|
UC calls for review of school admissions policy
Becky Bartindale
Knight Ridder Newspapers
SAN JOSE, Calif. � New standards used by the University of California to select which students will attend which campuses should be subject to outside scrutiny to give the public confidence that all students are being treated fairly, Regent Ward Connerly urged the Board of Regents on Thursday.
News articles have raised questions about the university's "comprehensive review" process, including whether it benefits disadvantaged students and whether some ethnic groups have a better shot than others at getting into competitive campuses.
University of California President Richard Atkinson and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who sits as a regent, bristled at the idea of outside evaluation.
Atkinson said a faculty committee already is conducting a detailed review and will report back to regents later this year.
"There is absolutely no question in my mind about the fairness of this process," Atkinson said. "I have seen no evidence to suggest to me that there is any kind of unfairness in the comprehensive review process."
Requesting an outside study "gives an indication or presumption that perhaps there is something wrong," Bustamante said, yet there is no evidence of a problem.
The new approach, used for the first time on students who entered the University of California this fall, allows campus admissions officials to weigh factors such as leadership, special talents, obstacles overcome and socioeconomic background along with students' grades, test scores and the rigor of their academic courses.
The new system applies only to selecting who goes where; the top 12.5 percent of the students in the state still are guaranteed admission to one of the University of California's eight undergraduate campuses if they meet standard academic and course requirements.
Until this fall, campuses had selected 50 percent to 75 percent of each class on the basis of academic factors alone. That approach was easier to quantify and explain. But proponents of comprehensive review say the approach overlooked other important ways of measuring student achievement and the likelihood of success.
Academics still remain the most important consideration in comprehensive review, Atkinson said. Ten of the 14 criteria used to make selections are based on academics.
Connerly said he supports comprehensive review and thinks some of the articles questioning its fairness were "misstatements." At the same time, he said, people need assurance that the process is fair�"that it is somehow predictable and they can rely on their student getting a fair shake at their first choice."
He cited three concerns about comprehensive review:
"No. 1, does this provide an opportunity to manufacture life experiences or obstacles that can never be proven? No. 2, can the aggregation of life's experiences or adversity or obstacles exceed and overwhelm actual academic accomplishment? No. 3, is this in some way a circumvention of the California Constitution and a reinsertion of race and ethnicity into the equation?"
Based on what happened at the University of California-Davis, he said, "I believe there are answers to most of those questions that people would accept and feel comfortable about."
Connerly said hopes to build consensus among regents for an outside review.
Board Chairman John Moores said an outside review would be one way to make comprehensive review "transparent" and help the university system dispel the perception that it favors disadvantaged students.
|
|
|
|
|
|
