"CSU, UC may only be raising anxiety for students who have a slim chance of being accepted, advisors say."
As California's public universities prepare to break with tradition and make broad use of waiting lists in their admissions decisions this spring, high school counselors and even some university officials worry about the emotional toll on students.
For an applicant, getting onto a favorite school's waiting list offers a glimmer of hope that a spot on campus might eventually open up. But because relatively few students ever make the jump from waiting list to enrollment, some experts say the lists merely increase anxiety and extend an already stressful time for college-bound high school seniors.
Concern about the lists has been rippling through California high schools since the University of California announced in January that for the first time, it will employ waiting lists extensively this spring for fall freshman applicants. Last week, officials specified that at least six of UC's nine undergraduate campuses will use the lists. UCLA and UC Merced will not and UC Berkeley has yet to decide.
The state's other public university, the Cal State system, said it too will expand its use of freshman waiting lists this year to include many of its 23 campuses and will place transfer students on some lists.
UC and Cal State admissions officials say that they need the lists as a tool to help them hit enrollment targets at a time when state budget reductions are forcing them to cut the number of new freshmen. As a result, thousands of students and their counselors will soon have to deal with a practice more commonly associated with selective private colleges. Many are not happy.
As California's public universities prepare to break with tradition and make broad use of waiting lists in their admissions decisions this spring, high school counselors and even some university officials worry about the emotional toll on students.
For an applicant, getting onto a favorite school's waiting list offers a glimmer of hope that a spot on campus might eventually open up. But because relatively few students ever make the jump from waiting list to enrollment, some experts say the lists merely increase anxiety and extend an already stressful time for college-bound high school seniors.
Concern about the lists has been rippling through California high schools since the University of California announced in January that for the first time, it will employ waiting lists extensively this spring for fall freshman applicants. Last week, officials specified that at least six of UC's nine undergraduate campuses will use the lists. UCLA and UC Merced will not and UC Berkeley has yet to decide.
The state's other public university, the Cal State system, said it too will expand its use of freshman waiting lists this year to include many of its 23 campuses and will place transfer students on some lists.
UC and Cal State admissions officials say that they need the lists as a tool to help them hit enrollment targets at a time when state budget reductions are forcing them to cut the number of new freshmen. As a result, thousands of students and their counselors will soon have to deal with a practice more commonly associated with selective private colleges. Many are not happy.





















RESPONDED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2010 9:44 AM
Students Need Evaluation Too
It is not clear that their intention to use value-added scores will necessarily be the right way to do it. As Randi Weingarten said, value-added scores should measure students at the beginning of the school year and the end of the school year to see how much progress they made in the classroom of a specific teacher of a specific subject. If Houston is comparing cohort to cohort, then they don't have accurate information because students are not randomly assigned, and cohorts are not necessarily comparable. The information will also be flawed unless it takes into account progress over three years. There is a solid body of research showing that value-added scores are not stable from year to year. A teacher who is the "best" one year may not be in the top category a year or two later; conversely, a teacher who got very low value-added scores one year may get very good results the next year or the one after. It would be interesting to see if there is a district anywhere in the U.S. that has used value-added scores to evaluate teachers and actually improved student performance. Tennessee has been doing it for some 20 years, and I can't see any big improvement in the state's performance on NAEP. Now, would Terry Grier, the superintendent in Houston, please come up with a plan to hold students accountable for doing their homework, showing up in class everyday, and taking their studies seriously? And while he is at it, how about an accountability plan for parents? Give them grades based on whether their children go to school ready to learn. Did they get breakfast? Do they have a quiet place to study? Are their TV and computer habits monitored? If we are serious about student performance, we must evaluate the teacher, but also the student and his or her family. Teachers are important but they are not the sole source of student performance.
RESPONDED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2010 9:31 AM
Groping Our Way to the Future