Admissions Task Force Report

REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS CRITERIA

I. Introduction

On May 20, 1988, The Regents adopted the University of California Policy on Undergraduate Admissions, which states in part that:

"Mindful of its mission as a public institution, the University of California ...seeks to enroll, on each of its campuses, a student body that, beyond meeting the University's eligibility requirements, demonstrates high academic achievement or exceptional talent, and that encompasses the broad diversity of cultural, racial, geographic, and socio economic backgrounds characteristic of California."

The fundamental goals of this policy were reaffirmed by The Regents on July 20, 1995, with the passage of SP-l. Section 9 of the resolution explicitly recognizes that encompassing California's diverse population in the student body remains an important objective of the University. (Copies of the 1988 policy and of SP-l are attached as Appendices A and B.)

While reaffirming the importance of achieving racial and ethnic diversity in the student body, SP- 1 also directs the University to change some aspects of the tools currently used for achieving such diversity. Specifically, the resolution calls for an end to the explicit use of race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for regular admission and for admission by exception. In addition, the resolution calls for the development of admission criteria consistent with the changes stated above and also for a reframing of admissions guidelines so that no less than 50 percent and no more than 75 percent of the admitted class on any campus shall be selected solely on the basis of academic achievement.

To address the mandates of SP- 1, President Peltason established a Task Force on Undergraduate Admissions Criteria in September 1995. The charge to the group was to review current admission criteria and guidelines and to revise them in conformity with the goals set forth in the 1988 University Policy on Undergraduate Admissions; with the goals and requirements found in SP-1; with the University's mission and responsibilities as defined in the California Master Plan for Higher Education; with the purpose and demands of undergraduate programs which are shaped in accordance to the mission of the University as a research institution; and with the traditions and responsibilities of the University as a Land Grant, publicly supported institution.

The Task Force on Undergraduate Admissions Criteria, composed of faculty, administrators, and students, and co-chaired by the Chair of the Academic Council and the Assistant Vice President, Student Academic Services, met three times in October and November 1995. (A copy of the task force's charge and a list of participants are attached as Appendices C and D.)

The group reviewed current University policies and practices in undergraduate admissions, as outlined in the 1988 Guidelines for Implementation of University Policy on Undergraduate Admissions and in the 1990 Policy on Undergraduate Admissions by Exception, examined relevant data and studies, and reviewed admissions practices at some other selective public institutions (Appendix E summarizes the review of relevant data and studies). The salient points of the task force's deliberations and final recommendations are presented in this report. Additionally, to meet the overall intent of SP-l and the President's specific charge, the group produced drafts of revised Guidelines for Implementation of University Policy on Undergraduate Admissions (Appendix F) and of revised Policy on Undergraduate Admissions by Exception (Appendix G).

The work of the task force should be viewed as yet another step in the continuing evolution of undergraduate admissions practices and policies over the years. Since 1988, for example, when the current guidelines were first issued, the spectrum of criteria considered has been enriched and refined. It is to be noted that the composition and method of deliberations of the task force are very similar to those used in 1988 and in the intervening years at the campus level. In addition to viewing the work of the task force within the context of the historical evolution of undergraduate admissions, this work also should be considered as the result of the continuing shared concern of faculty and administration for the effectiveness and fairness of admissions in addressing individual merit and institutional goals.

As the report and the accompanying draft Guidelines and Policy illustrate, the task force produced an enriched, clearly defined and comprehensive set of revised admission criteria, and also suggested several areas for improvement in undergraduate admissions policies and practices. For example, the task force commented on the need for a comprehensive review of the methods used for assessing academic performance, beyond utilizing criteria such as GPA and standardized test scores. It also suggested that the selection process could be altered in the future to include a more comprehensive approach to reviewing students' academic accomplishments and personal backgrounds. The report, however, also indicates that while the proposed revisions have the potential for improving the overall undergraduate admissions process, the new set of criteria, which no longer contain race, ethnicity and gender, may have adverse effects on the overall diversity of the undergraduate student body at many UC campuses.

It is anticipated that, at the same time that the report and the revised Guidelines and Policy are presented to the President, these documents will be forwarded to the Academic Senate as well as to other University constituencies for review and comment. It is expected that once revisions are incorporated into the documents, they will be presented to The Regents for information, and will be formally issued to provide campuses with ample time to implement their specific admission criteria and processes by early summer
1996. The date for implementation of the revised guidelines is the fall 1997 admissions cycle, in accordance with SP-1.

II. Reaffirmation of Fundamental Values and Goals of Current Admissions Policies and Criteria

At the onset of its deliberations, the task force unequivocally reaffirmed the values and fundamental goals that have guided the undergraduate admissions program to date. These values and goals are summarized below:

a. adherence to the Master Plan's definition of the eligible population from which the
University is to draw its entering class;

b. commitment to provide a place within the University for every eligible California
applicant who wishes to enroll. However, this commitment to eligible applicants
does not guarantee admission to the campus or program of an applicant's choice;

c. commitment to those who have demonstrated high academic achievement or
exceptional personal talent;

d. enrollment of a student body that encompasses the broad diversity of cultural, racial,
geographic, and socio-economic backgrounds characteristic of California, in
recognition of a publicly supported institution's responsibility to train the leadership
of a pluralistic society; and

e. the educational importance of a student body made up from a broad diversity of
backgrounds, values and viewpoints, as an integral part of a stimulating intellectual
and cultural environment.

In reaffirming the above values and goals, the task force expressed the view that the current admission criteria and guidelines have served the University and the individual campuses well in their attempt to meet the goals set forth by Regents' policies. Campuses have been able to use current criteria to enroll classes which demonstrate high academic achievement and promise, while at the same time making steady progress in encompassing within their student body the diversity of the State, including racial and ethnic diversity.

In examining a number of possible criteria which might be employed in response to the requirements of SP-1, the task force believed that although refinement of current admission criteria may enhance diversity in the student body in some way, it will likely have adverse effect on racial and ethnic diversity, once consideration of race and ethnicity is removed from the set of criteria used to select students for admission. These findings, and the realization of the difficulty of the task at hand, became progressively evident as
the task force reviewed available data and other evidence (Appendix E), including the following items:

· traditional patterns in students' choice of campuses, which result in high
concentration of eligible applicants at Berkeley and Los Angeles, and to a lesser
extent at San Diego;

· traditional enrollment patterns, which indicate that many students, including
underrepresented minority students, not admitted at the campus of choice choose not
to attend an alternate UC campus; and


· competition from other institutions within and outside the State for qualified
underrepresented students.



In particular, the review of the data and other evidence (Appendix E) led the task force to two main conclusions. First, while the task force approved efforts now underway to re think campus-specific admissions processes, to refine existing selection criteria, and to identify new criteria, it seems unlikely that these new approaches will yield the same level of racial and ethnic diversity as current criteria are able to achieve. The most that can be expected from all these efforts, the task force believes, is that adverse consequences for racial and ethnic diversity may be minimized.

At the same time, the task force acknowledged that predictions are inherently subject to error. Too many factors, both internal and external to the University, are at play for current data to provide an accurate assessment of how changes in admissions criteria will impact diversity in the student body at the various campuses of the University. It may well prove the case that elimination of consideration for race and ethnicity may have lesser --or greater-- consequences than current projections suggest. For these reasons, the task force concluded that it will be essential that effective data collection and analyses and on-going monitoring systems be established to assess the extent to which changes in admissions policy and practice do in fact alter the demographic and academic profile of UC's undergraduate student body over the next several years.

Second, the task force noted that available evidence indicates that differences in eligibility and overall academic preparation among ethnic groups continues to be a profound problem and remains the most significant long-term obstacle to improving admission and enrollment of underrepresented students at the University. Eligibility rates for African American and Chicano/Latino high school graduates remain far below the statewide average, in large measure a reflection of differences in the educational opportunities and experiences to which these students are exposed, although a broad range of other demographic, economic, social, familial and individual factors are also involved. While it is important that the University continue its efforts to improve the
admission process and the selection criteria used, these efforts are fundamentally constrained by the fact of low eligibility and poorer overall academic preparation among underrepresented students. Given these factors, the task force stressed that, while the issue of eligibility is outside the group's current charge, improving UC eligibility of underrepresented groups is of critical importance in maintaining and increasing diversity at the University. Finally, the group concluded that, unless there is a major commitment by the K-12 sector, state and local leaders, and postsecondary education together to eliminate differences in academic achievement of underrepresented students, participation of these students in the University will remain modest at best. Notable components of this commitment are the outreach and developmental programs that the University has implemented over the years, and possible new efforts and directions that may come as a result of the work of the University's planned task force on outreach.

III. Guiding Principles to Validate Admission Selection Criteria

Before embarking on an in-depth discussion of selection criteria, the task force agreed to several guiding principles to validate selection of new criteria or to confirm the value of existing ones. Of special concern to the group was that criteria be sufficiently broad and varied so that applicants from differing backgrounds have the opportunity to evidence qualities in a variety of ways and to be evaluated accordingly. For example, success in overcoming socio-economic disadvantage could be used to demonstrate an applicant's persistence and determination, but a non-disadvantaged applicant could exhibits these same qualities in other ways, such as in excelling through extraordinary, persistent efforts in a particular endeavor or project.

In addition to assessing individual worthiness, the task force agreed that some criteria also should allow campuses to meet specific institutional goals, in conformity with campus and/or University wide policies and mission . In other words, concern for individual accomplishments and circumstances, as defined by academic or non-academic criteria, may be subordinated to concern for institutional goals. For example, campuses should be given the option to give preference to rural students (or athletes, or disabled students, or poor students, or local students) not because the rural student has necessarily had fewer educational opportunities, but because as a matter of campus and/or University wide policy it is important and valuable to enroll rural students per se in order to garner a diversity of viewpoints and experiences.

The guiding principles that were agreed upon to validate selection of existing and new criteria are summarized below:

a. criteria in addition to grades and test scores should provide reviewers with additional
indicators of each applicant's academic promise or should reflect student's attributes
and experiences that would be educationally valuable to the student body of a
particular campus;

b. criteria other than standard, academic criteria should provide additional evidence of
individual excellence in a variety of domains;

c. criteria should relate to the broader educational context and mission of the University,
e.g., provide evidence of individual personal traits and accomplishments that make a
particular applicant a valuable contributor to the educational enterprise and to the
make-up of the student body at a particular campus;

d. criteria should be demonstrable, although not necessarily quantifiable in an objective
manner;

e. criteria should contribute to the overall goal of diversity, as defined in the 1988
admissions policy and in Section 9 of SP-1;

f. criteria should enable campuses to meet institutional goals in conformity with local
and University wide policies; and

g. the application for admission should be the primary source for collecting information
on which criteria will be assessed.

IV. Critical Issues and Observations

In the course of the deliberations the task force focused on critical issues relating to the following subjects:

A. Academic and Supplementary Criteria

The task force discussed at length the current structure of the selection guidelines with particular attention given to the language used to describe traditional "academic" and other "supplementary" criteria. The task force felt that the current language emphasizes the dichotomy between the two sets of criteria and assigns a lesser value to any factors other than ordinary academic measures such as GPA and test scores. This dichotomy may have led to the mistaken assumption that students who are selected on the basis of academic plus "supplementary criteria" are less academically qualified than other admitted students, when, in fact, these students do meet all academic criteria for eligibility to UC.

The group argued that, in revising the guidelines, special attention should be given to this particular point to ensure clear understanding on the part of the University's constituencies of the value of each of these sets of criteria in selecting a class that satisfies the University's fundamental goals of academic excellence and broad-based diversity. The University already gives considerable weight to academic GPA and test scores in
determining UC eligibility. Together with a specified set of academic courses, GPA and test scores define the special pool of academically qualified individuals for the University's consideration, in accordance with the California Master Plan's guidelines. As campuses decide whom among this special pool to select for admission to a particular campus, it should be emphasized that, while GPA and test scores continue to be important, other factors also are essential in determining the overall promise and potential contribution of prospective students.

B. Assessing Academic Achievement

The task force spent time postulating on how best to assess academic achievement, both in terms of defining UC eligibility and of selecting students for admission at competitive campuses . It was felt that current assessment methods might be too narrow in that they focus exclusively on developed talent, as evidenced in overall academic grade point average (GPA), coursework completed, and standardized test scores. More weight could be given to the student's potential for growth or to the manner in which academic achievement has been obtained relative to the educational opportunities available within a particular educational setting, be it a high school or a postsecondary institution. Additionally, indicators of educational vitality, as demonstrated in outstanding performance in a specific project or area of study, could be sought, as well as special recommendations from school officials on specific students' academic potential. In sum, the task force recommended broadening the set of indicators of cognitive ability, intelligence, and academic accomplishment that would be included among the academic criteria currently listed in the selection guidelines. Additionally, while the group recognized that exploring new ways of assessing students' academic achievement within the context of redefining UC eligibility was not part of the task force's current charge, it stressed the importance for the University to embark in this endeavor at a future date.

C. Student Selection

The discussion of how best to assess academic potential or promise also led into a consideration of how campuses might approach the selection process. Two scenarios were discussed: the first being a comprehensive and integrative approach (terrned "holistic" in this report) and the second a "formula based" approach. The relative merits of the two approaches were examined. Many felt that a broad, "holistic" approach to. one in which all aspects of each student's academic and non-academic experience are examined as a whole) would allow campuses to make better admissions decisions and to assess, in a more comprehensive manner, the potential contribution of individual students to the educational setting and vitality of a particular campus. The task force recognized, however, that such a "holistic" approach may have to be implemented gradually, over a period of several years, with an on-going evaluation of interim steps and of specific criteria built into each stage of the process. Additionally, to provide credibility to such an approach, specific staff and faculty training and norming processes would have to be clearly developed and publicized prior to the implementation of any change. Some on the
task force also felt that a combination of the "holistic" and quantitative methods could yield very good results, and pointed to the fact that campuses already use this combined approach in the current system. Ultimately, the task force came to the conclusion that, at least in the immediate future, approaches to selection would best be decided upon at the campus level, based on campus-specific needs, workload, availability of faculty reviewers, special relationships with local schools, and similar considerations. However, selection approaches still would need to conform to University wide policies and guidelines.

V. Applicants' Qualities and Attributes to Be Addressed by Selection Criteria

Before moving to re-draft the current selection guidelines, the task force reviewed in detail applicants' qualities that selection criteria should address. The following suggests the desired traits or qualities that, beyond those found in grade point average and standardized test scores, campuses should assess in selecting students for admission:

1. intellectual vitality: as demonstrated in outstanding achievement in the arts and
sciences, original work in writing, leadership, public or community service, or other
special projects;

2. evidence of academic promise: as demonstrated by achievement in specific areas of
study or recent marked improvement in academic performance;

3. quality of performance relative to the educational context available in the school: as
evidenced by the extent to which an applicant has utilized what is available and/or by
recognition of school officials;

4. quality of effort: as demonstrated in special projects undertaken by students either in
the context of the high school curriculum or in conjunction with special school events
or projects co-sponsored by the school, postsecondary educational institutions,
community organizations, agencies or private firms;

5. academic fit: as demonstrated by special attributes, or achievements, or projects
indicating applicants' ability to fit in or contribute to the particular academic
environment of a campus or to a specific academic program on a campus;

6. Leadership qualities: as evidenced by extracurricular participation in a variety of
projects or events, service in the community or student government, and/or by the
ability to manage difficult personal situations, such as an impoverished social
environment;

7. persistence and determination: as evidenced by managing attainment of academic
success (achieving UC eligibility) while overcoming challenges, such as poverty,
disadvantaged social or educational environment, family circumstances, physical disability and other similar situations or impediments, and

8. cross-cultural experience: as evidenced by participation in special programs offered
by the school, such as exchange/education abroad programs, experience or
proficiency in other languages, or by the demonstrated individual effort of an
applicant to get to know and experience other cultures.

VI. Recommendations

The task force makes the following recommendations:

1. additional measures of academic achievement should be sought in recognition that
readily and presently available indicators, such as GPA and test scores, by themselves
cannot provide a comprehensive assessment of the cognitive ability, intelligence, and
achievement of an individual, nor do they assess adequately the candidate's potential
for growth;

2. campuses should have the flexibility to identify and utilize specific selection factors
to achieve institutional goals, while conforming to all University wide policies and
guidelines;

3. campuses also should have appropriate flexibility in the choice of approaches for
selecting students for admission (e.g., a "broad, holistic approach", a "formula-based,
quantitative approach", or a combination of the two), based on campus-specific needs,
workload, availability of appropriate reviewers, special relationship with local
institutions, and similar considerations. This should happen, however, within the
overall context of University wide guidelines;

4. the revised criteria should reflect applicants' traits and qualities outlined in section V
above;

5. careful monitoring of the implementation of the revised guidelines should be
established to assess the impact of changes and the ability of the new revised
guidelines to meet the goals of the 1988 policy and of Section 9 of SP-1. An ongoing
reporting mechanism should be developed to keep The Regents and the University at
large informed on the progress of the guidelines' implementation;

6. careful monitoring of how the University selects transfer students for admission and
how transfer students contribute to the diversity of each campus should be undertaken
as part of the overall assessment of the guidelines' implementation;

7. careful monitoring of student needs for additional financial aid should be maintained
and enhanced, given the likelihood that a further emphasis on low economic status as
a criterion for admission will result in increases in the number of needy students
enrolled at most campuses;

8. the task force should continue as an advisory group to the University Provost to
oversee the implementation of the revised guidelines, including monitoring the items
specified above, as well as: determining what works, recommending studies and
analyses on admissions, enrollments, persistence and graduation rates, overseeing the
implementation of changes in the application form, advising the President and the
Academic Senate of significant developments in the implementation of the guidelines
and recommending appropriate changes as necessary; and

9. the substantial disparity in eligibility rates and overall academic preparation among
the different ethnic groups and the educational opportunities available to them should
be kept at the forefront of the University's agenda, both in the short term and in the
long term. The partnership of the University with K-12 and other leaders in the State
in addressing this issue is essential to the future success of the University in reflecting
the broad diversity of the State as a whole.

Appendix A

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA POLICY ON UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS

The undergraduate admissions policy of the University of California is guided by the University's commitment to serve the people of California and the needs of the state, within the framework of the California Master Plan for Higher Education.

The entrance requirements established by the University follow the guidelines set forth in the Master Plan, which requires that the top one-eighth of the state's high school graduates, as well as those transfer students who have successfully completed specified college work, be eligible for admission to the University of California. These requirements are designed to ensure that all eligible students are adequately prepared for University-level work.

Mindful of its mission as a public institution, the University of California has an historic commitment to provide places within the University for all eligible applicants who are residents of California. The University seeks to enroll, on each of its campuses, a student body that, beyond meeting the University's eligibility requirements, demonstrates high academic achievement or exceptional personal talent, and that encompasses the broad diversity of cultural, racial, geographic, and socio-economic backgrounds characteristic of California.

Because applicant pools differ among the campuses of the University, each campus shall establish procedures for the selection of applicants to be admitted from its pool of eligible candidates. Such procedures shall be consistent with the principles stated above and with other applicable University policies.

Adopted May 25, 1988

Appendix C

Charge to the President's Task Force on Undergraduate Admissions Criteria

The Task Force will recommend to the President and the Academic Senate admissions criteria and guidelines which conform to the requirements of SP- 1, adopted by The Regents of the University of California on July 20, 1995. SP-1 prohibits use of race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for admission and for admission by exception. The resolution also calls for development of supplemental admissions criteria consistent with the above limitations, reframing of the admissions selection guidelines such that no less than 50 percent and no more than 75 percent of the admitted class on any campus shall be admitted solely on the basis of academic achievement. SP-1 also emphasizes that the University enroll a student population that reflects the diversity of California.

The Task Force on Undergraduate Admissions Criteria shall recommend to the President and the Academic Senate specific criteria and guidelines for administering the University's undergraduate admissions programs. These criteria and guidelines shall be informed by the University's mission and responsibilities as defined in the California Master Plan for Higher Education, by the purpose and demands of undergraduate programs which are shaped by the research environment that characterizes the University; by traditions of public service derived from the University's Land Grant status; by the University of California's policies on undergraduate admissions approved on May 25, 1988 and on admission by exception approved on May 18, 1990; and by section 9 of SP-l which affirms the importance of diversity on the University's campuses.

In formulating its recommendations, the Task Force will consult with faculty and university administrators with expertise in admissions and related subjects. To assure timely notice of prospective applicants and their families, the Task Force will conduct its work and present recommendations to the President and the Academic Senate by December 1, 1995.

Appendix E

Review of Relevant Data and of Suggested New Approaches to Selection

In arriving at its recommendations, the Task Force reviewed a large body of data and evidence bearing upon the following issues:

Given The Regents' resolution to eliminate use of race, ethnicity, and gender as supplemental admissions criteria, will it be possible to maintain diversity in University admissions, including racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, as provided in the same resolution? Might it be possible to devise alternative new approaches to selection which preserve diversity?

Earlier Research

The Task Force had available a preliminary series of studies carried out at both the campuses and the Office of the President to assess the potential impact of eliminating race and ethnicity as supplemental admissions criteria.

Initial studies conducted at the campuses suggested that eliminating race and ethnicity, while maintaining all other existing academic and supplemental admissions criteria, could result in substantial declines in the number of underrepresented students at UC, that is, those from African-American, American Indian, Chicano and Latino backgrounds. Initial projections indicated that, while there was considerable variation among campuses, the overall effect of eliminating racial and ethnic criteria in admissions across the University as a whole would be a decline of approximately 27 to 33 percent in the number of underrepresented freshmen admits, and a decrease of approximately 26 to 46 percent in the number of underrepresented freshmen registrants, i.e., freshmen admits projected ultimately to enroll at UC.

In addition to campus studies, the Office of the President undertook an exploratory simulation to assess the potential effects of eliminating race/ethnicity and other supplemental factors in undergraduate admissions and replacing them with socio economic status (SES), as measured by parental income and educational Like the campus studies, results of this exploratory simulation suggested that this change would not produce the same level of diversity as currently exists at UC. The simulation projected that, while there would be variations among campuses, Chicano/Latino enrollments could be reduced across the UC system as a whole by 5 to 15 percent, and African-American and American Indian enrollments by as much as 40 to 50 percent, if
race and ethnicity were eliminated and replaced by SES in undergraduate admissions criteria.

New Directions

The Task Force reviewed a variety of alternative admissions criteria which have been proposed for consideration, including high school context, geographic indicators, and participation in the Educational Opportunity Program (UC support program for educationally disadvantaged and low-income students, abbreviated as EOP) as well as pre-University programs. The Task Force also considered a number of proposed changes in the structure of the admissions process itself, such as instituting a lottery in place of UC's existing supplemental admissions process or redefining UC's eligibility pool to include the top 12.5 percent of each high school. In addition, the Task Force heard presentations of analytical work in progress at the campus level aimed at refining existing selection criteria. Finally, the Task Force reviewed materials on admissions and selection procedures in use at other leading public universities. The following paragraphs describe the Task Force's principal findings in each of these areas.

High school context

The great majority of underrepresented students come to UC from a relatively small number of high schools. The concentration of these students within a relatively small number of feeder schools suggests that, in order to maintain diversity in admissions without using racial/ethnic criteria, one possible approach might be to identify the common characteristics of "high feeder" schools and to utilize these contextual factors as supplemental admissions criteria.

The Task Force reviewed data provided by the California Department of Education on a variety of high school characteristics which might serve as indicators of a "disadvantaged" school environment and which might therefore be appropriately considered as possible supplemental admissions criteria:

· Low average parental income
· Low average SAT scores
· Low percentage of graduates completing A-F requirements
· Below average UC participation rate
· High proportion of students on AFDC

Analysis of these contextual factors suggests, however, that none likely would be able to preserve the level of diversity that currently exists at UC if used in lieu of race and ethnicity as supplemental admissions criteria, for several reasons. First, some school context factors that have been proposed as possible supplemental criteria are not necessarily associated with "high feeder" schools. For example, lower than average UC participation rates are not necessarily associated with high feeder schools, and in fact,
schools which tend to produce the largest numbers of underrepresented UC admits often have higher than average UC participation rates. Second, a sizable fraction of underrepresented UC admits come from high schools that are neither "disadvantaged" nor predominantly minority schools. And third, even where contextual factors can be identified which are statistically correlated with "high feeder" schools (e.g., school average parental income) such factors may not preserve diversity in admissions if applied on an across-the-board basis, since they may "cast the net too widely" and increase the number of students from other schools at the same time.

"Opportunity to Learn"

Another approach to using contextual variables in the undergraduate admissions process is under development at UCLA. Rather than using general demographic or economic indicators, however, UCLA has developed more refined indicators based on the academic performance of applicants from different neighborhoods and high schools over the past three years. Thus, for each neighborhood (defined by ZIP code) and high school, UCLA has determined the proportion of applicants over the last three years who have been ranked academically in levels 5 and 6 -- the two lowest academic levels eligible for admission -- in the campus' regular admissions process. These students on average have a GPA of approximately 3.35 and a combined SAT of 910 to 920. Statewide, the percentage of students who have applied to UCLA over the past three years and who fall within academic levels 5 and 6 is approximately 35 percent.

This percentage has been termed the "Opportunity to Learn" index. In neighborhoods and schools where the percentage is significantly higher than average (i.e., 70% or above), there is strong evidence that students from these areas have not had comparable educational experiences or opportunities as students from schools and neighborhoods where the percentage is at or below the statewide average.

UCLA has now compiled the "Opportunity to Learn" (OTL) index for all schools and ZIP codes in the state, and is currently investigating how the index can be used to improve analysis of students' applications and to determine the potential for success as measured against students' "opportunity to learn." Preliminary campus simulations using the OTL index suggest that the index could provide a possible tool for minimizing adverse effects upon diversity after race and ethnicity are eliminated as supplemental admissions factors.

Participation in EOP and pre-college programs

The Task Force also reviewed analyses conducted at the system wide level and by UC Santa Barbara regarding patterns of individual, as opposed to contextual, characteristics which are evident in current UC admissions data. These analyses indicated that underrepresented minority applicants, admits, and enrolled students more often than others fall into a category defined by a combination of supplemental factors. The category was defined to include students who indicated on their freshman application that they:

· were a first-generation college student with parental income less than $30,000, or
· were interested in EOP (support program for educationally disadvantaged or low
income students), or
· participated in a pre-college academic developmental program.

The Task Force noted that use of these factors could provide one means by which campuses could identify a sector of the applicant pool for more comprehensive review of both academic and non-academic qualifications. However, the data showed clearly that this approach would not yield the same level of diversity currently achieved. Moreover, given the large number of non-underrepresented applicants who also meet the criteria listed immediately above, it appears that this approach likely would yield a much larger admit pool to selective campuses than these campuses can necessarily accommodate.

Redefining UC eligibility to include the top 12.5 percent of each high school

In addition to reviewing possible alternative admissions criteria, the Task Force addressed several other proposals which have emerged in the wake of SP-1 aimed at broader changes in UC's undergraduate admissions. One such proposal would be to redefine UC eligibility to include the top 12.5 percent of each high school, rather than the top 12.5 percent of all California high school graduates, as UC eligibility is currently defined. Redefining eligibility in this manner would require changes not only in UC policy but also in statewide policy on access to public higher education as set forth in the California Master Plan for Higher Education. The claimed advantage of redefining UC eligibility in this manner, according to proponents, is that it might significantly increase the racial and ethnic diversity of UC's eligibility pool. Although the proposal is technically outside the Task Force's charge (which is limited to the issue of selection in admissions as distinct from the broader issue of eligibility), the Task Force nevertheless believed it important to address the merits of this proposal in view of its claimed potential for enhancing diversity at UC.

On closer examination of available data, however, it appears that redefining UC eligibility to include the top 12.5 percent of each high school likely would have only a marginal impact on the racial/ethnic diversity of the undergraduate eligibility pool. Task Force staff analyzed data provided by the College Board and the California Department of Education to assess the potential impact of the proposal, including analysis of the academic records of over 108,000 California public high school graduates who took the SAT during the current year. SAT scores and high school GPAs for each student were combined into an overall Academic Index (AI) score, and the top AI scorers from each high school were used to generate a simulated eligibility pool. The results of the simulation indicated that redefining UC eligibility to include the top 12.5 percent of each school would produce an eligibility pool whose racial/ethnic distribution closely resembled that of UC's current eligibility pool -- African-American and Chicano/Latino high school graduates would continue to evidence much lower-than-average UC eligibility rates. At the same time, the academic profile of the new eligibility pool would
fall below the current eligibility pool on indicators such as high school GPA and SAT scores. Given that the proposal to redefine eligibility would not significantly affect the diversity of the eligibility pool, the Task Force concluded that there are too many unknowns and potential negatives associated with the proposal to warrant further consideration at this time. These findings also underscore the extent to which low eligibility rates among underrepresented students remain a fundamental obstacle to higher education for these students.

Using a lottery in place of UC's current supplemental admissions criteria

Another option the Task Force considered was a proposal to institute an admissions lottery in place of UC's current supplemental admissions criteria. Under this proposal, the first 50 to 75 percent of the freshman admitted class would be selected on the basis of academic criteria alone. Supplemental admissions criteria would not be used to select the remainder of the class. Instead, the class would be chosen by lottery from the pool of all other UC-eligible applicants. The principal advantage of a lottery, according to proponents, is that it would produce greater "perceived fairness" in admissions in comparison with UC's current process, which some view as overly subjective and difficult to understand.

To assess the potential effects of an admissions lottery, Task Force staff conducted a lottery simulation using applicant data from the Berkeley campus. In the simulation, the first 50 percent of the freshman class were admitted solely on the basis of high school GPA and test scores; the remaining 50 percent were admitted based on random selection from the pool of eligible applicants, and the demographic and academic profile of the lottery admits was then compared with the profile of those actually admitted to Berkeley under supplemental admissions criteria in Fall 1994.

Results of the simulation demonstrated that using an admissions lottery in place of UC's existing supplemental admissions process would yield an admit pool that is both less diverse and less well prepared academically, as measured by average GPA and test scores. Task Force staff also were unable to locate any public-opinion polling results or other evidence on the "perceived fairness" of a lottery, and it is probable that at least some students and parents would perceive a lottery as less fair insofar as it would result in admission of many students with lower GPAs and test scores than under the current process. In short, the claimed advantages of an admissions lottery are unproven, while it is demonstrable that use of current supplemental admissions criteria yields an admit pool which is both more diverse and better prepared than a randomly selected pool. The Task Force concluded that an admissions lottery would abrogate UC's responsibility to make principled admissions decisions based on academic and public policy considerations and is therefore not a responsible or viable option.

Refining existing supplemental admissions criteria

The Task Force reviewed efforts undertaken at the campus level in the wake of SP-l to refine UC's remaining supplemental admissions criteria, once race, ethnicity, and gender are eliminated, in order to minimize adverse effects on diversity. Specifically, the Task Force heard a presentation on UC San Diego's preliminary results of several admissions simulations. In consultation with the campus Academic Senate Committee on Undergraduate Admissions, institutional research staff at UCSD have been actively exploring various alternatives to the campus' current admission selection model. Under the current model, up to 60 percent of all admissions decisions at UCSD are made on the basis of academic criteria alone, using an Academic Index Score (AIS), and the remaining 30 to 40 percent are decided on the basis of a combination of academic and supplemental criteria.

The maximum number of points possible in UCSD's current supplemental point system is 2000, including 300 points for underrepresented ethnicity. Given that SP-1 eliminates use of race and ethnicity as an admissions factor after this year, San Diego has been experimenting with admissions simulations using revised factor weightings for the remaining supplemental criteria. These simulations illustrate that the demographic profile of an admitted cohort can be substantially altered depending on the relative weight given to each of several supplemental factors under consideration. For example, with race excluded as a factor and with the weights associated with low income and other supplemental factors increased initial simulations indicate that the new point system comes close to approximating the demographic profile of the cohort actually admitted this Fall under UCSD's current point system.

Similar to current practice, one of UCSD's new admission models allows for 60 percent of all freshmen to be admitted on the basis of their Academic Index Score alone, while the remaining 40 percent are admitted on the basis of their AIS plus re-weighted points given for supplemental factors. When applied to 1995 applicant records, the new model would produce an increase in female (+1%), Asian (+5%), low family income (+24%), and first-generation college student (+10%) admits, and a decrease in African-American (-9%), Chicano/Latino (-6%), Native American (-19%), and White (1%) admits. However, when compared to the current point system, the new model would yield an admitted cohort with a lower academic profile (i.e., lower SAT scores) and one which could require significantly increased funding for student financial aid, given the increased number of low-income student produced by the model. UCSD is continuing to conduct additional simulations and to explore further refinements to its point system in an effort to address these and other problems, but the campus has yet made no final decisions about the approach that will ultimately be used.

Review of admissions selection processes at other public universities

The task force reviewed literature regarding three public selective universities: the University of Michigan, the University of Virginia, and the University of Wisconsin. The task force found that their admissions practices are not substantially different from current practices used by the University of California. Academic accomplishments, evidence of leadership and motivation, special talent, minority and/or disadvantaged background are considered as part of the admission selection process. However, admissions reviews are conducted in a more "holistic" manner than at UC. The following quote from the University of Michigan's admissions booklet provides a good illustration of the goals of undergraduate admissions at these institutions:

"The University of Michigan seeks to enroll and graduate students who will contribute to the University community, the State of Michigan, and the broader society. The role of the undergraduate admissions office is to recruit, admit, and encourage enrollment of students who are academically excellent, accomplished in extracurricular endeavors, and who reflect the socioeconomic and racial diversity of the State of Michigan and the nation. We are committed to enrolling students who will develop and grow educationally and personally."

The University of California differs from these institutions in two main respects: First, UC must abide by the eligibility principle as defined in the Master Plan, thereby clearly defining a pool of students who can be selected. Second, UC divides the pool of qualified applicants to be reviewed for admission into two distinct pools according to strict percentages. The first group is to be selected based on academic criteria alone, and the remainder on a combination of academic and supplemental factors. This distinction is not followed at the institutions reviewed by the Task Force.

1 "The Use of Socio-Economic Status in Place of Ethnicity in Undergraduate Admissions: A Report on the Results of an Exploratory Computer Simulation," Student Academic Services, UC Office of the President, May 1995.

Appendix F

GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSITY POLICY ON UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS

(Note: "bold" denotes proposed revised language)


On May 20, 1988, The Regents of the University of California adopted a University of California Policy on Undergraduate Admissions. The Policy states in part that:

"Mindful of its mission as a public institution, the University of California ...seeks to enroll, on each of its campuses, a student body that, beyond meeting the University's eligibility requirements, demonstrates high academic achievement or exceptional personal talent, and that encompasses the broad diversity of cultural, racial, geographic, and socio-economic backgrounds characteristics of California."

The fundamental goals of the 1988 Policy were reaffirmed by The Regents on July 20, 1995 in Section 9 of SP-1. SP-1 also directed the President in consultation with the Academic Senate to revise the guidelines for implementation of the policy, specifically to remove consideration for race, ethnicity and gender in admission decisions.

Effective with the fall term 1997, the following revised guidelines and procedures shall be followed for implementation of the University of California Policy on Undergraduate Admission and of SP-1.

I. SELECTION GUIDELINES

Students applying for admission must have met the University's established eligibility requirements. These selection guidelines apply to campuses that have to select from a pool of eligible applicants, and to students who have met the established eligibility requirements.

These guidelines provide the framework within which campuses shall establish specific criteria and procedures for the selection of undergraduate applicants to be admitted when the number of eligible applicants exceeds the places available.
Campuses receiving applications in excess of the number required to achieve their enrollment target for a specific term shall select students for admission as follows:


A. Freshman Applicants

At least 50% but not more than 75% of freshmen admitted by each campus shall be selected on the basis of criteria as described in items 1 through 10, below. The remaining percentage of freshmen, exclusive of applicants admitted through admission by exception, shall be selected on the basis of criteria listed in items 1 through 10 plus criteria listed in items 11 through 15 below.

The following criteria provide a comprehensive list of factors campuses may use to select their admitted class. Based on campus-specific institutional goals and needs, individual campuses may choose all or some of the criteria listed below. It is strongly recommended, however, that admissions decisions be based on a broad variety of factors rather than on a restricted number of criteria to ensure attainment of the diversity goals set forth in the University of California Policy on Undergraduate Admissions and in SP-1.

Criteria to Select the First 50%-75% of the Admitted Class:


1. Academic Grade Point Average (GPA) calculated on all academic courses completed in the subject areas specified by the University's eligibility requirements (the a-f subjects), including additional points for completion of University certified honors courses. It is recommended that the maximum value allowed for the GPA shall be 4.0.

2. Scores on the following tests: the Scholastic Assessment Test I or the American College Test, and the College Board Scholastic Assessment Test II: Subject Tests.

3. The number and content of courses successfully completed in academic subjects beyond the minimum specified by the University's eligibility requirements.

4. The number of University approved honors courses, College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate courses, and transferable college courses completed or in progress.

5. The quality of the senior year program, as measured by type and number of academic courses in progress or planned.

6. Outstanding performance in one specific academic subject area.

7. Completion of special projects in any academic field of study.

8. Special, outstanding endorsement of the school regarding the candidate's academic potential and promise.

9. Recent, marked improvement in academic performance, as demonstrated by academic grade point average and quality of coursework completed and in progress.

10. Quality of performance relative to the educational opportunities available in the candidate's school of origin.


Criteria to Select the Remainder 50% to 25% of the Admitted Class

Criteria 1 through 10 listed above PLUS criteria 11 through 15 listed below:


11. Special talents, interests, or experiences that demonstrate unusual promise for leadership, achievement and services in a particular field such as civic life or the arts.

12. Special circumstances adversely affecting applicants' life experiences. Overcoming these challenges are evidence of unusual persistence and determination. These circumstances may include, for example, disabilities personal difficulties, low family income, need to work, disadvantaged social or educational environment, difficult family situations or circumstances, re-entry status, refugee status or veteran status.

13. Completion of special projects undertaken either in the context of the high school curriculum or in conjunction with special school events or projects co-sponsored by the school, community organizations, postsecondary educational institutions, other agencies, or private firms, that demonstrate special effort and determination or that may indicate special suitability to an academic program on a specific campus.

14. Participation in special cross-cultural programs offered by the high school or community organizations, demonstrated, outstanding individual effort to experience other cultures, or proficiency in other languages. These factors shall be considered to further the goal of diversity in the student population.

15. Location of the educational institution of origin and of the applicant's residence. These factors shall be considered in order to provide for geographic diversity in the student population and also to account for the wide variety of educational environments existing in California.

1 These guidelines apply only to those regularly eligible for admission. Up to 6% of new enrolled freshmen and 6% of new enrolled advanced standing students can be admitted by exception, as authorized by The Regents. Refer to Policy on Undergraduate Admissions by exception.

Appendix F

B. Advanced Standing Applicants

Advanced standing applicants shall be selected by each campus using the criteria listed below. Primary emphasis shall be given to criteria as described in items 1 through 4, below. However, in order to assess applicants' overall promise of success and to achieve strength and diversity in the campuses' advanced standing student body, consideration shall also be given to the criteria as described in items 11 through 15, above.

Priority consideration for admission of advanced standing applicants shall be given to upper division junior transfers from California Community Colleges.

Criteria to Select Advanced Standing Applicants

1. Completion of a specified pattern or number of courses that meet breadth or general
education requirements.

2. Completion of a specified pattern or number of courses that provide continuity with upper division courses in the major.

3. Grade point average in all transferable courses.

4. Participation in academically selective honors courses or programs.

(Refer to items 1 through 5 above for additional criteria to consider.)


II. APPLICATION PROCEDURES

A common filing period for submission of applications shall be established by the Office of the President in consultation with the campuses. These dates shall be observed by all campuses and may be extended only if a campus determines that additional applications are required to meet enrollment targets. All applications submitted during the prescribed dates shall receive equal consideration for admission.

Applicants shall file one application on which they shall indicate all the campuses where they wish to be considered for admission.

Campuses shall observe and publish a common date for notifying applicants of their admission status.


III. ACCOMMODATION OF APPLICANTS

When applicants cannot be accommodated in their selected programs, campuses may offer enrollment alternatives. Examples of such alternatives are:

Fall term admission to a different major;

2. Deferred admission to another term; or,

3. Enrollment at a community college with provision for admission at a later time, if a stated level of academic achievement is maintained (for freshman applicants only).

Appendix G

POLICY ON UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS BY EXCEPTION

(Note: "bold" denotes proposed revised language)

It is the policy of the University of California that:


(1) It is essential that its campuses have the flexibility to admit a small proportion of students by exception to the eligibility requirements.


(2) Students admitted by exception to the eligibility requirements must have a reasonable potential for success at the University.


(3) The proportion of students admitted by exception shall be up to 6 percent of newly enrolled freshmen and up to 6 percent of newly enrolled advanced standing students.


(4) Within the 6 percent designations, up to 4 percent shall be drawn from disadvantaged students and up to 2 percent from other students.


(5) Disadvantaged students shall be defined as students from low socio-economic backgrounds or students having experienced limited educational opportunities.


(6) The percentages in (3) and (4) above shall be understood as limits within which Chancellors can exercise their initiative to further the goals specified in the University of California Policy on Undergraduate Admissions adopted by The Regents on May 20, 1988 and reaffirmed in Section 9 of SP-1, endorsed by The Regents on July 20,1995.


(7) In selecting students for admission by exception it is recommended that campuses utilize the criteria listed in the revised Guidelines for Implementation of University Policy on Undergraduate Admissions. issued on February. 1996.


(8) The Admissions by Exception program continue to be used systematically to test alternative methods of selecting students for admission.

This policy shall be effective with the Fall 1997 term.

Carl Gutierrez-Jones,

Department of English

University of California

Santa Barbara, CA 93106

E-mail: carlgj@humanitas.ucsb.edu