Public Comments
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
Still loading...
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTU
1
TimestampComment or QuestionsContact email First and Last Name
2
3
3/13/2012 14:03:28The criteria for admission, with respect to the majors in our department, are arbitrarily set and did not involve department input. Both of our programs need to grow somewhat to improve efficiencies, so we have determined our capacities to be higher than current enrollment. Hence the CSU minimum elegibility requirements are satisfactory for our programs. However, we have found that admissions is applying a 3.4 GPA requirement for transfer students for one of our majors (Aviation). This is not reasonable.

Seth.Bates@sjsu.eduSeth Bates
4
3/13/2012 14:06:11Unfortunately, the criteria for departments developed for Admissions and currently being applied DID NOT involve department input. Neither our department, nor to my understanding our dean's office, were involved in setting the admissions criteria for our programs.
This lack of BASIS for setting criteria is not acceptable.
The lack of transparency in this process is a major cause of current frustration both for student applicants and for departments they are applying to.
Seth.Bates@sjsu.eduSeth Bates
5
3/14/2012 0:39:35Entering students with engineering majors must have specific academic preparations and planning. The decision of closing/opening spring admission surely hurts engineering departments in selecting good/qualified applicants. Well prepared students will NOT wait for a semester to apply to SJSU but will apply to other universities. Admission schedule should be permanent and it is up to the departments to admit the number of students based on their admission criteria, standard, and budget. As a faculty member, I would like to see my work well received by the students, not just having students to teach. Without proper admission criteria, process and schedule, the university would be similar as a theater with audiences (students) and actors (professors).Thuy.Le@sjsu.eduThuy Le
6
3/17/2012 20:18:20My nephew lives in San Carlos and attends Canada College and the College of San Mateo. He was accepted to SJSU right out of high school but decided to delay his entrance to SJSU. He completed all CSU GE requirements and all major prep classes offered at his community colleges with a decent gpa, but was rejected because he was not considered a local student. He lives closer to SJSU than many residents of Santa Cruz County. I feel he should have been considered with the "local pool" of students. He was rejected from an animation major because he did not have the 3.7 required gap for non local students.
I do not think you need to have different standards for local students.
But if you are going to have a different local criteria you need to expand your "local area" to include San Mateo and San Benito Counties, as we do not have a CSU of our own.

Sincerely,
Bill McDonald
bill@walter-mcdonald.com 650 678-5517Bill McDonald
7
3/20/2012 15:23:57I think SJSU Admissions is on the right track by removing the "guarantee" out of the language in the publications and on the web for future applicants. I hope that as our state support improves this guarantee can be reinstated. Our local students and local community is a large part of what makes SJSU a great university.deb.creed@sjsu.eduDebbora Creed
8
3/21/2012 13:43:02I am the MESA Engineering Program Director for SJSU. I did an initial check on MEP student entering GPA's and SAT scores. With the proposed changes, many of our students would not be admitted to the university today.

The proposed freshman eligibility index for Civil Engineers is a 4100. (Removed due to FERPA) graduating senior who is a 3 time Dean's Scholar and will graduate with a (removed due to FERPA) GPA, his high school eligibility index was a (removed due to FERPA). He has received the following scholarships: Charles W. Davidson, Engineering Pathways, PG&E, Silicon Valley Engineering, SMART Grant, COMTO, APWA and MEP to name a few. In addition, he tutors many of our MEP students. He already has a full time offer with Graniterock.

He has been a true College of Engineering spokes person and yet he would not be eligible for admissions today if these new proposed changes go thru.

Proposed eligibilty index for Mechanical Engineering is 4100. (removed due to FERPA) high school eligibility index was (removed due to FERPA). Not eligible under the proposed changes. He has been an MEP Scholar and Cisco Scholar and will be honored at the Engineering Banquet and is receiving the Don Beall award for academic excellence. He has a GPA! He just had his research published and will be doing a summer research program at MIT! He also applied and was accepted for summer research at John's Hopkins and UC Berkeley.

There are so many more that would not be here with these changes and I am concerned that we will be closing the doors to many students of color and diversity in the college will be next to nothing.
linda.ortega@sjsu.eduLinda Ortega
9
3/21/2012 21:48:06I feel it is imperative to honor transfer agreements from local community colleges. I believe that these transfer students should continue to have the guaranteed admission to SJSU if they are from Santa Cruz or Santa Clara counties. Countless students are depending up to transfer agreements and guaranteed admission criteria to complete their education. Without these agreements, the competition with Freshman or non-local students would put local community college transfers at a dead end.rosecmoe@gmail.comChristine Moe
10
3/22/2012 11:31:43 I would like to see the the Spartan Pathways program directed exclusively at local students.

When fiscal constaints are not so great, perhaps you could consider expanding the vision for the Spartan Pathway to something more like the Long Beach promise?
http://www.longbeachcollegepromise.org

For the local area guarantee (or preference), I do not support the move to redefine "local" based on where a student attended high school. This disadvantages returning students who may have grown up elsewhere but are here now, trying to improve their lives by attending a local community college in hopes of transferring to their local California State University campus. Many are not in a position to pack up and attend a university located somewhere else.
beckybartindale@comcast.netBecky Bartindale
11
3/22/2012 13:06:00I'm a graduate of SJSU, and I would like to see that SJSU raises its admission standard and particularly do away with the local Santa Clara county admission preference.

Studies have shown that the most highly qualified applicants are the most likely to graduate. This benefits both the community and the tax payers as well given the lack of resources we are in now. SJSU should accept students based on their academic performance. Location should NOT play a factor in the acceptance process.

Thank you for your time.
timothykthai@gmail.comtim k.
12
3/22/2012 13:11:02
I realize that there are many factors into contributing to the low graduation rates at SJSU, but I believe the quality of the students that SJSU admits is a primary reason. SJSU must raise its admission bar and enroll only the most highly prepared applicants. Having an admission limitation would also help make SJSU less overcrowded and allow the students to enroll in classes they need to graduate.

SJSU must align its enrollment with the resources it has to support the students and can not guaranteed or give preference to local Santa Clara county applicants. Also, having a geographically diverse student body coming from all over California would greatly enrich the learning experience for everybody.

Additionally, SJSU should strongly advise that students live on campus as statistics have shown that those that live on campus are more likely to graduate as well as participate in campus or community activities.

Of course, we also need an inordinate effort from the faculty and staff along with an improved student body to make our low graduation reputation a thing of the past.

Regards,
dave@hotmail.comdave t
13
3/22/2012 13:13:43SJSU must increase expectations from students that apply to our campus. Given the number of applications, I'm confident that the student would rise to those levels of achievement.

There are lots of students and their parents through out California who also support SJSU with their tax dollars who have worked very hard in their high schools, sometimes overcome just as a difficult economic hardship that local students have here and yet have prepared themselves very well.

We must invest our money wisely and admit more qualified students (local or non-local) to yield a better return of taxpayers dollars.

Given the limited resources with the budget cut, SJSU should not enroll students that we can’t serve.
ha@gmail.comnguyen h
14
3/22/2012 14:22:02Hello
I would like to express my concern over eliminating the current admissions guildeline that gives preference to San Jose living students for admission into SJSU. I went to SJSU and I was born and raised in San Jose. Many familes have deep roots here and we have contributed to our City in many ways. We need to keep this guideline alive!!!
Geri Hernandez, SJSU Alum
grhernand@yahoo.comGeri Hernandez
15
3/23/2012 0:50:06Less prepared students and those that are required to take remedial classes should attend community college first and give themselves a better chance of success with more time to prepare for university level courses. At the same time, it would make more room for highly qualified local and non-local students that have a good chance of graduating at the university level.

It's not the most cost effective use of tax dollars in admitting local students that do not have a reasonable expectation of completing a degree. And it wouldn't be fair to anybody by denying admission to non-local students (in San Mateo for example) that are well-prepared and accept local students who've met the CSU minimum without a real chance of graduating.
timha23@gmail.comthy tran
16
3/30/2012 0:23:28CSU should provide equal access to all students that perform well regardless of where they live in the state. U.S students are already falling way behind many other developed countries, so restricting choice and limit students from other part of the state will not make us any more prepared for the work force.

High expectations are good especially at the university level as it gives tax payers a better return on our investment.

I understand there's a safety net too with the Spartan Pathway, so there are exceptions allowed.

But overall the proposed change is good in elevating our educational goal and addressing our lack of resources.
mattchoi@rocketmail.commatt choi
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
 
 
 
Sheet1