Analysis of Inequities in the Requirements for Admission to the University System of Georgia

Conclusions

The admissions policy is unfair and, therefore, discriminatory because it presents a relatively higher hurdle and relatively fewer options for non-accredited applicants. We have thoroughly illustrated the evidence supporting that conclusion throughout this report. The policy protects the opportunity and access of accredited applicants at the risk of the failure of those admitted. For non-accredited applicants, the USG seeks to prevent failure at the cost of equal opportunity and access. The USG has virtually insured that there will be few, if any, entering freshmen who prepared in non-accredited secondary programs.

Further, the admission policy for non-accredited applicants does not meet the BoR’s requirements that multiple measures be considered, that the requirements be graduated across sectors, and that qualitative measures be considered for special student cohorts.

A less obvious, but equally serious, problem with the admissions policy is that the measures used to predict the success of non-accredited applicants are inappropriate for many of them. The Chancellor’s present position is that, to be fair, demonstration of CPC breadth of knowledge must be required of both accredited and non-accredited applicants and that subject-based standardized tests are the only reliable mechanism for certifying "CPC proficiency" for non-accredited applicants. Preparation via the CPC is one of many means to the same end. The desired end, as stated so often in the BoR’s Policy Direction on Admissions, is "college success". However, the current policy elevates preparation via the CPC to be the end itself rather than a means to an end.

Students whose preparation varied from the USG’s version of the CPC regularly succeed in USG institutions, often with exceptional results. At the same time, many students with an excellent high school CPC grade point average do not succeed. So, the USG’s CPC is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee a student’s success in college. Interestingly, the current policy excuses foreign and non-traditional students (generally, those out of high school for five years or longer) from this CPC requirement.

Non-accredited applicants will come to the USG with an incredible range of interests and accomplishments. It is impossible to force these students to conform to a preconceived notion of academic preparation (such as the USG’s CPC) without substantially destroying the diversity and excellence of the non-accredited student population. Mandating that every applicant should follow exactly the same curriculum leads to an intellectually homogeneous student body, lacking desirable diversity of abilities, ideas, opinions, world views, interests, competencies, and ambitions. The USG vision of "respecting and supporting the different ways students develop their minds, their persons, and their citizenship" should extend to students preparing for matriculation.

Our students are not less well prepared. They are differently prepared. The principle that admissions policies should be appropriate for the subject population dictates the creation of a tailored admissions policy for applicants from non-accredited programs, a policy that fairly accounts for the legitimate differences between these programs and more conventional educational programs.

About HEIR ||| Home ||| Contents ||| News ||| Opinion