Benjamin is the owner of Ahead of the Class, a private education
and test preparation company. He is also a co-founder of Students
First in California.
By David Benjamin
Obviously, the Sept. 11 attack has been foremost in the minds of
every American. Since this crisis has dominated the media,
many important stories have not received the kind of coverage that
they deserve. Right now, many Californians have absolutely no idea
that there is a proposal to overhaul the entire University of
California admissions system ““ a proposal the regents will
discuss today.
For many years, the UC system has had a two-tier system in
place. Under this system, 50 to 75 percent of students at most UC
campuses are determined through a strict academic formula based on
GPA and SATs, while the other 25 to 50 percent are admitted through
a more comprehensive review. During a comprehensive review, each
application is read by two or more readers and decisions are made
without using a formula.
The new UC proposal will use a comprehensive review in its
admissions process for 100 percent of its applicants for all
campuses. Implementing a 100 percent comprehensive review system
campus-wide would be no easy task. Since an automatic system would
no longer be used to make the majority of UC admissions decisions,
hundreds of new readers would need to be hired to read
applications. Each of these readers would need a significant amount
of training in order to gain the proper training necessary to
complete the job.
In an ideal world, a shift to this kind of process would take
place over a period of years. The University of California is
proposing that each campus implement a completely comprehensive
review system for the current admissions year. Incredibly, the
proposed admissions process would begin in December!
That’s right. One month from now. Actually, each of the
campuses would have only two weeks to prepare for the change, since
the regents are not scheduled to vote on this issue until after
discussing it at the Nov. 14 meeting. This fact has caused quite a
bit of concern on each of the campuses.
The Daily Bruin recently interviewed John Edmond, the chair of
the UCLA Academic Senate, concerning his feelings about the
comprehensive review process (“Proposed plans lack
uniformity,” News, Daily Bruin, Oct. 25). Professor Edmond,
who feels that experience is the best way to gain good judgment in
admissions, feels that hiring a qualified admissions staff
won’t be easy. “We’re under constraints of doing
all of this in one year. It’s not possible. Readers
can’t get trained overnight.” Edmond went on to say
that any changes to the admissions process would only be interim
changes, and that UCLA would be working on implementing their
comprehensive admissions review for two or three years to ensure
the fairness of the admissions process.
At the most recent UC regents meeting, many of the regents
echoed similar concerns about “rushing the process.”
Sue Johnson, the chairman of the regents, expressed concern about
the short time which the regents are given to consider and vote on
the comprehensive admissions proposal. In a recent Contra Costa
Times article (“UC considers thorough review of all
applicants,” Oct. 18), Johnson said, “This is not the
university’s normal approach. We do things in a slow and
deliberative process.”
This decision is significant, in light of the fact that much of
the University of California’s success and prestige lies in
its selective admissions process, which admits highly capable
students.
My suggestion is simple: Give the regents sufficient time to
assimilate the evidence so that they can make a proper decision.
Maybe the vote should be pushed back to January or March. I
know that this would mean that comprehensive admissions could not
be implemented in this year’s decision-making process, but if
it’s the right way to go, certainly it could at least be
implemented next year.
Regardless of how anyone feels about the comprehensive
admissions process, this is too important a decision to rush. If it
truly is the right path, what’s the problem with taking the
proper time to deliberate?