Before addressing the official responses to Brendan Pringle’s recent opinion piece on “inclusive excellence” in the Mustang Daily, I’d like to make a personal note to Cal Poly administrators David Conn and Cornel Morton: I would suggest approaching this and any subject in your public comments by arguing the merits of your side of the case, not attacking the student-author in question, as many view this as unnecessarily intimidating, threatening and unprofessional…. Or as they say, ‘pick on someone your own size.’ After all, universities are all about teaching critical thinking, and the collective power of two Vice Presidents coming down in a very personal way against one student seems unfair.
Getting back to the issues, I wonder how many Cal Poly faculty are aware that the program of ‘Inclusive Excellence’ – as applied by other universities following the same AACU approach – views “selectivity” on the part of elite universities as “bad,” and ignores the SAT scores and grade point averages of certain applicants in order to grant admission. I am sure most faculty do not want to offer remedial education, nor do they wish to flunk unprepared students.
Here’s how Cornell Morton and David Conn spun the Inclusive Excellence discussion in a letter that I could not find on-line and only in the student newspaper hard copy! ( I thought you two would be proud of such a piece?)
Let’s parse one of the bits of illogic used by others in defending this program in the Mustang Daily:
1) …on whether their high schools are wealthy enough to offer AP courses
2) or the advantage of having parents who can afford to pay for SAT coaching.”
These statements border on the absurd. First, many universities ask high schools to send transcripts with the higher grade point averages from AP classes already factored out. Besides, high GPAs are not a problem at culturally disadvantaged schools—quite the opposite. The student with a 4.0 at a poor school might not be as well prepared for college as a student with a 3.0 from a good school. The whole purpose of using a standardized test like the SAT is to control for just that situation. Secondly, SAT coaching does not jump a student’s score from 700 to 1600 and is a much overrated factor, if a factor at all, except to all who are trying to get every last point.
The SAT and the SAT2 (Achievement Tests), like any classroom exams, have been much maligned by those who believe that they are a barrier to entry to whatever they want to do. Sometimes, you have to pass the test to pass the course. The problem, for those who want to ignore their results, is that these tests are excellent predictors for college performance, which is all they were ever supposed to do. The achievement tests (SAT2) measure many basic skills, like competence in math, science, and English, without which any student would have an impossible time of securing a degree in a quality major.
Here are two links that support the value of the SAT and SAT2 in college admission:
2009 SAT scores National by demographic
I do not suppose that we should be developing majors of lower academic caliber for the new arrivals? Doesn’t Cal Poly have enough of those already?
The California Master Plan of higher education was developed to grant admission based on a multi-tiered system: the best and the brightest would have an opportunity to attend a U.C., the next tier was the C.S.U., and for those who still needed to sharpen their skills before trying for the brass ring, there was the community college. Consequently, opening up Cal Poly to accept students who should learn the elementary skills of reading, math and science by first attending a community college is ill-advised.
Cornel and David, we’re all for fair play and diversity, but your comments about “a retreat from a merit system” are too vague. Please give us your explicit promise that you will not deviate from use of GPA and SAT data to meet your goals.
This is a really bad idea. Work harder, Chip.
Roger Freberg
