Comprehensive review is more efficient

Bachman is chair of the department of applied linguistics &
TESL. Lindsey is a professor at the School of Public Policy and
Social Research.

By Lyle Bachman and Duncan
Lindsey

UCLA is one of the most selective universities in the nation.
Its acceptance rate is the second lowest among public universities
in the United States, and is lower than the University of Chicago,
Cornell, Washington University, Northwestern and many of the most
elite private universities. All this has happened within the last
five years.

We need to ask, however, if UCLA has changed its admissions
process to adjust to this increasing selectivity. The approach used
at virtually all highly selective universities is called a
“comprehensive review,” a procedure in which the full
dossier of each applicant is reviewed by two or more expert
readers. A comprehensive review is intended to assure both equity
and thoroughness in the admissions decision, since every
applicant’s dossier is evaluated using the same criteria and
standards.

In several recent articles in the Daily Bruin (see Kate McLaughlin,
Oct. 11; Marcelle Richards,
Oct. 2; both B. Tan &
Atkinson, Sept.
24), the question has been raised: should UCLA adopt such a
comprehensive review approach?

At less selective universities, admission decisions are based on
formulaic criteria, involving grade point average, SAT scores and
so on. However, when most applicants, such as those seeking
admission to UCLA, have very strong academic credentials, the
usefulness of identifying top candidates solely on the basis of
academic criteria diminishes. This is especially true when there is
space for less than one-third of all applicants.

While the number of applicants to UCLA has almost doubled during
the last five years, the number of students admitted has increased
only slightly. As a result, UCLA has entered the group of the most
selective universities in the nation. During the same period, UCLA
has had to adjust to the end of affirmative action, through the
regents’ action in SP-1 and by the passage of Proposition 209
by the voters of California. Between 1997 and 1998, both Berkeley
and UCLA experienced sharp declines in the number of
underrepresented minority students admitted, as shown in Figure
1.

To reverse such a precipitous decline in minority admissions,
each campus adopted a different strategy. Berkeley adopted a system
of comprehensive review in which each application is reviewed in
the full context of the applicant’s achievements, both
academic and non-academic.

A student with musical talent, scientific creativity and/or an
artistic gift, who might be otherwise overlooked in a formulaic
approach, can be identified. Students who have reached a high level
of achievement in the face of difficult life challenges or who have
made the most of limited educational opportunities are also
identified. Using a comprehensive review, Berkeley has been able to
significantly increase access to its campus by underrepresented
minority students.

In contrast, UCLA has chosen to retain a formulaic approach.
During the last admission cycle, UCLA used two major measures to
make admissions decisions: 1) academic rank and 2) “Life
Challenge.” Academic rank is based on an assessment of
various academic indicators including SAT scores, GPA and the
number of Advanced Placement and honors courses the student has
taken. Scores from a computer algorithm are averaged with a human
assessment to obtain an academic rank.

The correlation between the SAT I composite and academic rank
was .73, while the correlation between academic rank and high
school GPA was .56, indicating that SAT scores were the principal
factor in determining academic rank.

In last year’s admissions cycle, UCLA allocated almost
two-thirds, approximately 62 percent, of its admissions offers to
students with the highest academic ranks. The result was a freshman
class with very high average SAT scores and GPAs as shown in Figure
2.

Underrepresented students have consistently scored lower than
average on the SAT. In the latest results, it was reported that
African-American students scored 200 points below the national
average, while Mexican- American students scored 150 points below
the national average. The first tier of students admitted to UCLA
based on academic rank (62 percent in the last admissions cycle)
included only 7 percent of underrepresented students. This low
percentage of underrepresented students is difficult to reconcile
with the fact that 70 percent of the students in the Los Angeles
Unified School District are Hispanic and another 10 percent are
African American. This discrepancy is widely viewed as
unacceptable.

After selecting the first tier of students on the basis of
academic rank, UCLA uses a measure called “Life
Challenge.” Based on research that identified the variables
with the highest correlation with underrepresented minority
students, the “Life Challenge” measure is a composite
of the components believed most likely to identify underrepresented
students. These components include: single parent household, low
family income and low family educational attainment. Essentially,
the measure assesses the applicant’s socio-economic status.
During the last admissions cycle, this measure was used for the
second tier by sifting through the remaining students and selecting
“High Life Challenge” students. The result was a
substantial increase in the number of underrepresented students
(several times the rate as selected in the first tier).

The limitation of using the “Life Challenge” measure
is that it is based on a view of racial and ethnic minorities that
highlights low income, single parenthood and low educational
attainment. The measure is then used to ensure sufficient
representation of underrepresented students. Working class and
middle class underrepresented minority students (as well as those
who are not underrepresented minorities) are missed by this view.
As can be seen in Figure 3, in the last admissions cycle, most of
the thousands of students who were denied admission were denied on
the basis of their low scores on this measure.

Since most students are unaware of the critical role “Life
Challenges” plays in the admissions decision at UCLA, most of
the students denied admission are unlikely to be aware that it was
their low score on the “Life Challenge” measure that
was pivotal in their denial.

Based on meetings of several ad hoc groups over the summer, the
Committee on University Admissions and Relations with Schools has
prepared a proposal for an admissions procedure that it claims will
involve major changes to the present system. If one reads this
proposal carefully, however, two features of this proposed system
will be clear: first, it is still a two-tier system, with the first
tier of students being admitted on the basis of academic rank, and
the second tier being admitted largely on the basis of life
challenges. Second, it does not involve a full comprehensive review
of every dossier by two qualified readers, as described above, and
as is being recommended by the UC office of the president and the
regents.

Two members of the ad hoc committees that met over the summer
disagreed with the proposed system and have issued a minority
report, pointing out the problems with the present system, and
urging that this system be changed as soon as possible, before
thousands more deserving applicants may perhaps be unfairly denied
admission to UCLA this coming year.

The Academic Senate and the Regents of the University of
California are considering proposals to move away from formulaic
approaches to admissions, and the appropriate committees of the
Academic Senate will debate the current formulaic system this year.
We strongly support this open debate, and believe that a system of
“comprehensive review” would produce a more equitable
and effective system for identifying the best applicants while also
allowing for increased access by underrepresented students.