The University of California Academic Senate issued a report
Wednesday declaring the UC’s modified admissions policies a
success in their first year of implementation.
The senate’s report was commissioned last November, when
the UC Board of Regents changed admissions procedures by adopting
comprehensive review. Though the senate found that some aspects of
the policy require further study, the report contained no findings
of mismanagement on any of the six campuses using the policy.
The report was released at a time when the policy has come under
question, as some wonder whether it fairly balances academic
qualifications with personal considerations.
Comprehensive review changed UC undergraduate admissions policy
by placing greater emphasis on personal challenges and life
experiences relative to academic performance in selecting
applicants on each campus. Eligibility to the UC as a whole is
still determined solely by grades and test scores.
Two undergraduate campuses, UC Santa Cruz and UC Riverside, do
not use comprehensive review, since there is enough space on those
campuses to admit all eligible applicants.
The Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, a committee
of the Academic Senate, conducted the review. Though specific
admissions policies vary on each campus, BOARS gave positive
evaluations across the board.
BOARS recommended that the regents approve comprehensive review;
the report checked if admissions officials followed their
recommendations.
The campuses, not BOARS, implemented comprehensive review, so
the review was independent, not internal, said BOARS chairwoman
Barbara Sawrey.
According to the report, during the first year of comprehensive
review, the policy was administered without bias, but with
sufficient oversight, and yet it kept academic quality high and
maintained access.
Important areas where BOARS recommended future studies include
examining the academic careers of students admitted under
comprehensive review, whether applicants supply honest information,
how best to assess personal hardships, and the clarity and
predictability of the admissions process.
Some parents find comprehensive review more problematic than
BOARS believes. There are worries that since six campuses have
their own versions of comprehensive review, there isn’t
enough predictability in UC admissions.
Parents “have no idea what it takes to get in the UC
system,” said David Benjamin, who runs Ahead of the Class, an
SAT and college preparation business in Irvine.
It’s hard for students to fill out one application to
multiple UC’s when each campus will evaluate it differently,
he said.
Currently, the UC is looking at whether the application process
can be improved.
“The application can’t be permanent … (it) has to
be flexible with the times,” Sawrey said.
Because of concerns similar to Benjamin’s, an additional,
external report on comprehensive review is being considered.
At the September regents meeting, Regent Ward Connerly suggested
that the regents consult an outside auditor to look at
comprehensive review to assure the public that UC admissions are
fair. The idea, opposed by UC President Richard Atkinson, was not
addressed by the senate’s report.
Connerly wants to know if comprehensive review could be used to
circumvent Proposition 209, which banned racial preferences in
California.
Statistics in the report show admissions percentages for
underrepresented students in 2001-2002 were relatively stable,
except at UCLA and UC San Diego. The report stated that the
percentages were higher at these schools since these students are a
larger proportion of the applicant pools than at other
campuses.
Though a higher percentage of underrepresented students came to
UCLA in 2002 than last year, the university accepted a smaller
percentage of their total applicant pool.
The regents plan to discuss BOARS’ report at their meeting
next Thursday in San Francisco.
Sawrey hopes that the BOARS report will answer all questions
that the regents might have.