Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Big Admissions Shift

December 1, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

With the arrival of December, you can expect an onslaught of publicity about applications to the most elite private and public colleges in the country, and a new round of articles about how most people have a better chance of being struck by lightning than getting into Harvard. All true. In many ways, those stories won't reflect much change at all. It was incredibly difficult to get into those colleges last year, and the same will be true this year (and next year), even as the odds move up or down a hundredth of a percentage point.

Here's the big story in admissions this year: The nation's largest higher education system (and its most diverse) is shifting from being de facto a non-competitive admissions university to a competitive one. Getting into the California State University System's 23 campuses (which educate 450,000 students) has just become iffy for many -- especially for those attracted to certain campuses and certain majors.

The shifts at Cal State are not the result of a state philosophy about making their campuses more competitive in admissions; rather, they are driven by deep budget cuts in the state, which have led the university's leaders to try to shrink enrollment at a time of rising demand. Consider:

  • As of Monday morning, California State University campuses have 419,000 applications (including some from those who have applied to multiple campuses), up 19 percent from the same date a year ago. People attribute the increases to a rising high school population and years of increasing competitiveness for the University of California campuses, among other factors.
  • Last year, two-thirds of applicants were admitted, and while there is no final projection for this year, that ratio is expected to go down significantly. (Because California State has specific admissions requirements that most applicants meet, almost all applicants are qualified to be admitted.)
  • Last year, only 6 of the system's 23 campuses were "impacted" in admissions -- the Cal State term for having so many applications that they needed to go to competitive measures beyond the basic requirements of grades and test scores designed to show that applicants are in the top third of their high school classes. Already this year, that number has doubled to 12, and it may go up.
  • Last year, only 6 campuses needed to stop accepting applications for admission for the next fall as early as November 30. This year, 14 did so at midnight last night, and more are expected to do so in the days ahead.
  • Most of the campuses going to competitive admissions are having for the first time to formally set aside slots for athletes or those with particular talents in a way that they did informally in the past.

Adding to the concerns over these developments are two other facts: (1) California's high school guidance offices are notoriously understaffed (with ratios hitting 950 students per counselor), so this dramatic shift is taking place in a state where many counselors are hard pressed to reach out to students who could be affected. (2) California banned affirmative action in public college admissions in 1996 -- and while the impact on the University of California system has been much discussed, the impact has been modest until now at Cal State, without competitive admissions. Now Cal State officials are having to focus on legal ways to recruit a diverse class -- within competitive admissions -- without the tool of affirmative action that their counterparts in most states (and at private colleges in California) take for granted.

"Students are very concerned and so counselors are very concerned," said Loretta Whitson, director of student support services at the Monrovia Unified School District and executive director of the California Association of School Counselors. She said she's hearing from many counselors that they are trying to simultaneously figure out the new strategies for getting students into Cal State -- while advising more students to consider private or out-of-state institutions.

Counselors report that it will still be harder -- much harder -- to get into Berkeley or UCLA than to Cal State Los Angeles or San Jose State, but the big difference is that a large portion of the population that previously didn't have to worry much about getting into college now has to worry, and to come up with a Plan B (or C).

Lisa McLaughlin, founder of EDvantage Consulting, a private admissions counseling service in Orange County, said that she used to advise high schoolers wanting to go to Cal State campuses that they didn't need her services. The Cal State application, she noted, is straightforward.

Now, though, these students need a strategy. Many of the California State campuses that are adding admissions requirements have done so by geographic area -- favoring students nearby (who may live at home in many cases) over those farther away. So students need varying academic qualifications to get into different campuses. Many Cal State campuses also have announced that they are "impacted" on majors, meaning that extra admissions standards apply to some fields (here's a list of those at Cal State Long Beach).

So students need to think about the majors they want vs. the campuses they want, and they must do all of this knowing that they may be rejected. "I'm telling more families that students might not get in, and that they need to look at private colleges, too," McLaughlin said. There, the comparisons are also difficult. California State University campuses are much less expensive than private institutions, but with six-year graduation rates low at many campuses (61 percent at San Diego State, for instance), McLaughlin said the price a student envisions paying needs to be based on potential to earn a degree in four years. She said she worries that the average time to graduation may get worse at Cal State campuses due to all the budget cuts.

Many students seem disappointed by the options, she said. "It's sad for students," she said. "First their parents can only afford a Cal State or UC. Then it's so hard to get into UC that they can't. Then the new admissions at Cal State mean they can't get in outside their area. They are saying, 'I want to go away for school and now that's being taken away from me, too.' "

Geography is indeed becoming key to the new, differing admissions standards across Cal State, especially for campuses like Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and San Diego State, which have strong pulls outside their areas. San Francisco State University is another campus that is "impacted" for the first time this year.

Last year, it admitted about three-quarters of all applicants, and admitted the overwhelming majority of those meeting basic admissions requirements. This year, applications are way up -- 21,089 as of Nov. 16, up from 15,392 at the same point a year ago. So the university has set out a two-stage admissions process. For those in the six Bay Area counties, the process will be the same as last year -- those who meet admissions requirements will be admitted. That will happen first. Then however many slots are left will got to applicants from the rest of the state. That means a likely radical increase in competitiveness for those slots, which in years past have been a majority of the freshmen.

Jo Volkert, associate vice president for enrollment management at San Francisco State, said that the enrollment cuts ordered to meet state budget targets have left the university with no other choices.

While the Bay Area is quite diverse, Volkert said that until now, San Francisco State has had more success enrolling black and Latino students from outside the local area than from within it. So she worries about whether the university will still be able to do so when it will have much higher admissions standards for all students from outside the area.

Students from all over are asking admissions counselors " 'What does my G.P.A. need to be? ' " Volkert said, "and we have to tell them, 'We don't know.' "

For Cal State admissions counselors, their jobs have historically focused on outreach and recruitment, not winnowing and rejecting. Volkert said she doesn't like the shift and worries about its impact.

"There can be this perception in the public that we are no longer this open, welcoming institution, when we still are, when we still want these students," she said. While she's frustrated about the potential impact on enrolling out-of-region students, she said that the positive offsetting reality is that it is just as easy for those who are local to get in this year. "I'm trying to tell students they should still apply," she said.

James Blackburn, director of enrollment management for the system, said he was hopeful that the system would maintain its diversity. As of Nov. 18, applications from Asian American, Latino and Native American students were up 40 percent from a year ago, and African American applications were up by 35 percent. Blackburn said that these figures reflected an "apply early" message that university system officials have stressed, and increased outreach to high schools with diverse student populations. But Blackburn said that race and ethnicity could not be considered in admissions decisions, and that he didn't know what the impact would be of having many more Cal State slots filled competitively.

From a logistical standpoint, he said that the flood of applications is creating enormous pressure on admissions offices. Furloughs, also ordered due to budget cuts, mean that every admissions office in the system has taken a reduction in person working hours of about 10 percent. At the same time, all the changes -- from higher standards to varying standards by major or region -- demand more attention. "Historically, our system has had very little mystery about who is admitted and who isn't, but now the word needs to get out about the changes," he said. And for many programs and campuses, the word that needs to get out is that "only pretty outstanding students are going to be admitted."

Given that the vast majority of those about to be rejected could have succeeded at the university -- if it had the dollars and space to educate them -- the increased standards are no cause for celebration, Blackburn said. "Philosophically, most of us who work at the university are devoted to the access we've had throughout our existence," he said. "To turn away so many students who have the potential, to turn away someone who meets the requirements, it's very sad."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Big Admissions Shift

  • How to
  • Posted by Patrick Mattimore , Retired teacher at None on December 1, 2009 at 7:45am EST
  • There's a relatively easy fix for this problem which would work on a variety of different levels- deny admission to those students needing remediation. Currently, nearly 60% of CSU freshmen are required to take either a remedial English and/or math course as a condition of admission to CSU. Eliminate those courses. Require students to take remediation courses at either the Ca. community colleges or through independent private brokers. This will save CSU having to teach hs level courses at the respective universities and will also keep CSU from having to expend valuable resources upon students who might otherwise be forced to drop out because they couldn't pass the CSU remediation classes.

  • Posted by Rose on December 1, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • I agree - it's way past the time that high schools should be held accountable for teaching students basic math, reading and English so the students can be prepared to succeed in college level work once they get into college.

  • Interesting...
  • Posted by SFSU Alumni on December 1, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • Interesting thought Patrick on the remedial courses, but last I knew SFSU had a one yr mandate for students to complete their remedial courses or they were booted to a 2-yr school to complete it before being re-admitted into the university. However, everyone knows that remedial courses don't count towards graduation, so in essence, it becomes a source of additional revenue for the college.

    I'm so surprised by this decision. It is so unfortunate that local students are admitted first, as well. I am from the Bay and went to school with people from ALL OVER...literally, and experiencing people from different areas, life experiences, and cultures helped mold me into who I am. The Bay area is a very "unique" place and the addition of students from other areas, outside of the Bay area, made my college experience unforgettable. I'd hate for the students to miss out on that same enrichment outside of the classroom that I experienced.

  • Putting colleges out of business
  • Posted by IHE Reader on December 1, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • The idea not to admit students needing remediation is an interesting one. If this was done nation-wide at four-year institutions, a lot of them would go out of business because the supply of college-ready students isn't enough to meet the capacity that exists in the US. Maybe that's not such a bad thing.

  • Who Pays for the Remediation?
  • Posted by Chuck on December 1, 2009 at 11:00am EST
  • The CSU system acknowledges that over 50% of its incoming freshmen need remediation in either English and/or mathematics.

    Over 95% of those students would not have been admitted to a CSU campus in the first place without having a high school diploma or its equivalency and been in the top 33% of their graduating classes.

    Therefore, it is the secondary schools that are committing fraud by graduating students who, ipso facto, the CSU system assumes are ready for college work but turn out not to be.

    The CSU system should charge the cost of all the remediation classes back onto the Superintendent of Public Instruction whose office can, in turn, hold individual school districts responsible for the diminishing honesty and value of their high school diplomas. 

    But don't hold your breath, folks..........

  • CC option a no no
  • Posted by Jeremy Lowe , Admissions at BC on December 1, 2009 at 1:15pm EST
  • I believe there was an article on IHE not too long ago about Cali's Community Colleges being full. That students could not register for classes. I dont know if that is a viable option. And yes, these basic courses are extra revenue for the school on a number of different measures, the course cost and yes, some students have to live on campus to complete these courses over the summer. Its really not such a bad thing.

    But High Schools should be more responsibe for the students they graduate. I agree that the academic quality of graduating students has decreased in past years. However, holding individual school districts accountable for the cost of these remedial courses is also a bad suggestion because when all is said and done, the University System and Public School system all get their checks from the same place, the State, which according to the news, is flat broke.

  • CSU Admissions Practices
  • Posted by David Young, Ph.D. , Counseling at Cerritos College on December 1, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • Can someone explain to me how differential admissions standards based on locality like those described being used at SLO aren't a violation of equal protection.

    What rationale can justify admissions being based on living proximal to the school?

  • higher ed finance/math problem
  • Posted by John , UCLA alum on December 1, 2009 at 2:30pm EST
  • Clearly private colleges and universities have a revenue/cost dynamic in which student enrollment is positively correlated with not only tuition revenue but net revenues.

     

    However, even with the relatively low fees of the Cal State system, is it possible that on a per student basis there is a positive net revenue?

     

    Let's try this:

     

    Revenue

    $2,185 per semester for taking 7 or more units (taken from Cal State Long Beach's website)

    $2,013 actually goes to the university rather than to specific things like the Associated Students or Student Health.

    Let’s assume that the average full-time student takes four classes per semester.

    Let’s also assume that the average class has 30 students (even though there are plenty of classes with 200+, we’ll just be generous here.)

    30 students x $2,013 = $60,390 per semester

    $60,390 ÷ 4 classes = $15,098 revenue per course delivered to 30 students.

     

    Expenses

    Let’s assume that the average full-time professor earns $ 60k + 20k in benefits and teaches 5 courses per year.

    Let’s assume that the average adjunct or teaching assistant earns $ 4,000 per course taught.

    Let’s assume that 80% of courses are taught by full-time faculty and 20% by adjuncts or TAs.

     

    The average instructional labor cost per course could be derived with the following formula:

    .80 (cost per course taught by full-time faculty) + .20 (cost per course taught by adjunct or TA)

    .80 (80,000 ÷ 5) + .20 (4,000) = 12,800 + 800 = $ 13,600

     

    Average revenue per course delivered to 30 students = 15,098

    Average instructional labor cost per course = 13,600

    Amount available for non-instructional expenses = 1,498

     

    The actual non-instructional expenses per student are probably much higher. However, a good portion of the non-instructional expenses are also largely fixed costs, or only mildly variable.

     

    Even without factoring in any revenue from the state budget, it would appear that on a variable cost basis each additional student should represent a net revenue gain for a Cal State campus.

     

    Tinker with things like higher teaching load per full-time professor, higher average class size, or higher percentage of courses taught by adjuncts and TAs (all strategies that Cal States and UCs have employed much to the chagrin of students) and the net revenue per student is even higher. Also this simplistic calculation assumes that 100% of students are residents. Factor in some percentage of non-residents paying 6,649.00 per semester and the net revenue per student also goes up.

     

    Cutting enrollment will very likely make the financial conditions of Cal State schools even worse (unless one or more of the assumptions are grossly different from reality).

    I suppose the other question is why can't campus administrators figure out how to serve more students even in the face of severe budget cuts. The challenge perhaps might be how to hold down non-instructional costs.

  • Private institutions...
  • Posted by Mike on December 1, 2009 at 9:45pm EST
  • where you can actually graduate in four years never looked so good.

  • here's a plan
  • Posted by Coral Hughes , Associate Professor, Humanities at Research U in California system on December 4, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • Here's a thought. A thought one is not allowed to have, but: maybe too many people are going to college. Maybe people who can't read and write (require remedial courses) don't belong in college. Maybe we should honor and pay all professions so that people can just train for useful jobs for which they are suited, instead of trying to get everyone into college, where a liberal education is thrown away on them. Maybe we should be pouring money and expertise into Head Start programs, elementary schools, high schools, public libraries, welfare structured so that families can stay together, health care to keep families healthy, public education on health care, banning TV and giving out books, instead of into foreign wars and companies headed by corrupt and incompetant executives. Maybe, if we built up education for all from the bottom, then when people were included or excluded from higher education it would be on the basis of their actual abilities and intellectual predilections instead of on the basis of their families' class or race. Maybe we could really get the best students going to college to become intellectual leaders, and everyone else being honored for their equally important work in other sectors of the economy.

  • Irony
  • Posted by SJ , Professor at CSU on January 25, 2010 at 5:30pm EST
  • It is ironic that so many faculty complain about high schools while students are graduating from college still lacking a college education. In other words they have the "degree" but not the commensurate skills one should expect with a college education. A college education is not an entitlement unlike secondary education. Its integrity should be preserved. In terms of remediation, aren't most of CSU courses remedial? Although not officially but just practically?