By Robert Salonga
Daily Bruin Staff
Current and future high school students applying to the
University of California will now fall under new admissions
standards.
The Committee on Educational Policy of the UC Board of Regents
voted 13-2 on Wednesday to approve comprehensive review, a plan
designed to provide a better balance between an applicant’s
unique personal experiences and academic performance. The decision
is subject to formal approval by the entire board today.
“We’re moving in the direction of every competitive
university,” said UC President Richard Atkinson, referring to
comprehensive admissions practices at schools including Harvard,
Stanford and the University of Michigan.
Comprehensive review, effective starting with the freshman class
of fall 2002, will be implemented differently by each UC
campus.
At UCLA ““ which expects to receive a 42,000 applications
this year ““ applicants will be given three rankings based on
academic achievement, personal achievement and life challenges.
Admissions officers will also consider the context of a
student’s achievement. For instance, a student who performs
relatively well despite attending a poorly-performing high school
will have their learning environment taken into consideration.
“This is an opportunity to evaluate (a student’s)
full portfolio and identify the best students,” said Dorothy
Perry, chair of the Board of Admissions and Relations with
Schools.
The vote came after more than two hours of debate between the
regents, many of whom had multiple reservations about the plan.
Much of the concern stemmed from the subjectivity of giving
admissions readers discretion in ranking non-numerical aspects of
an application.
“We have to eliminate the appearance of bias in the
readers,” said Regent Peter Preuss. “We do not have a
method to come up with a group of (readers) who appear
unbiased.”
Preuss cited an instance in which he witnessed a
“norming” session, or practice for application readers
to achieve consistency in their scoring. At the UC Irvine session
he attended, Preuss said he observed that a substantial number of
readers worked in the same outreach program aimed to increase
minority enrollment.
This led some regents to speculate that comprehensive review was
a method of superseding Proposition 209, the 1996 voter-approved
initiative that eliminates the use of affirmative action through
all state-funded agencies.
“The basic inspiration (of comprehensive review) is to
affect the racial and ethnic mix,” said Regent Ward
Connerly.
The discussion extended to the actual language of the
plan’s proposal. The regents eventually agreed that
“comprehensive review policies shall be used fairly, shall
not use racial preferences of any kind and shall comply with
Proposition 209.”
Another more widely-shared concern about comprehensive review
was an applicant’s evaluation in the context of the high
school attended. Students going to competitive high schools would
be at a disadvantage because they would have to work harder to
attain the same class ranking as someone who went to a less
challenging school, said Regent John Moores.
But student regent-designate Dexter Ligot-Gordon said the plan
was fair because the entire range of a student’s academic
interests will be reviewed.
“All of a student’s information will be looked
at,” he said. “Now, everything counts.”
Atkinson said the plan will send the message to prospective
students to take a difficult course load, saying this would be an
advantage over someone who achieved well in minimally challenging
classes.
Other regents cited the Oct. 31 unanimous approval of
comprehensive review by the system-wide Academic Senate as a
primary reason to pass the plan. The Senate consists of faculty
representatives throughout the UC and is responsible for
determining academic policy.
Regents chair S. Sue Johnson, one of the two dissenting voters
along with Regent John Davies, said she feared the broad
definitions of comprehensive review would cause public
confusion.
“We have to evaluate without incurring a sense of
subjectivity and the perception that we’re lowering quality
in the UC,” Johnson said.
Prior to comprehensive review, a two-tiered system required UC
campuses to admit a first tier of 50 to 75 percent of each freshman
class based solely on academic criteria, such as grade point
average and standardized test scores. Comprehensive review
eliminates this provision, meaning all students who apply to the UC
are evaluated under the same set of standards.
Previously, the remainder of the class, or second tier, was
admitted in similar fashion to the new plan, taking into account
socioeconomic disadvantage, athletics and special achievement in
certain areas such as the arts.