9486 in the collection
Level the Playing Field for Applicants
I am resurrecting this op ed from the Los Angeles Times because in the ensuing years the influence of Advanced Placement courses has become even more insidious, with few people willing to question their value.
by Norman Matloff
On May 16, the University of California Regents are scheduled to
reconsider measure SP-1, a ban they imposed on affirmative action in
1995. Supporters of the repeal note that rescinding the measure would
probably be meaningless in light of Proposition 209, the statewide
initiative passed by the voters in 1996. Nevertheless, the supporters of
repeal want a symbolic victory.
True, some would find that symbolism emotionally gratifying, but in
terms of UC admissions results, it would produce little gain. But
instead of engaging in a Talmudic debate as to whether to take an action
having moot legal value, the regents should focus on a related policy
change that would have demonstrably concrete value: They should abolish
the current UC policy of adding an extra grade point to advanced
placement (AP) high school courses.
Because of this grade-padding policy, admission to the most selective UC
campuses, Berkeley and UCLA, now virtually requires that the student
have access to a broad AP curriculum. The mean grade-point average among
those admitted to UC Berkeley and UCLA is now above the nominal maximum
of 4.0, because of the extra point given for AP.
You don't have to be a rocket statistician to see that the current
practice is egregiously biased against students from less-wealthy school
districts that do not offer many AP courses. The Tomas Rivera Policy
Institute, an independent think tank in Claremont, found that 15% of
California high schools do not offer any AP courses at all, and an
addition 5% offer only one such course. That translates to 143,000
California high school students having access to at most one AP course.
The adverse impact on diversity of the student populations at UC
campuses is obvious. In large districts, 62% of schools that offer no AP
courses are predominantly Latino or black. By contrast, top schools with
predominantly white and Asian enrollments offer an average of nine AP
courses. Thus a change in policy regarding AP grades would have far
more impact on the regents' stated goal of achieving a diverse student
body than would a symbolic reversal of SP-1.
Yet the regents have been reluctant to address this glaring inequity.
They say they are concerned that dropping the policy would give high
school students less incentive to take AP courses. Yet the original
purpose of AP courses was to provide an alternative for students who
were seeking more intellectual challenge. In other words, they didn't
need to be bribed into taking these courses. These days, such a notion
seems quaint. Even Lee Cheng, a prominent activist against affirmative
action, admits that AP has largely degenerated into one more means of
gaming the system.
Even when viewed in less cynical terms, it is not clear that AP serves
its students well. An AP course in a given subject will typically be of
lesser quality than its university counterpart. Moreover, William
Lichten of Yale University has found that AP has not done a good job of
producing graduates who are well-prepared for university work, and he
argues that expanding the AP program will actually exacerbate that
disconnect.
Current UC policy is not only inequitable but also amounts to a subsidy
for a program of questionable value. If the regents want to devote their
efforts to making symbolic gestures, so be it. But if they sincerely
want to have student diversity, canceling (or at least reducing) the AP
bonus would be a good place to start.
— Norman Matloff
Los Angeles Times
2001-05-10
INDEX OF OUTRAGES
Pages: 380
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next >> Last >>
