Committee chairs defend integrity, lawfulness of UCLA’s admissions process

As chairs of the UCLA and University of California committees that oversee undergraduate admissions (Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools, and Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, respectively), we are deeply troubled by a baseless charge that UCLA is violating Proposition 209, which prohibits consideration of race, sex or ethnicity for admission to public institutions, to admit more black students.

Though it shouldn’t be necessary, we want to remind the UCLA community and the public of two basic facts. The first is that the black students admitted to UCLA are among the most talented students in the state, if not the nation. They receive other offers of admission and financial awards from the nation’s finest colleges and universities, requiring UCLA to do its very best to convince them to accept our offer. The second fact is that the UC’s and UCLA’s admissions committees and their policies are guided by the law and rigorous scholarship that bear on admissions.

Readers of applications are trained to comply with Proposition 209, the process includes a series of checks, and readers’ ratings are carefully monitored. As much as we want a diverse student body, UCLA won’t break the law to obtain one.

On Sept. 18, UC Board of Regents Chairman Richard C. Blum issued the following statement regarding UCLA admissions:

“By any standard, the students enrolling at UCLA are as accomplished, as talented and as ambitious as any previous class, and we firmly believe that UCLA’s students compare favorably with those of any top-tier university in the United States.”

Ongoing discussion about the merits of UCLA’s admissions process has unfortunately ““ and wrongly ““ led some to question the qualifications of some incoming students. But on behalf of the Board of Regents, we wish to be clear: UCLA has been and remains one of the country’s most selective public universities, and all admitted students have earned their place on this campus.

Furthermore, the UC regents strongly support UCLA’s admissions process, a system used successfully by many prestigious universities. We are confident that all of our campuses are in compliance with the requirements of state law pertaining to student admissions and that all students admitted by this process have earned their place at the university.

However, now that UCLA has two years of experience with “holistic” review, CUARS has, as a routine matter, begun an examination of the process. A year ago, a preliminary report showed that holistic review resulted in a slightly more diverse class with consistently high test scores and grade point averages, thereby achieving the mandate of the UC Regents to seek the most academically talented and personally accomplished students from California’s diverse communities. The faculty committee subsequently voted unanimously to ask an independent researcher to conduct a thorough study of the process.

There is precedent for this faculty decision. For example, when UC Berkeley’s admissions process was questioned four years ago, the campus asked an independent researcher to study it. That study found that academic considerations predominated in readers’ scores, effectively ending the dispute about whether race played a role in admissions decisions.

But there are really two issues here, and only one has to do with the appropriateness of UCLA’s admissions policy. The second dispute involves charges that impugn the integrity, scholarship and understanding of law that guide the university’s use of information about applicants. No data that provides personal, individual-level information about college students can be given to anyone without strict protections and careful oversight regarding how that data can be used and studied. CUARS has never issued a blanket refusal for others to examine admissions data, but it does insist on protecting students’ privacy and guarantees that the data be used responsibly and for educational purposes within the law.

We sincerely regret the distress that political science Professor Tim Groseclose’s actions have brought to UCLA’s incredible students, because his views are not shared by the committee. We look forward to the results of CUARS’ careful study of campus admissions.

Presidential Professor Jeannie Oakes is the chair of UCLA’s CUARS. Professor Sylvia Hurtado is the chair of the University of California’s BOARS.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *