University of California and UC Berkeley officials defended the
school’s admissions practices Monday after some have
interpreted a recent report as evidence that the UC’s oldest
and most distinguished campus could be considering race in
accepting students.
Questions about UC Berkeley’s admissions policies arose
after a confidential report, prepared at the request of UC Regents
Chairman John Moores, was obtained by the Los Angeles Times. The
report showed some students were accepted to Berkeley with test
scores well below the university’s average, while others with
excellent scores were being turned away.
Because the UC is legally bound by Proposition 209 ““ an
initiative passed in 1996 prohibiting the consideration of race in
admissions and hiring in public institutions ““ the Moores
report’s findings immediately raised public concern over UC
Berkeley’s admissions policies.
But UC Admissions Director Sue Wilbur refuted any suggestion
that Berkeley was or is admitting students improperly.
“Berkeley is in complete compliance with all UC admissions
policies,” she said.
David Stern, Berkeley education professor and head of the
admissions committee, echoed Wilbur’s sentiments.
“Admissions at Berkeley are race-blind,” he
said.
The report found that in 2002, UC Berkeley rejected 641
applicants with near-perfect SAT scores, while accepting 378
students who scored between a 600 and 1000, with 1600 being a
perfect score.
About 62 percent of the students with low SAT scores were
underrepresented minorities, said Richard Black, assistant vice
chancellor of admissions and enrollment at UC Berkeley. Less than
15 percent of these were student-athletes.
Stern, Black and Wilbur said the findings of the Moores report
are misleading.
“Campus selection processes are designed to provide some
level of access for low-income and educationally disadvantaged
students, and some of those students are also underrepresented
minorities,” Wilbur said.
Because the Moores report only looked at SAT scores, some UC
officials criticized it as overly narrow.
“The SAT provides only a very, very narrow definition of
quality or “˜qualified.’ It doesn’t even predict
college success very well. (The) UC is right to use it as only one
of many indicators,” said UCLA Education Professor Jeannie
Oakes.
UC Student Regent Matt Murray agreed.
“The SAT isn’t everything,” he said.
Wilbur added that “all campuses are to give highest
priority to academic accomplishments,” but that there is more
to admission consideration than GPAs and test scores.
In November 2001, the UC Regents adopted comprehensive review
““ a process giving more weight to personal achievements and
life challenges alongside academic performance.
Though comprehensive review weighs GPAs and test scores most
heavily, it also considers other factors in determining academic
achievement.
“We have comprehensive review because applicants are
people. They are not numbers,” said Murray, who also acted as
a student representative to the Academic Senate Admissions,
Enrollment and Preparatory Education Committee in 2002.
One of the aspects of comprehensive review that its defenders
highlight is that it puts students’ achievements in the
context of their backgrounds.
“Students who have been able to overcome difficulty …
those are the students who I think will always excel, those are the
problem-solvers of the future, and yes, those are the students I
want in my classroom,” said Richard Gronsky, Academic Senate
chairman and engineering professor at Berkeley.
In addition to comprehensive review, the UC has an agreement
with the state to admit students from every high school in
California ““ even low-achieving schools. Black said a
“substantial portion” of the students who scored
between a 600 and 1000 on the SAT and were admitted to Berkeley
attended a high school in the bottom 30 percent of the Academic
Performance Index, a state-instituted index that evaluates a
school’s placement among other California schools.
UC Regent Ward Connerly said Berkeley might be using UC
admissions policies as a smokescreen for affirmative action. He
said he still supports comprehensive review “as long as
nobody is cheating and trying to get around the
law.”Â
Moores’ assistant Tracy Davis, a former student regent and
UCLA education doctoral student, said the report is a preliminary
analysis and that a more in-depth study would follow before any
conclusions are drawn. Davis said she would not yet comment about
why Berkeley was the target of this investigation.
No reports are planned yet for other UC campuses. Black welcomed
Moores’ investigation.
“I would hope that any further study would be more
in-depth and include all the factors that are included in
comprehensive review,” he said. “When that is done, I
am confident that all of the UC admissions officers are operating
their programs consistent with UC policies.