Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* First, the setup…

A bill that would require state universities in Illinois to automatically accept the top 10 percent of all high school seniors isn’t going to be an easy sell, state Rep. William Davis (D-Hazel Crest) admits.

But as the bill’s chief sponsor, he hopes that at the very least it will highlight the need for the state to level the playing field in terms of funding for high schools and bring higher education institutions to the forefront in addressing that issue. […]

“The idea is to make high school education more competitive all over,” Davis said, adding he sees the bill “as a way to help minority students in particular.”

Davis said he welcomes the argument that he expects will come from college admissions people: that a top 10 percent student in one school isn’t as prepared for college as one from another school.

He said that argument speaks to the need for more funding for disadvantaged schools and for higher education to take a greater role in high school-related issues.

Texas has a similar law.

* Question: Do you support this idea or not? Explain.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:11 am

Comments

ACT scores are a better predictor of college success. Top 10% really doesn’t mean a lot sometimes.

Comment by Leigh Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:20 am
This used to be a state law in Kansas as well. My understanding, however, is that if you graduated from a high school within the State, you were automatically admitted to any State university within Kansas.

It has its benefits and drawbacks. The University of Kansas (where I did my undergraduate work) scheduled freshmen courses as early in the morning as they could, often in theaters and large venues that could accomodate 500+ students. It was commonly assumed that this was done to weed out the committed students from those who were there for reasons other than education. It worked.

Comment by Kevin Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:21 am
Yes, as far as it’s a strategy to open people’s eyes to the gross disparities in the quality of education. Hopefully it will focus attention on the need for a different school funding mechanism that must be brought about by the GA, since the IL Supreme Court has refused to do anything about it.

Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:22 am
I am opposed.

The main reason is it fails to make sure the student is able to take advantage of the educational opportunity by demonstarting an ability to handle the curiculum.

Say student gets top 10% of their class, but based on SAT scores and other criteria, its pretty clear they would not be able to handle the curiculum at say U of I. They get the auto in to U of I, and fail out of school. Suppose if they had gone to a different scholl that would accept them based on their SAT and grades, they would be an A/B student. Thus we give them an easy admission to a scholl they cant handle, and instead of finishing college with an A or B average, they fail. The admission process has many flaws, but it does its best to make sure those coming in are able to handle the curicculum. Basing entrance only on how well you score compared to your peers is a bad idea.

Further explaining the above, there is no unifrom grading system for all schools. Suppose many of the shcools have a majority of classes using a bell curve based on the highest and lowest grades. So in school A, the highest math test score out of a possible 100 is 60. This student gets and A. Now in school B the highest score on the same test is 100. Thus, the “grades” do not reflect the actual knowldge these two students have of math.

The oddity is the sponsor seems to be saying, use my system, then when lots of people flunk out of college, maybe somone will go in and help to make school A better. So we are sacrificing the school A kids by throiwng them into the fire instead of letting them be placed into schools where they can succeed.

Comment by Ghost Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:23 am
Is it that ANY state U has to accept ANY Student in the top 10%? Or just that SOME school must?

A boat load of freshmen flunk out as it is. This will just make for more….

Comment by Pat collins Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:26 am
Our local school has tried to “mainstream” as many students as possible. They’ve also developed some curriculum specifically to allow these challenged students to thrive.

As a result, many of these students are now appearing on the honors list and high honor roll for the school. It’s wonderful the individual student self esteem. However, many have a lower class rank because their B in the Advanced Physics class put them behind the student with an A in Home Economics.

Moreso, for many students entering the workforce immediatley after high school, the value of their diploma has been reduced by this mainstreaming effort.

Comment by Downstater Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:29 am
I like the idea. Rep. Davis’ anticipated objection, ‘a top 10 percent student in one school isn’t as prepared for college as one from another school,’ is an admission of the fundamental problem. Our system is set up to create and maintain ‘have’ and ‘have-not’ schools. We shouldn’t accept that, and passing this bill would be one way to force us to actually deal it.

Comment by No Peotone Airport Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:29 am
no. individuals should be judged on their own merits, not helped, or hindered, by putting all schools on an equal footing in just this way.

Comment by Amy Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:30 am
This legislation is directed mostly at the U of I. Any fairly literate student in the top 10% of their class already does get accepted at any of the “directionals” (Eastern, Western, Southern, etc..).Forcing U of I to accept based on class rank will mean that some other student at a more rigorous high school, with a much greater chance of success, but in only the upper quarter of their class, will be denied admisssion.
This bill does no favor to the under qualified student by mandating her admission to a U. that despite being the most selective has the worst 5 year graduation rate in the state and that is notorious for providing little or no support to the struggling student.
The student would be much better served by a regional or community college which offers a wide array of student services in addition to a quality education.
Wouldn’t it be better to introduce legislation that addresses the actual goal of equity in HS education rather than trying to backdoor that result with a bill like this?

Comment by Bill Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:41 am
It’s a great idea to get the focus just where it ought to be, prioritizing the quality of education and educational opportunity for everyone. Can every student make the grade? No. But could MORE students make the grade with a system that rewards quality? Absolutely.

This will certainly take not only equitable funding at the K-12 level, but more adequate funding for colleges and universities. It will be interesting to see if the new P-20 initiative will be able to effectively address this issue.

Also, much more difficult to legislate, is a change in the social and family structure, that encourages children to excel in school. Too often, the outside-of-school environment is not conducive to academic learning, and in in far too many instances, blatantly discourages it.

Comment by anon Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:42 am
Ask Rep. Davis whether he thinks the Bulls should be limited to recruiting the top 3 players from every college, whether its team is in the NCAA finals or Division III. This makes about as much sense. Although it WILL give some students more to pray about, his goofy idea from last year.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:42 am
When I was in high school I read somewhere that a valedictorian had more of a C or C+ average. This individual wasn’t anywhere near an A or B+ average. This was at an underachieving school in the CPS. Perhaps there needs to be a better standard than top students. Perhaps ACT or SAT is a better measure than overall high school GPA. Otherwise I have no problem with this proposal.

Comment by Levois Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:45 am
Further, public institutions of higher education are just that: public, supported by taxpayers. Taxpayers have the right to try their hand at post-secondary education, a public college or university shold not be a barrier to that ambition. Standards should be not lowered for academic success, but certainly access to the opportunity should be open to all.

Comment by anon Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:49 am
“Open to all” - there are already 30,000+ students at U of I - how many more do you want? This is “affirmative action” at its worst - don’t do anything to fix inequality, just pretend it doesn’t exist and admit much less prepared students to the top schools. We’ll all be speaking Chinese after 50 years of this.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 10:54 am
Every high school graduate in Illinois has access to a high quality, low cost college education. The opportunity is there for everyone. Each region of the state has a university and there are almost 50 community colleges in Illinois which will accept all high school graduates. Funding these institutions to maintain that access and quality should be the main legislative priority.

Comment by Bill Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:01 am
I never thought that I would agree with Bill on anything on this bog. However, his post hits the nail on the head. His position on this QOTD rings true for this retired conservative teacher. Excellent post, Bill!

Comment by Patriot Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:04 am
Just my views:
1) Universities have a finite number of spots, I know ISU rarely has enough housing for the students it does accept.
2) I can foresee a higher drop out rate, seeing as parents may force students who don’t care to apply themselves.
3) Some test well and excel at ACT/SAT scores, others do better in classes, some are more involved in their community; I’d stay away from any sort of blanket statement forcing admission.

Comment by Learning the Ropes Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:05 am
Not only should we be pushing the community collegese, but the cost tends to be lower for the students, and often they can live at home helping to keep the expense down. This is a good investment to provide affordable education. Also since many students are not sure of the path they wish to take, it allows students to explore different potential majors without the pressure to get out in 4 years due to high tutition etc.

Comment by Ghost Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:07 am
Will it severly limit enrollment of qualified students from better high schools?

Scarily enough, I agree with Bill. This could get a lot of students in over their heads as there is a big difference in education (that simply more money will not fix).

I also agree that this is directed at Uof I. What university will not let a top 10% in their doors? I am certain that the miriad of directional schools (how creative) will not say no without good reason.

This is a simple game to get more money thrown at schools and blaming money for the crappy educational standards that are deemed acceptable.

Comment by Wumpus Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:08 am
Bill,
“Funding these institutions to maintain that access and quality should be the main legislative priority.” My point. I hope the legislature and the Governor agree.

Comment by anon Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:08 am
I appreciate Rep Davis’ candor about his goal, and I agree with it. On the other hand, I share some of the apprehensions of others noted here.

My suggestion would be to exclude the Urbana/Champaign campus of U of I from the requirement, and impose it on all the other state schools. They will squeal, and U of I’s other campuses will really squeal, but it’s worth a try. It might get the 4 year universities more into the game on what to do about underperforming schools.

Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:09 am
Yes. Regardless of Rep. Davis’ motivation, these kids played the hands they were dealt and succeeded. They should get a crack at the publicly funded universities. If they don’t make it, they can go elsewhere. But they should get the chance.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:10 am
What’s the real goal of this bill? To guarantee acceptance to college? To increase competition among high schools? To show the disparities between successful high schools and failing high schools? Would this bill add enough students to worsen colleges’ funding problems? Sounds like a solution searching for a problem.

Comment by Sir Reel Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:10 am
I support it, as long as there are some $$$ for summer school/remedial help for students who need it. Commenter Bill is correct, this is directed at U of I, but who are we to say such a student would be “better served” at Eastern rather than scratching/clawing/graduating with whatever GPA but having the U of I name cachet? They can always transfer if they don’t feel like they can cut it and U of I can accept tranfer students to make up for the inequity of the “deserving students” not admitted as freshmen.

Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:11 am
Anon, the Bulls are a for-profit entertainment company. The public universities serve to advance the state and its residents.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:12 am
Any help by the state that pushes higher education, will be paid back 10 fold. If our governor would take his passion and funding for universal health and divert it to tuition. Our graduates have a lesser need free cheese.

Comment by Southern Right Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:19 am
My youngest daughter is #11 out of a freshman class of about 370. If she maintains that ranking through graduation, she ought to be admitted to what ever state funded college or university to which she applies.

A portion of my tax dollars are paying for the operation of state funded colleges and universities.

I believe that it is grossly unfair that Illinois high school graduates regardless of GPA/SAT/ACT can’t get into the state funded college or university of their choice.

Comment by Huh? Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:19 am
Regarding the cachet of “U of I” - The respect for that name recognition is only for UIUC. It does not extend to the sister campuses such as Univ. of Illinois at Chicago.

Comment by Huh? Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:24 am
Oh, wordslinger, you missed my point. Replace “Bulls” with “U of I Head Basketball Coach Bruce Weber”, and “college” with “high school” and it’s the same point. We all recognize that kids should be recruited on merit for teams, but we somehow get goofy when the same principles are applied to academics. We’d loved to pretend that all students are equal, but they’re not - neither on the basketball court nor in the classroom.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:33 am
It seems like a good idea until you think about it a bit.

I remember in the days of the open admission policy at UofI-Circle, circa early ’70s where if you could spell your name, you could enter the school. It set so many of these young people up for failure that it was horrible.

Not every student is ready for the most competitive curricula. That is why we have different schools for different types of people. If we will pretend that everyone is eligible for any university, we can close down all the junior and county colleges.

This is another unfunded mandate, in this case to the University system. If the goal is to fix high schools, then go fix them. Don’t put a burden on institutions that have nothing to do with the problem. The solution to the broken high schools has to be the local educators. That is what they are being paid to do. If they cannot improve the system, find new administrators or a new way.

Comment by plutocrat03 Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:34 am
Still, Anon, a basketball team’s objective is to “win” — quite different from that of a public university, I believe.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:42 am
I am 400lbs with asthma and 90/200 vision, I want to be a cop. Since they are funded by the public, make it happen.

So these kids should waste a year at UofI so someone feels good that they had a chance? If they don’t deserve to get in, don’t let them in. Let them fail, lose tuition/fin aid money and then transfer to Southern Il.! Genius. How many people actually transfer in lieu of dropping out.

Comment by Wumpus Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:47 am
Top 10% implies a level of commitment to learning, even if the school they attended is not the best in the state. It implies a dedication to climbing out of the circumstances that life gave them. It seems to me that’s enough for them to get a chance to try. Even if they don’t succeed, they have earned the chance.

SATs and ACTs correlate pretty closely to parental income and educational achievement, which, I’ll admit may also correlate to educational achievement on the college scene, but using those scores as a weeding out tool also makes our class structure more rigid.

I see this bill helping students from diverse parts of the state, from rural schools that don’t have much in the way of science labs to poor urban schools with all the attendant SES problems that can entail in a school.

Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:48 am
Right on, Bill. I couldn’t agree more with your post. Let’s properly fund our higher ed system before we start tinkering with the admissions process.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 11:54 am
I would support the idea. IIRC in Wisconsin when I was in high school (early 80s) if you finished in the top half of your hs class you automatically got into UW (I could be wrong about that but it was some percentage greater than %10 for sure). The point was I believe that the land grant university was a creation of all the tax payers, they pooled their dolars together to creat a great unversity (and ultimately a university system). If your kid demonstrated a reasonable aptitude to scholarly activities (finishing in the top X of one’s hs class) than they were entitled to enroll in the university created by all the hard working taxpayers. Note UW Madison had an enormous drop out rate when I was at school there but so what? Those kids were given their chance and now had to move on to plan B.

Before going to Madison I went to a fairly prestigious school in Va. To get into this school you needed great grades and high SATs. I had class mates, native Virginians, who finished in the top 10 of their class but did not get into UVA. That struck me as a telling contrast to UW Madison. I much appreciated the good sense of the midwesterner who did not create a public school with such an elitist basis. I mean isn’t that the whole point of a large public university? You pool your dollars together for a great school so you know your kids can actually have the opportunity for the success and upward mobility that go along with being successful there.
Just my 2 cents.

Comment by fan of Capitol Fax Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 12:09 pm
Higher education in this country is becoming increasingly inequitable, with the middle and poorer economic classes mostly relegated to mediocre schools unless their children are exceptionally talented, in which case they can now go to Yale and similar institutions for free. Yale’s move towards funding the education of successful middle class applicants in addition to the children of the poor is likely to be imitated
by other members of the Ivy League and similar elite schools, where legacy students, children of famous and/or wealthy parents also abound.

To complicate matters, there are a lot of bad private and public schools around, but nevertheless, the overpaid and under-accountable
higher education establishment has fought a the idea of a national college exit examination like
the teachers unions in Illinois fight efforts
towards accountability in the lower grades. They’re terrified that people will learn what a bad job they are really doing and how little accountability there is. And these folks are very well paid.

Why not give the top ten percent of high school graduates a full scholarship to an approved accredited college of their choice, including free tuition and expenses, if they can get admitted.
The burden on state schools would be lessened and the state could use the power of its money to
insist on certain levels of performance in colleges or universities before students are allowed to attend.

It’s our money after all, and most private colleges get public monies, not just public colleges. We should use the power of our purse,
a power we use all too rarely, to insist on a quantum leap in the quality of higher education, public and private in this country.

Comment by Cassandra Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 12:16 pm
What I’ve found most interesting so far is the unquestioning attitude by some here about the U of I’s admissions standards. They announced a couple years ago that they wanted to greatly increase out of state and international student admissions, which I think is antithetical to their mission and their funding.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 12:26 pm
The number of seats a university has for incoming freshman is limited, so not everyone can attend the school of their choice.

What happens, for example, when UI tops out on enrollment? Would the state force NIU/SIU/EIU/WIU to take the overflow even if the freshman doesn’t want to attend one of these schools?

Artifically distributing every freshman to every college or university in the state is unworkable considering the state’s population and the number of seats on campus.

Unless you want the Universities screaming for more capital funding.

Comment by Undergraduate Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 12:27 pm
Oppose. I tend to think admissions committees do better jobs than legislatures when it comes to college admissions. And while we’re on the “it’s my money” point, let’s only pay legislators (and governors!) who graduate in the top 10 percent of their classes.

Comment by Greg Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 12:28 pm
Bill: Please check the 5 year graduation rate for Mr. Jones favored university - Chicago State. I believe at 17% it must be among the lowest in the state.

Comment by In the Sticks Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 12:37 pm
This is a reasonably objective and easy to administer strategy for achieving the desirable ends of affirmative action without resorting to the racial criteria that provoke political objections and that run into constitutional prohibitions. An intelligent plan worth trying.

Wondering how Rep. Davis and Texas settled on 10 percent. Maybe a hat tip to W.E.B. Du Bois’s “Talented Tenth”?

Bill provides some interesting information about the difficulties of navigating the U of I and the strengths of the “directionals.” Still, ours is a credential sensitive society. U of I degrees can help people who grew up in difficult circumstances gain those first post-college jobs and make better lives for themselves and their families in ways that directional degrees just won’t.

Comment by Ivory-billed Woodpecker Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 12:50 pm
–They announced a couple years ago that they wanted to greatly increase out of state and international student admissions, which I think is antithetical to their mission and their funding.–

Amen to that.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 1:13 pm
greatly increase out of state and international student I believe that the chancellor who had that idea is no longer in Urbana.

Of course, foreign students pay top dollar, so everyone wants them….

Comment by Pat Collins Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 1:16 pm
I am sick of Illinois state universities passing over qualified Illinois residents to take out of staters. OUR tax dollars pay these bureaucrats salaries, and ACT/SAT scores don’t predict squat.
If you are in the top 10% in Illinois in your class grade wise you ought to have a shot at a decent education at our state schools.
No one is saying free tuition for this 10%, just access.

Comment by Illinois Insider Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 1:38 pm
The UofI never wanted to significantly increase the enrollment of out of state and international students. Saying so is disingenuous and is a sad attempt to prove your biased point.

UofI wanted to increase out of state enrollment from 9.5% to 15%. This number would still be significantly lower than the nonresident enrollment at all other B10 universities (ranging from Michigan State & Penn State at ~20% to Michigan, Iowa & Wisconsin at 40-50%). Each of these universities realize the value of having out-of-state and foreign students: diversity of opinion, ideas, geography, etc. The UofI isn’t serving students very well if they don’t know, work, socialize, etc. with people from outside Illinois.

Increasing nonresident enrollment by significant amounts would be antithetical to the university’s mission, and that’s why the UofI doesnt want to increase it above 15%. But limiting the experiences of enrolled students by shielding them from anyone or anything outside of the Illinois borders is certainly antithetical to the UI mission.

Regardless, the plan to increase nonresident enrollment was dropped after protests like yours. Reasonable people can disagree on this point, but you shouldnt argue that the UofI wants to “significantly” change the student population. That’s flat out wrong.

Furthermore, funding from the State of Illinois represents about 1/4 of total UI funding. If funding from the state were at the level of 15 years ago, your argument would be more valid. But since federal grants, tuition & fees from students, and endowment funds pay significantly more than that State, we should realize that some of that funding comes from outside the state (in particular fed grants, NIH, NSF funding as well as donations from alums & companies out of state).

Bringing up this issue at all is an attempt to distort the argument at hand. Lets consider the merits of this particular bill.

Comment by anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 1:51 pm
Perhaps UofI is trying to get people from 3rd world countries becasue they will feel right at home with this government we have in this state.

Comment by Wumpus Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 2:01 pm
miller…

“They announced a couple years ago that they wanted to greatly increase out of state and international student admissions”

anonymous…

“UofI wanted to increase out of state enrollment from 9.5% to 15%”"

anonymous…

“you shouldnt argue that the UofI wants to “significantly” change the student population. That’s flat out wrong.”

I don’t get your point, mainly since you misquoted me and then contradicted yourself.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 2:04 pm
This is an interesting discussion, and I must say that I can see both sides of the issue. I reside in a small county in the St. Louis Metro-East, and the high school I attended (one of only three public high schools in my county)in the early 1990s couldn’t afford to offer many classes. My graduating class had 100 students, and I was ranked in the top 3%. My ACT score was great but not excellent because the ACT only tests you on current knowledge - not potential. If you’ve never learned the material in school, you won’t know it for the test.

My high school only offered 2 years of Spanish, and pre-calculus was the highest level of math offered. There was no sociology, economics, calculus, trig, or anything other than basic social studies and basic history. Just the fundamentals were offered.

I was fortunate to get accepted to the U of I and graduate successfully, but I can tell you that the academic advisor noted on my application that I was from a “small, rural school,” which seemed to give me an extra edge, but I felt that the perception was that I might not succeed. She told me that the ACT score was less relevant because it only tested what I would have learned in high school, which was clearly less than what more advantaged high schools would teach.

I struggled to catch up with many of my northern Illinois classmates because they had many opportunities that I didn’t have — four years of a foreign language, calculus, economics, etc. School was more difficult for me, but I succeeded.

I think the underlying issue with this discussion is how the legislature can successfully redesign the way schools are funded. Knowing the vast differences between northern and southern Illinois, someone is bound to lose, making this a political hot potato that I personally believe the legislature will never touch.

Property taxes are not an effective way to fund schools, but I don’t know that this system will ever be changed.

One question that I don’t think was addressed in this discussion is how many of the top 10% of students AREN’T being accepted to state schools (with UIUC being the exception because the University is of a different caliber)? Is this really even an issue? I can’t imagine a student in the top 10% not getting accepted to state schools (except maybe U of I).

To me, the legislature should stop posturing and politicizing the issue and just get right to the heart of it if they’re truly sincere about leveling the school playing field. Realistically, I don’t think that will ever happen.

Meanwhile, I trust the decisions of the colleges and universities. They have way more experience with the admissions process than our legislators.

Comment by Metro-East Reader Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 2:04 pm
Rich,

You’re right. I incorrectly said “significantly” instead of the word you used - “greatly.”

However, I did not contradict myself. In order to “greatly” or “significantly” increase out of state enrollment, it would have to be a bigger jump than 9.5% to 15%.

Increasing nonresident enrollment to the levels of UofI’s peers would be a “great” or “significant” increase, and that’s why the university proposed an increase that would still be the lowest of all B10 universities (significantly lower than most).

Comment by anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 2:14 pm
Students who are in the top 10% are probably able to obtain scholarships to schools of their choice anyway. (Oddly enough) I agree with Bill and Anonymous on this one. Some kids are better at testing, classes, etc….than others and it is Affirmative Action at it’s worse. The demographic make up of the constituents in Will Davis’s clearly state why he would want a bill of this magnitude. Whatever happened to letters of recommendations? Try that!!! We should trust the decisions of the colleges. I also agree that finding better school funding should be his priority.

Comment by reasonable 1 Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 2:41 pm
Get real!
Right now we not only accept the top 10% of high school students at universities, we also have a system where the bottom 10% has the help it needs to attend college too. And if public universities can’t help, we have hundreds of private institutions to help.

Anyone will a desire to attend college can find that desire fulfilled within the extensive college and university systems currently in place. It doesn’t matter what your grades are because we have community colleges to help you go from high school drop-out to college grad. It doesn’t matter what your income is because we have so many financial options available even for those with no income.

So what’s the point? This legislator is willing to meddle and mandate with our current system when it is quite clear that it isn’t broken. I know it is costly, and those costs should be addressed, but if the desire is to educate, then that important and vital mission is accomplished. He wants to meddle to prove a point regarding HIGH SCHOOL FUNDING. This is a very poor approach and no well thought out, in my opinion.

We already saw how no one cares about plagarizing at SIU - especially if they are in charge of it, so the last thing we need to see is our current system falling further in it’s standards in order to meet some arbitrary number.

Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 2:57 pm
===in order to “greatly” or “significantly” increase out of state enrollment, it would have to be a bigger jump than 9.5% to 15%.===

That’s more than a 50 percent jump.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 2:58 pm
fyi, admissions folks are more than aware of schools’ caliber. A stand-out at a mediocre school is viewed very favorably. After briefly working for the admissions office at a top national university, I would suggest that if you want to maximize your child’s chances to attend a great school, pull them out of Deerfield and move to northwestern Alaska.

Comment by Greg Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 3:18 pm
What happens if the last student in the top 10% of their high school class only took easy courses, whereas the next student (in the top 10.1% of the class) took difficult, challenging courses? Is it fair the first is guaranteed to get into college, but the 2nd isn’t? Most colleges consider ACT scores, grades, extracurricular activities, etc for that very reason.

Comment by Sir Reel Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 3:18 pm
Semantics aside, I actually went and looked at the bill (radical notion, I know). I particularly like this clause:

Admission to the University under this subsection (e) does not entitle the applicant to be admitted into a particular college of study or department at the University. After admitting an applicant under this subsection (e), the University shall review the applicant’s record and any other factor the University considers appropriate to determine whether the applicant may require additional preparation for college-level work or would benefit from inclusion in a retention program. The University may require a student so identified to enroll during the summer immediately after the student is admitted under this subsection (e) to participate in appropriate developmental and enrichment courses and
orientation programs.

This means that Chambana will create a massive summer school program for all of those top-10% high school grads with low test scores. If they can’t make it, they wouldn’t be admitted in the fall, and it would put a huge spotlight (and pricetag) on the current system’s inequity.

The summer programs could even be offered at the other campuses and institutions, so that it wouldn’t really be such a crazy “camp Illini” scene in the cornfields.

Would this hamper the 11th percentile students from New Trier and Hinsdale Central? Of course. Could it generate momentum for a better statewide K-12 system? Yep.

Comment by Prairie Sage Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 3:26 pm
A change from 1% to 2% is a 100% jump. Lets put it in context a bit.

The propose enrollment would still be the lowest level of out-of-state enrollment in the B10 and its significantly lower than the level of UI’s non-B10 peers [UVA 30% (2), UNC 18% (5), William & Mary 34% (6), UT-Austin 19% (11)]. The numbers in parentheses behind the percentage are the 2008 US News Rankings; UofI is ranked 8th.

Comment by anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 3:32 pm
This policy has clear results in Texas. Students from exceptional schools with good grades, good scores and solid rankings get pushed out of the state university systems as more mediocre students are given the available spots. There are two potential problems with this.
1) Rather than going to a state university with a lower ranking or reputation, my bet is that those students will examine private or out-of-state options. A policy like this has the potential to increase “brain drain”.
2) The average grades and employment rates for the University of Texas have been significantly lowered as a result of this policy, and Texans have begun to push for system reform. Should we really be considering the implementation of a system many view as damaging to the quality of the institution?

Comment by Lady Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 3:34 pm
We weren’t talking one percent.

And, dude, I don’t care what Wisconsin or Iowa does. That argument doesn’t usually work with me. Plus, U of I ranks higher than other Big 10s that have more out of state students, so your logic is once again fatally flawed.

Try to get back to the question at hand.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 3:38 pm
His idea has merit with the exception that life takes more than smarts to succeed. Some high school students are ‘bookworms’ and have no life outside of those pages. The real world looks for those who have skill sets not always taught in a classroom - sports, language/photo clubs, dance or drama activities - things that develop social responsibility. Sometimes, the extra activities impact grades even to a slight degree, but they expand the mind and body past the letter-grade system.

Comment by Still thinkin' Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 3:58 pm
This bill is not necessary. Let the free market decide.

Comment by Jake From Elwood Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 4:01 pm
I don’t think the proposal would hamper 11th percentile New Trier or Hinsdale grads at all. They will continue to be very attractive to almost all colleges and universities, only in part because most of them won’t need a lot of financial aid.

Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 5:03 pm
Should be based on individuals’ merit; not lowering standards.

Comment by Annonymous Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 5:58 pm
Well you can tell which posters wasted fours(five?) years in Chambana.

I suspect for Chicago area African Americans it’s as much about access to UIC.

Bill’s broad wave at the directional ignores that black students are clustering at certain campuses.

In Florida grads from state community colleges get priority consideration for admissions even at the top tier(UF,FSU,USF) schools. I find this preferable to the 10% solution.

Managing a state funded university to US News rankings is nuts.

Comment by HappyToaster Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 6:02 pm
Rich,

I agree that comparisons with other schools are not always valid. However, we need to have some benchmark for comparison, so inevitably B10 schools (being from the Midwest and large land-grant institutions) serve as a good comparison.

You’re right that UI is ranked higher than most other B10 schools. But my logic is not “fatally flawed.” Other B10 schools that are similarly ranked (Michigan & Wisconsin) have much higher out-of-state enrollments. But other lesser ranked schools in the B10 also have much higher out-of-state enrollments (Indiana, Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State, etc.). The point: every B10 school has significantly higher out-of-state enrollments.

You say that the B10 schools are not a good comparison, okay. I agree with that. But the other schools that are similarly ranked (UVA, William & Mary, UNC, Georgia Tech, University of Washington) have much higher out-of-state enrollments. The point: every comparable school to UI has much higher nonresident populations.

I agree by the way. Let’s get back to the issue at hand. Out-of-state enrollment has nothing to do with this issue.

Comment by anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 6:27 pm
What is the real aim of this plan?

If it’s to give all the students from Illinois their best chance at success, this surely is a counterproductive idea.

When I attended the UI in the mid seventies, the “average” student was in the top 10% in class rank and ACT score. Only 60% of incoming freshmen were able to graduate within FIVE years.

The problem was that students were really given horribly low quality instruction in their first two years, and many students got in a hole and never dug themselves out.

Since I was in a work study program to pay the bills, I took night classes at the local JC near my home in Chicago during my work semesters.

I was amazed by how superior the quality of instruction was at the JC compared to UI.

At the JC, all my classes were taught by professional educators with at least an MS in the subject they taught. They also generally had extensive professional experience in their field, and they taught because THEY ENJOYED IT!

At UI, virtually all my instruction in the first two years was by grad students who had NO professional experience, had NO advanced degree, could often barely speak English, and had little interest in being educators.

The lab facilities for freshmen at UI were poorer than my HS.

When I was put of the Engineering Dean’s Academic Advisory Committee as a Junior, I finally found out what a UI education was all about.

Most Professors are more interested in research than teaching, and they came to the UI because there was an abundant supply of cheap grad research assistant labor there. They were required to teach some undergrad courses, but they didn’t want to deal with students who might need some attention.

The first two years were set up to “cull the heard” of any students who might require educational assistance as upperclassmen, when they would actually have contact with tenured faculty.

I understand that’s still the situation there today.

Students entering as freshman need to be self starters and be able to hit then ground running, otherwise they’re academically “dead” and all too often shun further college education, and that’s a shame.

I actually agree with Bill on this one (shudder), prepare the kids at home first so that they’ll be ready to enter the belly of the beast in CU when they’re mature and ready as upperclassmen.

PS:The most valuable part of my UI education was OUTSIDE the clasroom, where I got to informally chat with a two time Nobel Prize winner (John Bardeen), argue politics with commie poli sci and journalism majors, attend a topless ERA rally, and critically debate US foreign policy with a Nicaraguan terrorist in front of a left wing faculty throng.

Comment by PalosParkBob Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 7:08 pm
I contend the issue is not money or parental involvement as it pertains to attending parent/teacher conferences. Educational excellence, in my opinion, hinges on parental involvement and expectation at home. If children grow up knowing they are expected to do well in school, and their parent(s) foster that environment, they will do better than children whose parents attend conferences, get involved in PTA, etc. We have bought into the notion that more and more money or having parents “on campus” on a regular basis will bring higher test scores, better prepared students for college and/or the work force.

Comment by Jay SeaBee Friday, Feb 15, 08 @ 7:23 pm
Bill….this administtration has shown no interest in higher education. In fact funding levels are at an all time low. He vetoed funding for disadvantaged students out of the FY2008 bill. Filan and Ostrow look at higher education as a ” red headed step child”. Don’t even sugfgest Rod cares about this one. But ok one more chance…lets see how he treats higher ed in his upcoming budget address.

Comment by downhereforyears Saturday, Feb 16, 08 @ 1:11 pm
What is so outstanding about being in the top 10%.In a small class that could be as few as 10 students,in others it could be 100+.Some scools give added points for AP classes-some do not rank at all. What about other factors such as home schooling and GED certificates. I can see a boatload of suits if this law were to pass. What is Rep. Davis objective?. He might undo certain admission policies that are in place to address selected admissions. What is wrong with the present system that stresses level exams like the ACT?

Comment by Loyal Alumn-Uof I 65 Monday, Feb 18, 08 @ 10:09 am
It is not hard to see that such a bill would directly incentivize several kids who find themselves in 11%-100% in their class to move to a high school where they would be in 0-10%. Presumably, they would be moving from a better school to a worse school. The only thing worse than this idea would be to automatically admit the top child from a home where the kids are home-schooled. The scenarios are not too different.

Comment by mpkomara Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 9:01 am
How about guaranteed admission for top 5% to UIUC, top 10% to any state U, and top 15% to any community college?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 20, 08 @ 8:07 pm