Briefing Report: The University of California's New Admissions Policy Invites Bias, Needs Transparency and Oversight

Summary

The University of California (UC) recently changed its freshman admissions policy, extending the freshman eligibility pool from the top 12.5 percent of high school graduates to more than 20 percent, while also making the selection process more subjective and uncertain. The Legislature should require transparency in and greater oversight of the UC admissions process to ensure equal opportunities for all applicants.

UC’s Present Admissions Policy Rewards Academic Merit

UC is a constitutionally semi-autonomous institution governed by the Board of Regents. The 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education establishes the UC freshman eligibility pool as “the top…one-eighth (12 ½ percent) of all graduates of California public schools.” How the top 12.5 percent is defined is left to the Regents, which has largely delegated that decision to the faculty.

Currently, UC freshmen are selected from among two generally overlapping eligibility groups, which together net about 13 percent of high school graduates:

• Eligibility in the Statewide Context – The top 12.5 percent of California high school graduates statewide, based on grade point average (GPA) for 15 courses in specified subject areas (the so-called “a-g courses”) and scores on either the SAT or ACT; and

• Eligibility in the Local Context – The top 4 percent of each public high school’s graduating class, based only on a-g course GPA. (These students must have taken the SAT or ACT, but their scores are not a factor.)

In addition, applicants in both groups must have taken two SAT Subject exams.

UC’s New Policy Increases Subjectivity in Admissions Decisions

UC’s new admissions scheme makes three major changes:

• SAT Subject exams eliminated – UC asserts that the information gleaned from applicant scores on SAT Subject tests provides little value-added to the information learned from GPA and SAT or ACT scores.

• Changes statewide and local eligibility pools – The new process reduces those eligible in the statewide context from 12.5 percent to 9 percent, and increases those eligible in the local context from 4 percent to 9 percent.

• Creates new eligibility Group, “Entitled to Review” – This new category increases the total pool of those eligible for UC admission from the top 12.5 percent of high school graduates based on GPA and test scores, instead allowing UC to choose from among the over 21 percent of graduates who:
  • Complete 11 a-g courses by the end of their junior year with an expectation that they complete all 15 courses by graduation;
  • Maintain at least a 3.0 GPA in the a-g courses; and
  • Simply take the SAT or ACT.

“Entitled to review” applicants will be selected not solely on academic merit, but through a so-called “comprehensive review.” Under comprehensive review, UC admissions officers consider a host of non-academic factors, as will be discussed. The table below displays the changes to the eligibility pools.

“Comprehensive Review” Reduces Objectivity in Admissions Decisions

“Comprehensive review” implies a thorough examination of the value of an applicant, followed by impartial consideration and an objective admission decision. This is not the case. In fact, “comprehensive review” requires a variety of quickly-made subjective judgments regarding, for example:

• Achievement in light of “opportunities an applicant has had, and the [application] reader’s assessment is based on how fully the applicant has taken advantage of those opportunities.” (UC Berkeley)

• “[E]vidence of an applicant’s ability and desire to contribute to a campus that values cultural, socioeconomic, and intellectual diversity,” including the “likelihood that the student would make meaningful and unique contributions…both inside and outside the classroom.” (UCLA)

• “Academic accomplishments in light of the student's life experiences and special circumstances.”

However, not all judgments are subjective: admissions officers at UC Berkeley are specifically prohibited from considering an applicant’s military service.

Who are these application readers?  What immovable – if unconscious and unintended – biases do they bring to each application, as social scientists tell us they must? Who selects and trains these readers? Who ensures intellectual diversity of the reader pool?  Who provides the oversight to ensure that each applicant to the nation’s premier public university receives an unbiased evaluation? The answer is: No-one, really. Yet under the new admissions scheme, UC will admit a greater percentage of freshmen from among a far larger pool of applicants based on non-academic criteria through the largely subjective and hidden comprehensive review process.  Such a shift invites greater bias.

How to Establish Transparency and Regain Trust

Transparency is important.  How can the Legislature shine a light onto UC’s admissions process to provide citizens a clear understanding of what is required for admission and confidence that the process provides an unbiased, equal opportunity for all applicants? The Legislature should direct UC to:

• Preserve all applications and admissions decision documents for at least 10 years. These should be periodically reviewed by independent researchers to identify irregularities, trends, and exceptions in admissions decisions so as to ensure a valid, reliable, and unbiased student selection process.

• Clearly communicate to the public how it weighs the non-academic elements of comprehensive review. If a UC campus awards points for “leadership” or “special talents,” what exactly qualifies? More importantly, how can UC assure the public that it does not apply these criteria selectively?

The University of California is a public university. As such, the integrity of the admissions process must be validated in order to ensure the public trust. As UC increases subjectivity in student selection, the Legislature should exercise greater oversight to guarantee equally-qualified applicants an equal opportunity for admission.

For more information on this report or other education issues , contact Roger Mackensen, Senate Republican Office of Policy at 916/651-1501.