Comments on: Senate to Raise Minimum Admission Average by 3%

By: Michael C

Michael C — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 23:30:21 +0000

I’d have to play the part of the general apathetic public and say that because I’m now a UBC student, I really could care less, even if I WAS let in with a 67%.

That’s why it’s never a good idea to have people who aren’t affected by the change to make the decision. I still a little cheesed off that Sauder students voted for a $500 student fee increase that I will have to pay for, and not them.

By: Neal Yonson

Neal Yonson — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 23:29:14 +0000

Michael, you’re correct that this affects only direct-entry admissions from HS, not transfer student. It’s been documented that transfer students have an easier time getting in already.

And I’m not sure what effect grade inflation has on the minimum. Certainly, it’s responsible for the ever increasing cut-offs seen, now into the 90′s. But presumably, a 67% student would be considered mediocre in the 1960′s the same as it is nowadays. Since 1963 is a few decades before my birth, I won’t attempt to speculate any further.

By: Charles Menzies

Charles Menzies — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:25:32 +0000

I wonder to what extent this situation is a by-product of grade inflation. It is quite likely that a C+ (67%) in 1963 is not comparable to a 63% today.

Did the report break down these categories by ESL, in-province/out-of-province? These are factors that might have some impact as well.

By: Michael C

Michael C — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:09:32 +0000

If a student wanted to be admitted to UBC and did not meet the minimum, they could always try to enter after a year of post-secondary education elsewhere, right?

If the consultations had no problem with this, then I guess I would have no problem with this either.