California Assembly Bill AB233

California 2021-2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/12/21
• Refer: 1/28/21
• Report Pass: 3/25/21
• Refer: 3/26/21
• Report Pass: 4/12/21
• Refer: 4/12/21
• Refer: 4/21/21
• Report Pass: 5/20/21
• Engrossed: 6/1/21
• Refer: 6/2/21
• Refer: 6/9/21
• Report Pass: 6/23/21
• Refer: 6/23/21
• Refer: 7/5/21

Caption

Public postsecondary education: University of California: admissions.

Impact

If enacted, AB 233 would significantly affect state laws pertaining to public higher education, particularly regarding the admissions protocols of the University of California. The bill encourages the development of clear and consistent admission processes, making it less vulnerable to undue influence by external sources. Furthermore, it mandates annual reporting to the Legislature on the effectiveness of the implemented standards, which may lead to heightened accountability and public oversight of the university admissions processes.

Summary

AB 233, introduced by Assembly Members Boerner Horvath and McCarty, aims to establish new protocols for admissions at the University of California (UC) in order to promote transparency and fairness. Specifically, the bill requests the Regents of the University of California to require the Office of the President to set systemwide standards for the admissions process by April 15, 2022, impacting the admission cycle beginning August 1, 2022. These standards include training for admissions staff, reporting mechanisms for attempts to influence admissions decisions, and the implementation of consistent evaluation practices for applicants.

Sentiment

The reception of AB 233 has largely been positive among advocates for transparency and equal opportunity in higher education. Proponents argue that the protocols would safeguard against corrupt practices in admissions decisions, thereby ensuring that all applicants are evaluated based on their qualifications rather than external pressures. However, some opponents may express concerns regarding the administrative burden these protocols could impose on university staff and resources.

Contention

While AB 233 aims to enhance ethical conduct and fairness in admissions, debates surrounding its implementation reflect broader tensions in higher education policy. Critics may argue that strict adherence to these protocols could limit the flexibility of admissions officers to consider unique aspects of applicants' backgrounds and experiences. Additionally, the need for detailed reporting on admissions practices could lead to resistance from some university administrators and departments who prefer more autonomy in their decision-making processes.