Higher Standards, Lower Enrollment
Conflicting View on GPA Increase
Emmanuelle Leal
Issue date: 12/1/01 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
Nevada has the lowest percentage of high school graduates going on to college in the West and is among the lowest in the nation. Adding to that our state also has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation.
At a time when people are getting laid off, this affects students whose parents or whose jobs were lost. When UNLV and UNR are the only established state universities of which have low retention rates and disproportionate minority students enrolled. At this time, the Board of Regents have decided to raise the GPA requirement for admission to UNLV/UNR.
What better timing to make the "glass ceiling" for low-income and minority students lower than by raising the requirement, which is not an indicator of a student's college performance but of the time they spent on their class work and the type of classes they took.
As you probably already guessed, I am opposed to the raised GPA requirement. Not only to the idea but also to the timing of the proposal. This proposal does not stand alone in what the Board of Regents have done this semester. Earlier they voted to raise tuition and will vote to again raise student fees. Also voting on taking away almost $750,000 from Student Government (meaning the students) and giving it away to college, administrators for pet projects. Also with the building of this new state college just beginning in Henderson. Timing is everything.
Before I begin to mention the reasons why I am opposed to this I want to defend CCSN somewhat from those that say if students aren't prepared for UNLV or UNR then they should go to CCSN, mature and get prepared. I, for one, I did not come to CCSN to mature or to get better prepared because I wasn't UNLV or UNR material. I came to CCSN because of other reasons not including my GPA. CCSN is a great institution, even with some of its problems, and should not be regarded as a kind of "opportunity school".
First of all, why raise the GPA in a state that already have few higher education choices. Now it's either UNLV, UNR, or out-of-state. Some argue that by raising it you get the "cream of the crop" but what makes them think that the "cream of the crop" (the elite) want to attend UNLV or UNR when with their grades they can go out-of-state to a better institution. And those that don't "make the grade" can still attend other universities out-of-state that accept students with a 2.5 now figuring out that they can't attend UNLV/UNR but another university in another state that will accept them.
What happened to almost half of the Millennium scholars during their first year in college? They lost their scholarship, meaning 3.0 students didn't do so well their first year.
Opponents say that if they really wanted to go to college those students would put in the effort and get a higher GPA. Well how can you do that if you have to work during high school or can't speak the language very well?
When the Board of Regents should be working on how to increase enrollment and make higher education more accessible to the children of tax-paying people and those tax-paying kids. Of all the ways they could have solved this real problem of retention, this is the best they could come up with.
At a time when people are getting laid off, this affects students whose parents or whose jobs were lost. When UNLV and UNR are the only established state universities of which have low retention rates and disproportionate minority students enrolled. At this time, the Board of Regents have decided to raise the GPA requirement for admission to UNLV/UNR.
What better timing to make the "glass ceiling" for low-income and minority students lower than by raising the requirement, which is not an indicator of a student's college performance but of the time they spent on their class work and the type of classes they took.
As you probably already guessed, I am opposed to the raised GPA requirement. Not only to the idea but also to the timing of the proposal. This proposal does not stand alone in what the Board of Regents have done this semester. Earlier they voted to raise tuition and will vote to again raise student fees. Also voting on taking away almost $750,000 from Student Government (meaning the students) and giving it away to college, administrators for pet projects. Also with the building of this new state college just beginning in Henderson. Timing is everything.
Before I begin to mention the reasons why I am opposed to this I want to defend CCSN somewhat from those that say if students aren't prepared for UNLV or UNR then they should go to CCSN, mature and get prepared. I, for one, I did not come to CCSN to mature or to get better prepared because I wasn't UNLV or UNR material. I came to CCSN because of other reasons not including my GPA. CCSN is a great institution, even with some of its problems, and should not be regarded as a kind of "opportunity school".
First of all, why raise the GPA in a state that already have few higher education choices. Now it's either UNLV, UNR, or out-of-state. Some argue that by raising it you get the "cream of the crop" but what makes them think that the "cream of the crop" (the elite) want to attend UNLV or UNR when with their grades they can go out-of-state to a better institution. And those that don't "make the grade" can still attend other universities out-of-state that accept students with a 2.5 now figuring out that they can't attend UNLV/UNR but another university in another state that will accept them.
What happened to almost half of the Millennium scholars during their first year in college? They lost their scholarship, meaning 3.0 students didn't do so well their first year.
Opponents say that if they really wanted to go to college those students would put in the effort and get a higher GPA. Well how can you do that if you have to work during high school or can't speak the language very well?
When the Board of Regents should be working on how to increase enrollment and make higher education more accessible to the children of tax-paying people and those tax-paying kids. Of all the ways they could have solved this real problem of retention, this is the best they could come up with.