UC’s Grade-Point Games

More students want to get into University of California schools than the system can possibly accommodate, which is why the Board of Regents recently opted to raise the minimum grade-point average for admission starting in 2007. It was the wrong move; the board could have accomplished its goals, far more fairly, by striking a blow at its own system of grade inflation -- the extra point it bestows for Advanced Placement courses.

UC seeks to shrink the pool of applicants to keep with the state master plan, which calls for the system to admit the state’s top 12.5% of academic achievers (until the new standards kick in, 14.4% of students are eligible). But by raising the minimum GPA, the regents only make it tougher for disadvantaged students, while retaining a system that amounts to affirmative action for the middle class.

Twenty years ago, concerned that students were polishing their GPAs with the easiest courses they could find, UC started giving an extra grade point for each AP and approved honors course. Under this system, an A in an AP class would translate as a 5.0 on the transcript, instead of the usual 4.0. A B would earn a 4.0, and so forth.

Fifteen years later, though, a study by a UC faculty admissions committee found that the full extra point wasn’t warranted scholastically. The study found that a student who got a 4.0 by taking regular courses did better at UC than one who attained the same average with weighted courses. The committee recommended reducing the extra credit to a half point -- a better predictor of college success -- or eliminating it. But the suggestion was tabled.

No wonder students now take as many AP courses as they can load onto a transcript. In fact, many top students disdain electives such as dance and art because the most these classes will draw is a 4.0. For systemwide admission, UC limits the number of courses that get the extra credit, but individual campuses can consider as many as they like.

At the other end of the spectrum are disadvantaged students whose schools offer few or no AP courses. In 1999, a second committee set up by the state Education Department also recommended that UC reexamine its AP policy because more than 100,000 rural and inner-city students lacked access to the classes. At the same time, three Inglewood students sued their school district for failing to provide AP classes that would help secure admission to UC.

The committee’s recommendation went nowhere. Instead, the state launched an ambitious challenge grant to put the classes into more schools. It helped, except that with untrained teachers and underprepared students, many classes were “advanced” in label only. In one Los Angeles high school, a student complained that his AP English class read no books, instead focusing on how to write a friendly letter. Only a third of the AP tests taken by the state’s black students earn a grade of 3 or higher -- the level needed to receive credit at most colleges. The overall “pass” rate is nearly twice that.

Now California’s big AP expansion effort is waning. What was supposed to be a four-year program ended after three years amid the state’s fiscal crisis, and budget cuts have forced Oakland, Richmond and other districts that serve largely poor and minority students to cut back on AP offerings. According to the state Education Department, there were more comprehensive high schools last year with no AP classes -- 188 -- than five years earlier.

In producing AP courses and developing the associated tests, the nonprofit College Board set an important standard. Students should receive recognition for including some of this challenging coursework in their studies. But AP’s role in high-level college admissions has gotten out of whack. Classes are proliferating nationwide despite the lack of trained teachers or controls over the courses’ quality. A few prep schools have done away with AP courses, criticizing them as lacking depth and focusing too much on rote learning and fill-in-the-bubble tests. Some elite universities such as Harvard and MIT have made it tougher to earn college credit with the courses.

The University of California regents, whose policies have a strong influence on education nationwide, have an opportunity to restore balance to a college-acceptance game gone awry, as well as bring more fairness to their own admissions criteria. Within the last five years, they have shunned the recommendations of two well-versed committees on the topic. With anxiety about access to higher education at an all-time high, they should reconsider.