Editorial Board
Laura Misjak
Kate Polesnak
Lindsey Poisson
James Harrison
Keiara Tenant
Justin Harris
Automatic college admission has few advantages
Getting into MSU or the University of Michigan is an achievement. And it should stay that way.
If a proposed bill in the Michigan Legislature is passed, the top 10 percent of graduating students from every state high school would be offered admission to each of Michigan’s public universities.
The bill, proposed by Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, is designed to keep Michigan students in the state for college. Jones said the legislation will offer all Michigan students an equal chance to go to college, regardless of what high school they attend.
While it’s admirable to try to keep Michigan students in the state and give every high school student an equal chance to attend college, this legislation does more harm than good.
This bill attempts to generalize success and academic ability by qualifying the top 10 percent of every graduating high school class in Michigan for college admissions.
However, the top students of one class might not be academically equal to the top 10 percent of another class in another district. Although many students in the top 10 percent of their class may be ready for the rigors of a major university such as MSU or the University of Michigan, many won’t be ready and can’t be expected to excel based solely on their class rank.
Using class rank as the only means to determine college eligibility is a linear view of admissions and robs many well-deserving high school students a spot in a Michigan university.
Under the proposed legislation, a high grade-point average would be the only thing needed for acceptance to college. A high GPA can be achieved by taking courses that aren’t challenging throughout the course of high school.
And by telling students that all they need is a high GPA to be accepted by a university, what’s the incentive to take challenging courses? Why risk getting a low grade in a hard class when they could take the easy route all the way to college?
This aspect of the bill hurts students who received lower grades while challenging themselves in high school by taking honors and Advanced Placement courses. It also negates students’ involvement in extracurricular activities by putting all the emphasis on class rank.
Isn’t the point of high school to become a well-rounded student, in and out of the classroom, in preparation for college?
And if Michigan colleges are forced to accept the top 10 percent of every class, will any room remain for students in the top 15 or 20 percent?
Jones said the bill will increase diversity on college campuses across the state. However, it might achieve the exact opposite.
The bill would force colleges to accept a large number of Michigan high school students, thus limiting the space each university would have for out-of-state and international students.
This legislation largely takes discretion out of each university’s hands by legally binding it to an in-state acceptance rate quota.
If students want to attend a Michigan college, the incentive to do well in high school should already exist. Legislation shouldn’t decide how each university determines its admissions.
Published on Sunday, April 13, 2008
Comments
gary
04/13/08 @ 10:28pm
Right on. What would stop me from taking a bunch of really easy classes so I could get in to my school’s top 10%?
Fredrik
04/13/08 @ 10:35pm
I hope this program would look for more than just raw GPA!
Jack
04/13/08 @ 10:56pm
If your in a school’s top 10% admission to a state school should be a given. Only schools that suck will benefit from this. Why not leave it up to the school do decide who it wishes to admit?
Chris
04/14/08 @ 2:03am
Jack unintentionally provides a good example.
It’s “you’re.”
Charles
04/14/08 @ 4:50am
Texas had had a similar law for 10 years. You opinion would have more persuasion if you at least tried to back it up instead of engaging in mere speculation (“However, it might achieve the exact opposite.”).
In addition, as long as the legislature supports a school with tax dollars, it should be able to have a say in who that school admits.
Steve
04/14/08 @ 9:06am
If MSU and M don’t like this proposed bill, perhaps they should consider refusing to accept taxpayer dollars from the Legislature. If MSU doesn’t want the state butting into the admissions process, then MSU should become a private school.
Chris
04/14/08 @ 9:26am
But there is a difference between the taxes being used for schools, which is one of the more popular reasons that people pay into them (literally), and deciding a default admissions status. Roads and schools are the ‘big two’ tax-related things that benefit the society at large, but to actually decide that anyone can go simply because of their statistical, high school criteria is a terrible idea.
Ford
04/14/08 @ 9:43am
First, there are, I believe, 14 public universities in the state. Michigan and MSU are the biggest, but not the only ones that would be accepting students.
Second, the program works really well in Texas. I don’t know what the editorial board’s position on Prop 2 was, but this program offers a workable (if imperfect) alternative to affirmative action there. Insofar as I think diversity is a worthwhile goal for schools to have, I would rather have this program in place than none at all.
Third, those students you’re worried about loading up on easy classes in high school have a much larger opportunity to take only “easy” classes in college. Also, the legislature didn’t propose paying for school, just the admissions process. I think that will still provide enough of a barrier to students to allow the rest of the students you are so worried about in.
Townsend
04/14/08 @ 10:18am
MSU and UM, historically, became great public colleges because early in both their histories, they established a strong degree of independence from politicians and the State legislature — the 2 schools, themselves, called the shots for themselves, academically, and the state, on the other hand, was smart enough to realize the state would reap the benefits from 2 outstanding public universities. Historically, most states (like Ohio) were ravaged by governors (Rutheford B. Hayes in Ohio State’s case) and other pols dictating admissions and academic policy from the statehouse… With this history, this new auto admissions policy must absolutely be defeated. It runs counter to the Michigan tradition that has produced 2 of the finest public colleges of any state, and is the envy of most states…
If the 10% rule must pass it should ONLY be applied to 2nd tier of non-research Michigan colleges (the “directional schools”)...
Matthew
04/14/08 @ 10:52am
Just out of curiosity, doesn’t anyone know what percentage of the top 10% of Michigan high school graduates are accepted into Michigan universities? I guess that would be based on how many apply. I guess my question is for the legislature: do you people do any research before you propose a bill? I’ll bet money is the single biggest factor in whether or not these kids go to college.
As for UM and MSU, Townsend is right. Keep the legislature out of it. Why would we accept the legislature diluting these schools? Because they give them money? The state pays for roads too, does that mean even one of those over-paid monkeys knows how to fix a pot hole? Or even knows how a pot hole is best fixed? Of course not! Leave the expert matters to the experts. UM and MSU have proven they know what they are doing when it comes to admissions.
Mark
04/14/08 @ 10:52am
The more people that go to school the better. I have a better plan, allow 100% of graduating Michigan seniors admission and then allow them to fail out if they cannot cut it after 3 semesters. Do not lower any standards, if you fail you are out.
chris
04/14/08 @ 1:36pm
I’m sorry, I dont quite see how selecting the top students from a school would be considered ‘diluting’ the student body. The GPA is generally the most honest and fair reflection of a students academic ability – it is does not incorporate luck like the SAT or ACT. This argument of taking ‘easy’ classes is merely a red herring. For the most part high schoolers take the same courses, while there is room for electives, it is extremely limited. But for the most part, the first two years of HS are the same – thus GPA serves as a good tool for comparing students.
Second, since GPA represents 4 years of scholarship, anecdotally, the top students will also be taking the tough classes. From my personal experience, people with lower 1st and 2nd year GPAs take easy classes to boost it. However, all the easy classes in the HS will not get the GPA up to the top 10%.
Perhaps the SN is worried that they would not have been accepted to MSU – their poorly constructed and argued editorials certainly suggest they dont have the academics.
I’ve only been a student here for 1 semester, when receive grades, does it take into account other intangibles, or is it strictly based on grades and academic performance?
A. Cooper
04/14/08 @ 2:07pm
I went to high school with a number of kids who could have gone to Ivies, but chose not to, because with the 10% rule they were guaranteed admission to a Texas state university, it was just less they had to worry about.
The 10% rule, far from diluting the student body at universities like the University of Texas, has attracted many students who would have gone to prestigious private schools.
another reason to move out of michigan
04/14/08 @ 3:30pm
No shocked at legislation and their stupidity. I have a hard time with putting a top 10% from Detroit and West Bloomfield public schools in the same category. The standards in Detroit are obviously lower due to such poor funding. What’s to stop a teacher from giving a student an ‘A’ to get rid of that problem student? I don’t believe in Detroit public schools and other public schools like inkster, flint, romulus, etc. that the top 10% can handle the course work at MSU or U of M. This would be a waste in the tax dollars of our State. Legislators please sit down and rethink what you are doing…we are trying to resolve the wasted tax dollar situation, not add to it.
wow
04/14/08 @ 5:13pm
“another reason”- this is exactly the type of discriminatory BS that demonstrates the reason we SHOULD have the 10% be admitted. They can’t handle the classes??? Why dont we provide the opportunity to go to college and see what amazing things they can do? Are you worried that they may actually excel at college? Having a guaranteed admission to a university for excelling in your schools program would go far to reducing the differences in educational opportunities that lead to economic disparities. How does this “waste tax dollars” to have students from varied schools in college? Everyone still pays tuition! What tax dollars are you speaking of? Could it be the INCREASE in tax revenue generated from the increased earning potential from college educated individuals from inner city backgrounds?
And from an educator standpoint, I would much rather have highly motivated students from all background in my classroom that WANT to learn and improve their situations instead of whiny, “i went to West Bloomfield so i deserve to be here more than you” kids.
Don’t presume that you worked harder, know more, or have a greater capacity to learn simply because your school was better funded.
I'm with wow
04/14/08 @ 10:22pm
“another reason”, as someone who recently completed my degree at MSU (with a 3.92 GPA), is now pursuing a Masters in Theology (with a 4.0 GPA), and who graduated from Detroit Public Schools along with scores of other fine students who completed degrees at such quality institutions as MSU, U-M, Cornell, Columbia, Yale, Princeton, and Harvard, I find your blanket statement about our district (and others like it) to be incredibly ignorant. Admittedly there are major problems with our school district, but to suggest that it’s a given that the top students from Detroit could not compete with their peers in Bloomfield Hills is laughable.
yawn
04/16/08 @ 12:13pm
The thing is, if you accept the top 10% of students from all schools, you aren’t getting only kids who “want to learn and improve their situations.” You’re getting everyone – the whole top 10%, whether or not they even would’ve applied to begin with.
umm..
04/16/08 @ 1:13pm
Right..just because someone has a guaranteed admission they would also definitely go. It just gives them the opportunity to go. guaranteed.
And all this crap about it decreasing the number of out of state students is off base too. If we really want to emphasize participation for out of state students (read: increase tuition dollars) slice the pie that way. The university can divide up the remaining admissions resources any way they choose and leave those seats up for out of state students if they like.
jen
04/16/08 @ 2:45pm
What about that 11% student from a decent school district (like Birmingham, Brighton, Okemos, or wherever) vs. the kid that is in the 10% in Detroit or some other poor school district (Inkster, Taylor, Wasteland)? It isn’t fair to the kids that live in the good school districts! I have family in Texas, and my was in the top 15% of his school, had over a 4.0GPA….but my cousin was wait-listed to Univ of Texas because kids in the top 10% in poor/not as good school districts got in before him, even though he had significantly better test scores, GPA, etc.
Ex Tex
04/16/08 @ 11:13pm
I’m from Texas and this 10 percent rule has worked very well there. It is a fair way to diversify state schools, not only in terms of race, but also in terms of class. Students from poorer school districts don’t get the shaft and have the ability to prove themselves on an equal footing in college—the type of equal footing they don’t always have in the separate but not equal school districts. Remember, MSU is a state school, so it has a public mission to all the taxpayers of this state and not just to a privileged few.