UC Berkeley Web Feature

Regent Hopkinson's remarks on admissions

21 November 2003

Comments by Regent Judith Hopkinson on the UC admissions controversy and the establishment of a task force on student eligibility and admissions, delivered to the UC Board of Regents meeting Nov. 19, 2003, at UCLA.:

This group’s charge is about an important and very complex issue.

Important to note that much of the information in the public domain in the last 45 days regarding eligibility and admissions does not reflect the policies or positions of the regents of the University of California.

A little history and factors that should be the foundation for the study groups efforts:

The 1886 Organic Act said that "It shall be the duty of the regents, according to population, to so apportion the representation of students, when necessary, that all portions of the state shall enjoy equal privilege therein."

The Master Plan of Higher Education in 1960 began to ration freshman access to UC. Prior to that time, roughly 15% of California high school graduates met UC admissions requirements.

In 2001 RE28 adopted which says:
"That the university shall seek out and enroll, on each of its campuses, a student body that demonstrates high academic achievement or exceptional personal talent, and that encompasses the broad diversity of backgrounds characteristic of California."

And in November 2001 – two years ago – we overwhelmingly approved comprehensive admissions by a 15-4 vote.

What is comprehensive review?

Is it admission based on GPAs? –no–

Is it admission based on the SAT I results? –no–

Is it admission based on the SAT II results? –no–

Is it admission based on excelling in a special area such as
Athletics?
The arts?
Science? – no–

Is it admission based on unusually committed involvement in community work? –no–

Is it admission based on graduating at the top of your class from one of the most underperforming high schools in the state?
– no–

Is it admission based on excelling well under very trying and challenging circumstances and overcoming adversity? –no–

Is it a new policy? –no–

It is all these things – that’s what comprehensive review is about, and that is what we approved in November 2001.

The document which is the subject of so much controversy is narrowly focused, does not place data in any historical context, and provides an incomplete and in the context of Regental policies, is an inaccurate picture.

The study is flawed – looking at only limited data. Does not look at the university's mission and its existing policies, or put data in that context.

The data itself is questionable regarding its validity for the proposed use.
The one-year time frame – no historical data for comparison.
The use of the university logo on a private report and
The use of the regents' copyright phrase contribute to the confusion about the origins and validity of the document.

Having read more than 60 articles, letters to the editors, and editorials, a significant amount of confusion has been generated in the public’s mind.

It has hurt individual students.

The analysis and resulting media coverage suggest that this particular group of students is somehow unworthy of a UC education. Just to illustrate this, and how careful one must be when using numbers – at Berkeley when we remove from the high-end pool out-of-state students, students who applied to the most competitive majors, or students who withdrew at some point in the admissions process, these low-SAT scoring students have a higher grade point average than the high-SAT scoring students. Finally, we also know that these students, once enrolled at UC, by and large succeed in their studies.

Having adopted the policy on comprehensive review so recently – first class admitted in fall of 2002, second class in 2003 – is it possible to understand its impact so early in the process? –no–

It is impossible to evaluate on such short time frame.

Should our admissions process be more transparent and understandable by parents and students throughout the state? –no question –

Have we at times done things less than perfectly? –undoubtedly –

Should we, in an academically reputable way, with comparative historical data, evaluate the way our policies are being implemented? –yes –

Should we be continuously evaluating the procedures used to implement these policies? –yes–

Is there room for improvement? –always–

Has comprehensive review been implemented long enough to be able to draw a meaningful conclusion of the policy's effectiveness and impact? –no–

is comprehensive review on the table? –no–

Have we basically got it right? –yes–

A few words on the study group:

I would hope that they approach this in an open, unbiased way, with no individual agendas.

I would also encourage the group to avail itself of our own faculty members who have stellar reputations in the relevant fields such as evaluation and testing, and of those in our Academic Senate that have been intimately involved in the admissions process.

I would encourage the study group to utilize independent, outside resources to accumulate relevant statistical data.

I am also concerned that a thorough and adequate job can be accomplished by March. It is important that the right job be done, not the fastest.