Editorial: It's time KU tightens admission standards

By Kevin Hardy

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

As summer months come to an end and a new chancellor readies to take over the reigns at the University of Kansas, it seems like a perfect opportunity to make some positive changes.

The University of Kansas has long been on the verge of greatness. And, while the University has made great strides in some areas, such as research and athletics, there is still one thing keeping it from becoming a top-notch institution.

The current admission standards at the University ensure a constant flock of unprepared students who are unequipped to succeed here and who will ultimately fail or drop out.

KU currently accepts 92 percent of applicants — a greater percentage than any other school in the Big 12 Conference, making it one of the easiest major public universities in the Midwest to be accepted to.

“We are required to admit students to KU whom we know will likely fail,” said a July 2008 report by the Kansas Board of Regents State University Admissions Task Force.

The task force asked for a change in admission standards, noting that the current standards were proposed more than a decade ago.

“There is a disconnect between what it takes to be academically successful in college and what our admission standards indicate,” the report stated.

The University has asked to increase the admission standards, but Regents, who must decide, have made no action. If the University has been able to identify its own weaknesses, why haven’t Regents let it fix them?

Incoming Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little has identified increasing the quality of KU academics as one of her central goals. What better way to improve academics than to improve the quality of students?

Sure, it may cost a little more. The number of students would likely decrease as the University started to deny entry to some. But, with better-prepared students come more research grants, scholarships and awards. And successful students ensure top-rate faculty, exponentially increasing the quality of education across the University. Making the University more desirable would increase the number of applicants, eventually making up for any dips in enrollment.

Scraping through high school with a 2.0 GPA shouldn’t be enough to gain admittance. And being in the top-third of one’s class is an outdated and unrealistic tool of measuring success.

It should be a privilege to attend the University of Kansas. We should become a place that students from all over the world aspire to attend. Students, faculty and staff shouldn’t be satisfied with merely being a safety or back-up school for thousands of students. We should take the highly marketed term “best value” college as an insult. The University shouldn’t strive to be the best bang for one’s buck. It should strive to be the best.

— — Kevin Hardy for the Kansan Editorial Board

Comments

JackMartin_KUCommunications (anonymous) says...

Until this year admissions standards for public universities in Kansas were determined by the Kansas Legislature, not by the Board of Regents or the University of Kansas.

During the 2009 Legislature, the Board of Regents, with the support of KU, proposed that the Regents be given the authority to set admissions standards, including different standards to meet the needs of each university. This proposal was contained in House Bill 2197, which was passed by the Legislature and signed into law in March of this year.

Under this new law, universities will be allowed to implement different admissions standards, pending Regents approval and after a four-year waiting period that will ensure Kansas students know what a university's admissions requirements will be before they enter high school.

Jack Martin
University Communications

July 29, 2009 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mransom (anonymous) says...

Kevin: THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I'm glad I'm not alone in this; buzz words like "best value" and "premiere university" don't enhance our reputation, they diminish it. Furthermore, the University's admissions requirements are only marginally more stringent than my local junior college. I dream of a KU whose academic prestige precedes its athletic renown.

Jack, did I read that correctly -- the new admissions requirements will not be enacted for another four years? It's easier to get into KU than Mizzou; that's a travesty. The time to act is now!

-Matt
A proud, yet disgruntled, Jayhawk.

July 29, 2009 at 11:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

uofk03 (anonymous) says...

Good editorial. Sounds like (based on Jack's comments above) that administration is on it.

August 5, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

penguin (anonymous) says...

This editorial just shows the lack of knowledge of the history of higher education policy in the state of Kansas. The Populist past has always been present in higher education. Many probably are not aware/forgot that it was less than 10 year ago that open admissions was still policy for all the regents schools.

I am actually floored that the KS Legislature gave the power over admissions criteria to the KSBOR. However, beware of what you ask for you might just get it.

The tighter admissions standards do help current grads and those who put stock in the USNWR rankings. Unfortunately, they do less for incoming students. It does ensure a higher standard, but would also likely lead to less students being becoming KU students, which means less tution dollars coming in...maybe this could be made up with more students who want to come now, but who knows.

In addition, the 4 lag time ensures that admissions standards are not revisted each year, but more importantly gives the KS HS community time to align their curriculum with requirements of KU. However, just because the KSBOR has the power now to approve tougher admission standards...don't be so sure that it is set in stone. If KU pushes to hard to move from the University of Kansas to a University in Kansas the KS Legislature could still come back or at the least just cut State Aid.

I am glad for the change, but if you are unaware of the past it might appear frustrating that this change hasn't seem to come soon enough.

August 12, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement