Tuesday
December 2, 2008
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Aug. 14
The Right to Control Standards
If you look at the admissions requirements of most colleges, you’ll find listings of high school courses: specified numbers of years of mathematics, science, English and so forth. Frequently, there are references to the courses being college preparatory, not just any course in the subject area. And that begs a question: Who gets to decide what is college preparatory?
Related stories
- Need Blind, but ‘Gapping’, Nov. 26
- ‘Deadliest Catch’ as Inspiration, Nov. 25
- Looking to the Past to Ban Legacy Admissions, Nov. 20
- The Bubble That Didn’t Burst, Nov. 18
- The Illusion of Race-Blind Admissions, Nov. 18
A federal judge’s ruling has upheld the right of the University of California to make its own evaluations of high school courses, provided that the university demonstrated a “rational basis” for its decisions, and that the decisions were not based on animus toward any group or faith. And Judge S. James Otero found that the university’s decisions to reject certain high school courses at some Christian schools met that test.
Christian groups are appealing the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, so the dispute is far from over. The groups suing say that the case is about religious freedom, but university officials say it is about academic standards. Outside California, admissions officials have been watching carefully because colleges must often evaluate the quality of high school courses — at religious or secular schools — and many feared that their ability to do so would be jeopardized if the university lost the case
“This is about quality and comparability and making sure students aren’t set up for failure,” said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, who praised the judge’s ruling.
The University of California — as a large and competitive system — has specific criteria on which courses students must take in high school and how courses are evaluated to determine whether they are acceptable. The lawsuit against the university first came from Calvary Chapel Christian School and some of its students — and was joined by the Association of Christian Schools International, whose member schools across the United States enroll more than 600,000 students. The association supports education based on its statement of faith, which affirms biblical inerrancy.
The judge’s decision goes through the various rejected courses and finds that the university’s rationale meets the “rational basis” test, and rejects arguments that there was evidence of religious bias. For example, one of the courses was an English course called “Christianity and Morality in American Literature.” The university noted that the text used “insists on specific interpretations” of various literary works, rather than allowing students to engage in critical thinking about them.
In addition, the university noted that it considers it necessary for high school students to read complete works of literature, while this course relied on “an anthology of excerpts.” In a history course the university rejected, the text instructed students that “divine providence” is the source of all of history and that historical figures needed to be evaluated based on their “religious motivations,” in contrast to university expectations of the range of analyses high school students should learn. A science course was rejected for using textbooks that characterized religious doctrine as science and for failing to teach the scientific method.
Jennifer Monk, a lawyer for the Christian schools, said that the judge had ignored the religious bias of the university, and that academic standards were not the issue. “The university determined that because it was a religious perspective, it cannot be allowed,” she said.
Asked whether the university should be allowed to reject a high school course that taught that the earth is flat, Monk said “I don’t know,” but then said that it would be “constitutionally OK” for the university to do so, provided that the flat earth was not a religious belief.
Tom Cathey, vice president of the Association of Christian Schools International, said that most public colleges have not challenged the courses taught by his member schools — and he said that was good because increasing numbers of their graduates are going to public higher education, not colleges based on their faith. The primary reason, he said, is cost. Not only are tuition rates lower, but many of the students graduate with grades and test scores such that they qualify for full scholarships, while many Christian colleges can’t offer them a full ride.
“Our kids are coming out of our Christian schools well prepared for any college,” he said.
As to such issues as evolution or other matters of science and the Bible, Cathey said that secular colleges have nothing to worry about. Cathey said that the norm is to teach creationism as correct, but also to teach students about the theory of evolution, even while explaining that the theory is wrong. Still, Cathey maintained, graduates of Christian schools have the ability to succeed in science at secular universities.
David Hawkins, director of public policy and research for the National Association for College Admission Counseling, said that admissions officers encounter disputes over the quality of high school courses on many issues having nothing to do with religion. Disputes like the one in California are rare, he said, but colleges are regularly challenged on their determinations over whether certain high school courses meet minimal standards or should be classified as honors courses.
“What one school calls honors or advanced might be radically different from what another school calls the same thing. So admissions officers need to be able to exercise latitude,” Hawkins said.
Hawkins stressed that this latitude is not admissions officers deciding themselves what they think of a given course. Rather, he said, faculty committees at colleges set standards, and define for admissions officers the skills and knowledge applicants need to have picked up in high school. Admissions standards for high school courses aren’t about keeping students out, but about educational purposes, he said.
Admissions standards for high school courses “are a manifestation of an institution’s mission and send a message to students” about the college, he said. In addition, they tell students “what they need to actually succeed.”
Nassirian said that good standards — even if they upset some would-be applicants — help them at the same time. “This is about about making sure the student isn’t set up for failure,” he said.
Hawkins said that the University of California and other large institutions tend to have “elaborately spelled out” standards, while smaller colleges may be more general and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
Seth Allen, dean of admission and financial aid at Grinnell College, said that admissions decisions are so holistic that “one factor typically does not drive a decision,” and that “even if we think a student has not quite met a recommended program of study, that student may still be admissible.” In terms of meeting course requirements, he said that “unless we have a reason to analyze an individual course ... we would simply take the course at face value.”
If there is some indication that a course doesn’t fulfill the kind of requirements Grinnell has, Allen said, “we would be concerned about the student’s ability to be successful at Grinnell more than not meeting the recommended program of study.” So if “other indicators demonstrated strong mastery and an ability to be successful in an academically rigorous environment, there would be little impact on admissibility.” Especially in cases where only one kind of biology or history course is offered, he said, “the overriding factor would be making a judgment about whether the student could successfully overcome the knowledge gap, and not discounting the student because of what the school made available.”
Religion obviously is a complicating factor at public institutions. “The public university is a curious animal,” Nassirian said. “It has an obligation to prepare students and to academic integrity,” but it also is in some respects “a political institution, supported by all of the taxpayers of the state.” As such, he said, it’s key — especially if more students at Christian high schools apply to public institutions — to convey any objections to their courses in ways that show “no disrespect for their religious beliefs.”
Hawkins agreed, and said that the job for universities was to affirm the right of religious high schools to make their educational and spiritual choices, while not backing down on public higher education’s rights either. “The right to self-expression and freedom of religion extends to the point where a high school can operate in whatever fashion it deems necessary to achieve its mission, but there is no guarantee that that right or privilege extends to infringe on the autonomy of another institution, in this case the University of California.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
Academic integrity vs. religious freedom
I think Dennis is missing the boat here. This is not about a “eliminating a whole class of students” — I don’t see anything in this article about that. What I do see is an institution attempting to maintain its academic integrity. A science course that doesn’t teach the scientific method? A literature course where students don’t read entire works? A history course that teaches just one perspective? This has nothing at all to do with religious bias and everything to do with the quality of the courses being taught.
RNM, at 11:25 am EDT on August 14, 2008
Critical Thinking
A great summary of an interesting case. One key difference between a university and a seminary, recognized by no less a theologian than Cardinal Newman, is that a seminary exists to educate for the church and a university exists to educate for the world.
The principal difference between these two functions is the presence and use of critical thinking within the institution. The University of California is within its rights to expect and require critical thinking in all aspects of its program. A university education is based on rationality.
However, the case is really about whether the UC is required to *admit* people who do not think critically, not about performance *at* UC. This is not an argument about standards, it is an argument about predicting performance and retention.
The UC would have a stronger position if it admitted these students (if otherwise qualified) and, if they failed to exercise critical thinking in UC classes, flunking them. Presumably the UC does not want to do this because it would waste scarce classroom slots on students unlikely to be able to perform. However, unlikely and impossible are not the same thing.
We then arive at the meaning of “otherwise qualified.” I use it to mean qualified based on standard tests such as the SAT, ACT or whatever Calfornia uses, and able to demonstrate good writing skills. I see no reason to screen out such students merely because they are irrationalists.
For these reasons I, a notorious atheist, respectfully disagree with my colleagues who support the UC position.
Alan Contreras, Eugene, Oregon, at 11:25 am EDT on August 14, 2008
Anti-rationalist students at universities?
According to a comment posted at The Chronicle of Higher Education’s article on this case, the Biology text in question (Biology Student Text (3rd ed.- 2 vol.) by Thomas E. Porch and Brad R. Batdorf) says in the introduction “If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.” Why on earth would a student who accepts such an anti-rationalist stance want to attend a university that places high value on rationality?Why would a rationality-based university accept a perverse student, when so many rational students are applying? (Not to deny that some, maybe many, students with perverse backgrounds could learn the joys and values of reason, but should schools spend their time and money taking that chance?)
bob, at 11:25 am EDT on August 14, 2008
Right to control standards
The university should welcome the students who have been previously indoctrinated in a Christian education setting. These students can now be exposed to the broad based teaching for which the public university is known. Isn’t higher education more about exposing students to ideas than dictating the conclusions they will draw after weighing the issues?
Glenn, at 11:45 am EDT on August 14, 2008
First, we’re talking first year undergrad, not 8th year of a brain surgery specialty. Secondly, if Christians are handicapped by their ignorance, don’t universities have a special obligation to accomodate them. If people want to see the color of their spots substitute the words Jewish, African American, or Asian in their learned analysis and let me know how it feels. But liberal people are never intolerant, just rational.
Dennis Ruhl, at 11:55 am EDT on August 14, 2008
call the subject what it is
I’m sorry, but when was Americans’ right to freedom of religion expanded to include acceptance to any college they wanted to attend?
If schools like these want to teach this material as religion or mythology that’s fine, but if they’re going to teach it as science, history or literature, then that’s how they’ll be judged. If you teach a student about Ozzy Osbourne and call it 19th century Italian opera, it doesn’t mean that they’ve learned 19th century Italian opera.
DS, at 12:15 pm EDT on August 14, 2008
“The right to self-expression and freedom of religion extends to the point where a high school can operate in whatever fashion it deems necessary to achieve its mission, but there is no guarantee that that right or privilege extends to infringe on the autonomy of another institution, in this case the University of California.”
This smacks of FAIR v. Rumsfeld where Yale Law School said ITS speech was being infringed because the Solomon Amendment meant banning military recruiters would result in a cut off government funding. In an earlier case involving military recruiters at high schools, the court had ruled that high school students were able to distinguish that the the military’s message, “join the army", was not the message of the high school. But Yale Law somehow felt its students were incapable of making such a distinction. Surely the admission of students from Christian schools doesn’t mean that the university is being forced to subscribe to the beliefs of those students. The mission of the university is in no way compromised.
As for, “making sure students aren’t set up for failure”, is there any evidence that this is true? Are students from Christian schools with questionable coursework failing at a greater rate than the general student population? I think Grinnell demonstrates the proper approach on this question.
justaguy, taxpayer and parent, at 1:00 pm EDT on August 14, 2008
Christians as “Anti-Rationalist”
The characterization of Christian schools as “anti-rationalist” has no basis in fact. I am a seminary professor and a program director in a Christian university. My children have attended an ACSI school and have received a stellar education there. They read the best literature—and read it in its entirety. Their peers have been accepted and have excelled at the best universities in the nation: public, private, and ivy league schools. They have been taught scientific method and understand the theory of evolution very clearly. It has not been taught to them as dogma, however, It has been taught as the present state of scientific opinion. I have watched my children dialogue around the dinner table with children educated in the public schools. My kids can speak eloquently about Plato and Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky—they leave the public school kids with blank stares. I would put the education my children have received up against any public school in the nation, even in science and critical thinking. One commentor said the difference between seminary and a public university is that a public school encourages critical thinking, while a seminary does not. This is nonsense. There are certainly some theology schools that teach the dogma of a particular denomination or group, but many seminaries—especially the interdenominational schools—teach and respect a wide range of ideas. Shall we write off Princeton and Fuller Seminaries and Yale and Duke Divinity Schools as bastions of unthinking dogma? Not in my view. It is entertaining to hear both that Christian schools teach dogmatic positions in their treatment of history as one criticism, and that they don’t teach dogmatic positions in evolution as another criticism—all in one response. The best Chrisitan schools are not anti-rationalist, but they do recognize that different kinds of truth exist and that truth may be discerned through lenses other than those found in the science lab.
John Bangs, at 1:25 pm EDT on August 14, 2008
Just for clarification, the school that sued the UC has had 32 students apply for admission, of whom 24 were accepted, or 75%. Which is a pretty solid percentage. What would be more interesting, and more germane to the discussion, would be how those 24 students have done in classes that directly contradict their religious beliefs (biology, American history).
Melissa.bruninga@gmail.com, UCI, at 1:35 pm EDT on August 14, 2008
Issue of academic freedom
I strongly agree with DS. The fact that admission standards, even in public schools, can be an issue of the faculty’s academic freedom is important to consider. Faculty should be free to articulate the skills, knowledge, and experiences that students need to have already mastered upon enrollment and can expect to master by graduation. This can be called an expression of liberal bias or a measure of conservative accountability, but without the freedom to articulate exact admission standards faculty cannot be said to exercise academic freedom in their teaching or research.
Besides, asking a college to admit a student to because the names of their courses are attractive would be like asking an editor to publish an article based upon its headline –alone-. This would be a meaningless standard to enforce, and in the case of higher education it would likely be in violation of the US constitution.
Elias, at 2:30 pm EDT on August 14, 2008
Economies of scale
Personally, echoing a previous poster, I tend to prefer Grinnell’s very personalized approach as well.
However, those criticizing Cal’s blunt approach are missing one crucial point: Cal has 35,000 students, 25,000 of those at the undergraduate level — with approximately 20,000 applicants per year based on extrapolating the data on their website. Grinnell has 1,500 students and a much smaller number of applicants.
The task lends itself to a more personalized approach on a smaller scale. For a variety of reasons, Cal has very few options BUT to take the approach of setting more hard and fast rules. While we can nitpick any one standard they choose to use, the reality is that they are going to set some sort of standard low-bar (on or off-target) to eliminate as many students from contention as quickly as possible, to narrow in on a smaller pool of ’semi-finalists’ as it were.
Will that weed out people who are potentially capable of succeeding at Berkeley? Of course. There is no foolproof way to avoid that because admissions is at its heart a guessing game (albeit most people in the field have some history/data to support their hunches on a statistical model).
The author seems to have contrasted Grinnell and Cal for just this reason — to point out how varied the field of admissions is, in part based on scale (and public/private, etc.). Most of the respondents seem to be failing to take that diversity into account.
On the bright side, it means that students who are turned away at Cal can still look to other sources for their education.
I sympathize with Alan C as usual, but in this case I do disagree with him. Cal had to set a standard somewhere to winnow people out. If it feels objectively this winnows out ‘less prepared’ students than other standards it could have set, well, they had to winnow somewhere.
Do I hate working at a large university for entirely this reason? Yes, I find it dehumanizing in a way. But I don’t see an alternative way for an institution of that size to function alternatively without tripling its admission staff and pushing up its administrative cost (and even then it would be a logistical nightmare).
It’s a less than ideal solution to a less than ideal task.
lcl, at 2:30 pm EDT on August 14, 2008
Well, the first thing I would point out in this case is that it does not involve academic freedom. UC is not telling Calvary Chapel how and what it can teach. It is simply exercising its institutional autonomy to determine what courses it will and will not accept. This is the legitimate right of any institution of higher learning.
Now, I’m no legal expert, but the case here seems pretty simple to me. If the UC is not accepting certain courses from Calvary Chapel because of their theological perspective, then UC is guilty of religious discrimination & intolerance. However, if UC has legitimately determined that the affected courses lack appropriate rigor in preparing students for college level work, then they have done nothing wrong—they have exercised their institutional autonomy; likely in the best interest of the students I would add.
As Christian conservative with 28 years experience in private and public education, as well as teaching at the college level, I can honestly say, there are some really good Christian high schools out there. Sadly, there are some really bad ones as well. Distinguishing the good from the bad is not easy. Based on the quality of work I see from undergraduate college students who come from both public and private backgrounds, I can understand UC’s caution.
In closing, I would say that UC needs to be sure that decisions about the courses they accept or reject are not tainted by secular bias. At the same time, Christian educators need to be knowledgeable of the standards of secular institutions of higher learning so that they can be sure that their programs and courses are appropriately rigorous. It seems to me that if more and more of Christian high school students are opting for public colleges and universities, then the onus is on Christian educators to ensure their courses make muster.
Robin West, Dr. at Trinity College of the Bible & Theological Seminary, at 6:45 pm EDT on August 14, 2008
The UC is not rejecting people; it is rejecting courses. In doing so, it is applying the standards to secular schools’ courses that applies to its own courses. The faculty of any institution have a right to construct curricula and define course learning outcomes. Teaching to produce these outcomes is an assigned responsibility to the faculty member who accepts pay to teach these courses. “Academic freedom” does not mean one is free to discard that responsibility.
Any institution that expects accreditation will draft learning outcomes for each course. Faculty who teach courses that come after lower level courses have a right to expect that the particular learning objectives have been met and that incoming students are ready to move to the next level.
What this law suit would do is to destroy the integrity of an institution to control its degrees and its faculty to control the curricula and manage it through a plan designed to produce learning. The suit becomes a way for secular schools to reach into, disrupt, and interfere in the curricular programs of other (public) schools.
Prof Ed, at 9:25 pm EDT on August 15, 2008
Keep standards within university control
Although I attended a private high school and am now working toward my master’s in a public university, I believe that if the state or federal governments determine standards for colleges, our quality of education will decrease at university levels.
I instruct at the college level and utilize teaching practices that include various learning styles, teaching in context, student/teacher conferencing, and student tutoring.
Overall, high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools do not teach according to what educational research encourages for optimal student success. This is often because state budgets or private budgets do not allow for proper class size, and diversified teaching. For example, most schools continue to use vocabulary books and the ‘test-a-week’ to comply with state standards when research shows (for example, Constance Weaver’s TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT) that most students do not learn new vocabulary as an isolated subject, but, rather, through context. The same goes for grammar, yet teachers waste an enormous amount of time teaching just grammar.
University expectations need to be set by those at the university.
Mary Howe, Purdue, at 5:20 pm EDT on August 18, 2008
Advertisement
Jobs Related to The Right to Control Standards
or search for jobs directly.
Degree Audit/Transfer Articulation Coordinator
American University
American University’s Office of the Registrar is seeking an experienced individual to fill their Degree Audit/Transfer ... see job
Assistant Registrar
Becker College
Becker College in Worcester MA is currently accepting applications for the position of Assistant Registrar. see job
Assistant Vice President of Enrollment Management
College of Staten Island
College of Staten Island City University of New York Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Management The College of Staten ... see job
Admissions Representative
Corinthian Colleges
Everest College, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job
Assistant Director of Admissions
Rosemont College
Rosemont College, a private liberal arts college located in Philadelphia’s beautiful Main Line, is seeking an Assistant ... see job
Assistant Director of Admission
Western Carolina University
The Office of Undergraduate Admission is a service department of the university serving students, the faculty, and the ... see job
Associate Vice President for Student Support & Retention
Angelo State University
Angelo State University is an equal opportunity employer and seeks to build a diverse workforce community. see job
Admissions Representative
Corinthian Colleges
Everest College, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job
Admissions Representative
Corinthian Colleges
Everest College, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job
Registrar
Corinthian Colleges
Everest College, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed
Eliminating a whole class of student because they are taught lessons based on their religious beliefs is not discrimination?? Pardon me! Questioning religious beliefs is part of a liberal education but questioning the sacred cows of liberal education is a sign of ignorance?? Again, pardon me! I would kiss Darwin were he alive today but I can spot an old fashioed lynching when I see one.
Dennis Ruhl, at 10:55 am EDT on August 14, 2008