Analysis of Inequities in the Requirements for Admission to the University System of Georgia Analysis of Inequities in the Requirements for Admission to the University System of GeorgiaThis report outlines and contrasts admission requirements for graduates of accredited or regulated high schools (accredited applicants) with admission requirements for applicants who are not graduates of accredited or regulated high schools (non-accredited applicants). Non-accredited applicants include students with a Graduation Equivalency Diploma (GED), most students from home study programs, and students from high schools, such as parochial schools, that, usually by choice, are not accredited. Of these legitimate, non-accredited secondary programs, many provide innovative, individualized curricula and instructional methods distinct from those offered by government-operated secondary schools.
The University System of Georgia (USG) will consider course credits and grades on transcripts from accredited or regulated high schools, but will not recognize the credibility of transcripts from non-accredited programs that choose to award grades. Many programs do not award grades. Thus, the Freshman Index (FI), computed for accredited applicants, cannot be computed for non-accredited applicants. Additionally, the USG will not accept credit for coursework in non-accredited high schools toward its college preparatory curriculum (CPC) requirement.
The USG will evaluate, as it should, non-accredited applicants on the basis of measures other than course grades. Instead of the FI, the USG currently considers the non-accredited applicants’ scores on seven SAT II tests, which are subject-based achievement tests developed by the Educational Testing Service to assess advanced preparation. Other requirements apply as well.
Though this policy does not depend on course grades, it has substantial inequities. The most important:
In contrast, the achievement requirements for non-accredited applicants are the same for all college sectors and, thus, violate the BoR’s policy direction. They greatly exceed the capabilities of minimally knowledgeable, accredited applicants who would be acceptable only at associate-level colleges, and probably could be fully satisfied by not more than 38% of the students currently being admitted to the research universities. (Please see Appendix A of this report for supporting analyses.)
Institutions in all of the sectors may admit accredited applicants under reduced requirements for the freshman index in the limited admissions category. In contrast, no acceptable, reduced achievement levels are permitted for non-accredited applicants for limited admission to any sector.
Accredited applicants do not have a USG specified achievement requirement for any course in the college preparatory curriculum (CPC). An accredited applicant meets the CPC requirement for a course by receiving an undefined transcript "credit" from the high school itself. In contrast, non-accredited students must meet a USG specified achievement level in each subject area before CPC credit is awarded for that subject area. As a result, the USG will wield stricter control over the curriculum content of non-accredited programs than it has over accredited programs, since non-accredited programs will need to "teach to the test."
The policy for accredited applicants allows higher course grades to compensate for lower course grades. In contrast, the policy for non-accredited applicants does not allow strength in one subject area to compensate for weakness in another. In other words, only the average of the grades awarded to an accredited applicant is required to meet a standard, while each grade achieved by a non-accredited applicant is required to meet a standard.
Accredited applicants can qualify for admission with a relatively lower high school grade point average by compensating with a relatively higher aptitude test (SAT I or ACT) score and vise-versa. The aptitude test score is weighted almost equally with HSGPA. This standard satisfies the BoR’s Policy Direction on Admissions by involving multiple measures.
In contrast, a non-accredited applicant’s aptitude test (SAT I or ACT) score is checked only to see that it meets the system-wide minimum of 830. Any SAT I score above the minimum is not considered in qualifying a non-accredited applicant for admission. Except for those seeking the "Outstanding scores" exception (95th percentile), non-accredited applicants will find little value in taking the SAT I test. Effectively, the SAT II requirement (achievement) is the only type of measure of the preparedness of non-accredited applicants, and, therefore, is a violation of the BoR’s Policy Direction requiring multiple measures.
Non-accredited applicants to any sector, who are deemed deficient in the USG mandated 16-unit college preparatory curriculum (CPC), may be considered for admission only by showing "exceptional promise for success" under the Presidential Exception category. In contrast, accredited applicants who have up to three deficiencies in the 16-unit CPC may be admitted to associate-level colleges under the limited admissions category without having to qualify for a Presidential Exception.
The qualifications for participation in the Joint Enrollment/Early Admission programs include a minimum high school grade point average or numerical average and CPC completion. These are two standards that non-accredited applicants are not permitted to meet via a transcript. The USG does not offer non-accredited applicants alternative methods to qualify. Non-accredited applicants are automatically excluded by these rules from these programs.
As a result, most non-accredited applicants, who desire ultimately to attend a USG institution, are choosing to first gain admission to a private college or an out-of-state public college, both of which are more accessible to them than the USG. Then, after successfully completing a year of study, they may qualify to transfer into a USG institution.
Non-accredited applicants who transfer to a USG institution will have proven their readiness without benefit of a tuition that is heavily subsidized by the state of Georgia. On the other hand, accredited applicants who qualify for admission as entering freshmen to a USG institution will either succeed or fail while the state heavily subsidizes their tuition.
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". The current policy elevates preparation via the CPC to be the end itself rather than a means to an end. The experience of students demonstrates that the USG’s version of a CPC is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee 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 demonstrating CPC competency.
Non-accredited applicants will come to the USG with an incredible range of interests and accomplishments. Mandating that every applicant should have followed 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. Non-accredited applicants are prepared, though 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.
The USG should comply with the recommendations of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the BoR’s requirement to consider qualitative measures in crafting a fair admission policy. The USG can set a reasonable SAT I hurdle and can set a reasonable hurdle on a broad-based, appropriately-normed achievement test that also is taken by many from the full spectrum of students graduating from accredited programs. The policy should allow admissions officers to consider each applicant’s portfolio and other qualitative measures such as an interview, essay, experiential achievements, and letters of reference. The admissions officers could consider scores on existing college placement exams as well.
Once the appropriate admissions policy is implemented, it can be adjusted for fairness along sector lines. The relative fairness of different admissions policy can be determined by comparing the success (the desired end) of the non-accredited applicants admitted to each sector with that of the accredited applicants admitted to each sector. A policy resulting in a student population with a relatively higher graduation rate can be considered a relatively higher standard. On the other hand, if the student population admitted to a sector under one policy is achieving the same graduation rate as the student population admitted to the sector under another policy, then the requirements can be considered equal and fair.
| About HEIR ||| Home ||| Contents ||| News ||| Opinion |