 |
Photo by Todd Cheney
UCLA Photo
New Bruins gathered together for the first time
at the New Student Welcome on Sept. 22 in Pauley Pavilion. The freshman
class of 2003 underwent a complex, painstaking and fair selection
process to get admitted.
|
GETTING INTO UCLA
Close review is key to admissions
BY JUDY LIN-EFTEKHAR AND KAREN MACK
UCLA Today Staff
They are 4,300 strong, most coming two weeks ago from towns, cities and
rural communities across California to take a highly coveted seat in UCLA’s
2003 freshman class, a place for which roughly 40,700 others had vied.
As a class, they are bright and hard-working, with an average 4.13 GPA
and an average SAT I score of 1278. They took, on average, 17 semesters
of honors courses in high school as well.
But these statistics alone are not enough to answer the key question:
Why did they get in and not someone else? After all, almost 19,000 of
UCLA’s 45,000 applicants had GPAs of 4.0 or higher — enough
students with straight A’s to make up more than four complete freshman
classes.
The answer lies in the University of California’s policy of comprehensive
review. Established two years ago by UC faculty and regents, the policy
assures the integrity and fairness of the freshman admissions process
at all of UC’s undergraduate campuses. To most people, the process
is a mystery. To faculty, administrators and staff involved in making
admissions decisions for UCLA, it is a painstaking process that requires
close scrutiny of an enormous pool of well-qualified applicants to produce
a freshman class that is bright, well-rounded, motivated, self-directed
and likely to succeed in this competitive environment.
Comprehensive review mandates that each campus evaluate the full achievement
record of all its applicants. Rather than looking strictly at a narrow
range of quantitative factors such as grades and test scores, the process
recognizes that merit is demonstrated in a broad range of academic and
personal achievements. The goal, explained UCLA’s Director of Admissions
Vu Tran, “is to have an equitable admissions policy that gives all
high-achieving students a fair chance.”
The new policy essentially replaced the “2-Tier” system.
Under that process, each campus admitted 50% to 75% of its freshman class
on academic criteria alone (Tier 1) and the balance of the class based,
in effect, on a comprehensive review of academics plus supplemental criteria
(Tier 2).
Initially when comprehensive review was adopted, some faculty predicted
that the academic quality of UC’s entering freshmen might be diluted.
But according to the latest evaluation presented to the regents Sept.
18 by the systemwide board that oversees admissions, virtually every measure
of academic excellence has grown stronger under comprehensive review.
And while the policy has helped campuses make difficult decisions about
who gets in, access has not diminished. In fact, the proportions of students
admitted to selective campuses from low-income families, families with
no previous experience with college, low-performing schools and rural
areas are higher than they were before the policy was applied. The proportion
of underrepresented students in UC’s applicant pool has also increased
from 18.9% in 2001 to 20.9% this year.
Under comprehensive review, academic preparation still remains the most
significant factor in admission, based on high school grades and/or standardized
test scores. UC-eligible students make up the top 12.5% of California’s
graduating seniors.
But eligibility alone doesn’t open the door to UCLA, one of the
system’s most selective campuses. “Our definition of high-achieving
students goes beyond aca-demic measures such as grades and test scores
to values such as leadership, community involvement, honors, awards and
so forth,” Tran said. The personal-achievement bar is high, he explained.
“We look for distinctive honors, awards and recognitions ... distinctive
because virtually every student who applies to UCLA has received many
honors and awards.”
Reviewers also look closely at whether applicants have demonstrated
academic achievement despite life challenges that might include anything
from a learning disorder to living in a high-crime, poor-school neighborhood.
While a great many applicants list no such life challenges, noted Tran:
“We all go through life along different routes. Some people are
less fortunate than others. If you are born with a physical disability
and you still are able to study hard and become involved in many things,
that says something about your ability to succeed.”
The complex process by which UCLA’s 2003 freshmen were selected
started in early November when applications began pouring in to meet the
Nov. 30 deadline. By that time, about 150 readers had been recruited and
were undergoing 12 hours of intensive training. These readers typically
have strong ties to education, ranging from student affairs staff to high
school counselors.
The review occurred on two parallel tracks. Most of the readers tackled
the comprehensive dossier reviews. Combing through students’ applications
and personal statements, and a summary sheet of academic information prepared
by UCLA’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions and Relations With
Schools (UARS), the readers assigned each applicant a ranking of one to
five for personal achievement and another for life challenges.
Meanwhile, another group of readers conducted academic reviews, focusing
on such factors as grades, test scores, breadth and difficulty of high
school coursework and scholastic honors. Every applicant was reviewed
by two readers, who each assigned an academic rank of one to six; if more
than one point separated the two rankings, a senior evaluator re-read
the application for a final determination.
In the review process, distinctions surfaced. A close review of a student
with a 3.5 GPA and a 1020 SAT, for example, might have revealed a more
rigorous course load and other factors that made him or her better qualified
than a student with a higher GPA and/or SAT.
Checking completed reviews and requiring multiple reads of some applications
guarantee consistency and fairness, Tran explained. As part of the verification
process, a random sampling of applicants was asked to provide written
confirmation of one of seven elements, including information in their
personal statements.
In February, the difficult task of deciding whom to admit began. Applications
that teetered on the borderline received a complete re-read. “A
single point could make a difference,” said Keith Stolzenbach, professor
of civil and environmental engineering and chair of UCLA’s Committee
on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools. Last year, for
example, some 4,000 such dossiers were re-read.
The final selection for the UCLA College, which represented more than
80% of the applicant pool, fell to Stolzenbach’s committee, which
acted on recommendations by the admissions director that are based on
several factors, including the anticipated yield (the number of students
expected to accept the offer of admission), and the undergraduate enrollment
targets established by the Chancellor’s Enrollment Advisory Committee.
Faculty in the professional schools made separate admissions decisions
using additional criteria such as auditions and portfolios.
The decisions brought elation to some, but heartbreak to many more.
Of the 44,941 who applied to enter this fall, only 23% were admitted.
Some of UCLA’s own faculty members find the heightened selectivity
to be a sticking point — especially when their own children are
unable to gain admission.
“You have to remember,” said Stolzenbach, “that in
world terms, the students who apply, by and large, are the top students
from across the entire state. They all look very good. At the school where
I used to teach [MIT], they called it ‘slicing the bologna.’
Because you’re taking this rarified group, and then you are slicing
them even thinner.”
Given the need to fairly and equitably select from among a pool of applicants
that is replete with high-achieving, UC-eligible students (a number roughly
10 times the size of the freshman class itself), comprehensive review
identifies those who are not just strong academically, but who have demonstrated
leadership, involvement, persistence, self-reliance and other qualities
that make them most likely to succeed at UCLA and beyond.
“To me, the biggest disadvantage of all of this is how multifaceted
comprehensive review is, and how difficult it is to explain to people,”
said Tom Lifka, assistant vice chancellor of student academic services.
Nevertheless, “A public institution has an obligation to make the
process transparent.”
Added Tran: “You can only make good judgments based on what you
know. When I share information with those who question the process, at
least they understand where we’re coming from.” |
