmative action in 1995. Supporters of repeal note that rescinding the measure would probably be meaningless in light of Proposition 209, the statewide initiative passed in 1996. Nevertheless, they want a symbolic victory.

True, some would find that symbolism emotionally gratifying, but in terms of UC admissions results, it would produce little gain. Instead of engaging in a Talmudic debate as to whether to take an action having moot legal value, the regents should focus on a related policy change that would have demonstrably concrete value: Abolishing the current UC policy of adding an extra grade point to advanced placement (AP) high school courses.

Because of this grade-padding policy, admission to the most selective UC campuses, Berkeley and UCLA, now virtually requires that students have access to a broad AP curriculum. The mean grade-point average among those admitted to UC Berkeley and UCLA is now above the nominal maximum of 4.0 because of the extra point given for AP.

You don’t have to be a rocket statistician to see that the current practice is egregiously biased against students from less-wealthy school districts that do not offer many AP courses. The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, an independent think tank in Claremont, found that 15% of California high schools do not offer any AP courses at all and an additional 5% offer only one such course. That translates to 143,000 California high school students having access to at most one AP course.

The adverse impact on diversity of the student populations at UC campuses is obvious. In large districts, 62% of schools that offer no AP courses are predominantly Latino or black. By contrast, top schools with predominantly white and Asian enrollments offer an average of nine AP courses.

Thus a change in policy regarding AP grades would have far more impact on the regents’ stated goal of achieving a diverse student body than would a symbolic reversal of SP-1.

The regents have been reluctant to address this glaring inequity. They say they are concerned that dropping the policy would give high school students less incentive to take AP courses. Yet the original purpose of AP courses was to provide an alternative for students who were seeking more intellectual challenge. In other words, they didn’t need to be bribed into taking these courses. These days, such a notion seems quaint. Even Lee Cheng, a prominent activist against affirmative action, admits that AP has largely degenerated into one more means of gaming the system.

Even when viewed in less cynical terms, it is not clear that AP serves its students well. An AP course in a given subject will typically be of lesser quality than its university counterpart. Moreover, William Lichten of Yale University has found that advanced placement has not done a good job of producing graduates who are well-prepared for university work. He argues that expanding the AP program will actually exacerbate that disconnect.

Current UC policy is not only inequitable but also amounts to a subsidy for a program of questionable value. If the regents want to devote their efforts to making symbolic gestures, so be it. But if they sincerely want to have student diversity, canceling (or at least reducing) the AP bonus would be a good place to start.