CSU is literally middle tier in the scheme of public post-secondary education in California, being sandwiched between the junior colleges on the lower end and the University of California on the higher end. While certain campuses like Cal Poly punch above their weight, the system as a whole is not selective.

> Those studies are based on high school students...

Appropriately so, when the issue is their preparedness for further education.

> Yes lower-ed degree mills are a huge issue, and need regualating, but that hardly applies to CalState, which is a top tier public school.

The concern is that it appears to be taking a step in the degree-mill direction. Reading the article in full does not assuage that concern:

“Our timeline for implementation is aggressive,” Minor [Cal State’s senior strategist for academic success and inclusive excellence] said, but “we've got more than enough evidence to suggest that our current treatment of students, with the use of developmental education courses, doesn't serve them very well. ... And we have worked with and talked to our faculty... who are ready to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that we need to do to serve our students better.” [all elisions were made in the Times article, so I am trusting the journalist has not misrepresented Mr. Minor.]

The justification seems to be that this will work because a) other things do not, and b) we want it to work. Anyone who understands how bureaucracies respond to "aggressive" mandates that specify outcomes for unproven methods probably has misgivings.