In May, the University of California Board of Regents took the historic step of returning to the university's Academic Senate authority over the admissions policy at UC. Along with that authority came a large task, to reconsider UC's undergraduate admissions policy on an accelerated timetable.

To start this reconsideration, it's useful to see where we have been. Four years ago, UC's admissions policy was, though rigid, simple: A high school student had to take a minimum of 15 courses in six subject areas, two standardized tests and then hope to fall in the top 12.5% of his or her peers statewide; everyone else had a second chance at UC via transfer from a community college.

In three years, UC has added two more admissions tracks. This year, we began to admit freshmen ranking in the top 4% of their own high school class, even if they fell outside the top 12.5% statewide. In May, UC's Academic Senate cautiously recommended the Dual Admissions Program, under which an additional 8% of students at the top of their own high school, but not in the top 12.5% statewide, may apply for simultaneous admission to a community college and a promise of transfer to a specific UC campus if they meet GPA and course goals set by that campus.

Finally, the regents and UC President Richard C. Atkinson have now challenged the Academic Senate to consider a more comprehensive evaluation of all candidates for admission, one going beyond tests, courses and grades, to consider life experiences, challenges overcome and more. In short, UC is considering an admissions program characteristic of the top-tier private universities and liberal arts colleges with whom we compete for students and faculty.

Attractions of such a change are obvious. But let me note two challenges we must overcome if we are to take this path. The first is cost and scale. UCLA alone last year received more than 41,000 applications for the freshman class, more than any other university, public or private, in the United States. Most sister UC campuses similarly receive tens of thousands of applications. Thoughtful, comprehensive evaluations on this scale will require scores of professional readers, each carefully trained and supervised. Resources devoted to that task might otherwise go to academic programs, freshman seminars, laboratory equipment, smaller classes, improved libraries, among others.

Harder to capture is another challenge. UC's admissions program has for several generations profited from its stability and its transparency: All constituencies understood how things worked and had confidence in its integrity. If we move to a more comprehensive evaluation system, it will be dreadfully important, but very difficult, to maintain the integrity and objectivity of admissions and to communicate widely and often with constituencies inside and outside the university to explain an expanded and more complicated system. We need to avoid at all costs the impression that admission to UCLA depends on who the reader is or what he or she had for breakfast that morning.

The Academic Senate bodies considering these topics over the next few months will have their hands full, and they deserve not only our thoughtful support, but also our thanks for taking on a difficult task.