@ The Atlantic: The University of California Is Lying to Us

[Jalapeñomel]

The system is broken from the bottom up. Until we decide to fund our poorest communities in a way that cuts class sizes in half, supports teachers (increases wages, fully supplies classrooms), and provides the appropriate supports (which includes eliminating standardized testing in elementary/middle/high school) for our youngest, most vulnerable students, then this is all done in vain.

[formerlyak]

I work for the UC and totally agree with this article. I think there was a lot of pressure on the Regents to "do the right thing" and make admissions "fair". The admissions process prior to this decision had several criteria that could be used to make decisions - one was GPA, one was test scores, one was essay and there are like 8 other criteria that individual campuses can look at and weight appropriately for their campus. My campus, for example, gives weight to first gen applicants, because we have a lot of programming to support first gen students, and have one of the highest graduation rates in nation for first gen students.

Each high school has a profile. It tells the UCs what kinds of courses are offered, for example. If a kid comes from a school that only teaches one AP class and the kid took it and did well, that will hold weight in the application process over a kid who is from a school that offers 20 AP classes and they also only took one. Admissions staff at all schools, not just UC, know fairly well which high schools are known for grade inflation and which aren't. Test scores help the admissions officers get a better picture of the academic ability of an applicant. If a kid comes from a "rich" school known for grade inflation and does terribly on the SATs and their essay is full of errors, you know something is going on with the grades. On the flip side, if a kid goes to a school known for hard grading an "only" has a 3.5 weighted, but did very well on the SAT and wrote a killer essay, you know they can handle the work. One criteria alone doesn't make the decision. So eliminating one big criteria, that as mentioned in the report commissioned by Napolitano was actually an indicator of success in the UCs, throws the whole system off. I was on board with replacing the SAT with a different test designed for the UCs, but eliminating all form of standardized tests with no real plan in place except to eliminate it, makes no sense to me.

[Gato]

The California education system was ruined by Proposition 13. When I worked there in the 90s, the state had gone from being ranked first in K-12 education to somewhere in the mid-40s, which is shameful for the wealthiest state in the nation. So Flanagan is right that the UC system cannot make up for the twelve years of inequity during K-12.

I think admissions does care and try, based on what I saw while at Berkeley. Flanagan’s comparison of her predicted drop in the percentage of Asian students (which I doubt will happen) to the terrible discrimination of the past seemed unnecessarily inflammatory. I bet admissions is well aware of the debates going on at Harvard, in the NYC public school system, and elsewhere about how moving toward equity can punish Asian students who, as Flanagan correctly notes, are working really hard for their places, which shouldn’t be discounted. I bet they are still trying to do the right thing by weighing many factors in their admissions decisions. It has never been as simplistic as Flanagan implies.

But still, the public school system is an underfunded mess, and it’s all because wealthy people are not paying their fair share in property taxes. It is a huge racial justice issue. Admissions officers do their best to address it, but nothing meaningful will happen until rich and UMC people are willing to redress the harm Prop 13 has caused. I’m not holding my breath on that happening.

[NewOrleans]

Hm. I have to process this article as a whole and look into whether this situation is unique to California, in addition to trying to fit Prop 13 in the mix as mentioned above.

I will say confidently that almost all educational DEI initiatives you’ve heard of, whether at your alma mater or in your local community, are a mirage. A checklist. Halfassed and cobbled together. Not meaningful and sustained. In part because that kind of messy work takes $$ resources, in part because they don’t know what they’re doing, and in part because white-dominant professionals don’t want to / know they need to self-reflect.

[sonrisa]

I agree that prop 13 is a big problem. But it isn't just wealthy people not paying market rate on property taxes. No long standing landowners are - rich or poor. And many couldn't afford to because of rising home values (which are driven in a big part by prop 13). The biggest problem with prop 13 is corporate property taxes. Humans die or move to nursing homes (and the recent changes mean more reassessments). Companies never do. So corporate property taxes are never reassessed.

Richer school districts are protected from some of the shortfalls because enough rich people are paying market rate property taxes and those receipts are high enough they don't rely on state funding. 

[pinkdutchtulips]

Prop 13 is a huge problem, especially the commercial property loophole mentioned above. Prop 13 monies go to the state for redistribution on an 'equitable' basis to districts and PTAs supplement these monies, easier for wealthier schools (bc this can vary widely within districts - dd's district has 30 elementary schools, 10 middle schools and 5 high schools) meaning that not all schools are created equal or have equal opportunities for students. There is no way to adequately bridge that gap without a massive restructuring of Prop 13 that closes the commercial loophole.