Description of Campus Selection Processes Using Comprehensive Review</p>
<p>Berkeley</p>
<p>Berkeleys Holistic Review system has been in place for more than a decade, and served as the foundation for Holistic Review processes implemented at other campuses. The process has been most affected by the recent growth in domestic non-resident and international applicants and enrollments. In particular, the cost of administering holistic review at Berkeley is growing as a result of the larger non-resident applicant pool, the additional work involved in establishing meaningful school context information for domestic nonresident applicants compared to residents, and the specialized staffing required to review international applications, which often need manual intervention to calculate and calibrate grades as some students struggle to fit their international secondary school experience into the grid for a-g course work.</p>
<p>ELC has always been a plus factor in application review at Berkeley, but has never been a factor in selection. In the years when Berkeleys ratio of residents in the admit pool was closer to 90%, about 60% to 65% of students with ELC designation were admitted. This year with increase in ELC designation from 4% to 9% it was 40%.</p>
<p>Berkeleys Office of Undergraduate Admissions staff consulted with faculty and staff at most other UC campuses as holistic review was being implemented systemwide. The Berkeley admissions office also has taken on a greater portion of systemwide shared reviews by sharing read scores on overlap applicants with other campuses. Berkeley has made the process more efficient while ensuring a baseline level of quality in the application reviews. But continuing this kind of quality review, used by other campuses in selection, will require a level of resources that keeps up with the increase in applications.</p>
<p>Davis</p>
<p>Davis implemented a single score holistic review process for the first time in 2011-12, transitioning from a two-stage, multiple score process used the previous ten years. The campus was enthusiastic about moving to holistic review and an individualized evaluation with a human read of all applications that takes into account academic and non-academic achievements in the context of available opportunities.</p>
<p>The transition has been a success. Davis has worked to develop processes, procedures, and policies that enable fair, thorough and high-quality comprehensive review and that result in providing opportunity and access to a diverse high achieving admitted and enrolled freshman class. The Senate Committee on Admissions & Enrollment (CAE) established guiding principles and designed a process based on the Regents policy to ensure that all HR reads were of the highest quality and normed appropriately for consistency. The process incorporated new tools and processes such as training manuals; a new HR read profile; on-campus and off-campus training and monitoring logistics; a certification and norming system; the recruitment, screening, selection, hiring and training of external readers; the identification and training of HR Team Leaders who also had to manage the normal daily responsibilities; the development, testing and implementation of a calibration and reliability system; establishment of an import and export system to receive, utilize and share HR scores; establishment and implementation of a new Supplemental Review process; and the development, testing and production of new reports and monitoring tools.</p>
<p>There were also issues identified in the transition to the new process including a) The time and effort involved in developing the new holistic review process b) The difficulty of achieving milestones within established timelines and meeting important deadlines c) Dependence on UCOP and CAE faculty to provide critical analytic support lacking within the Admissions Office, and d) Personnel changes and lack of staff expertise in certain areas.</p>
<p>Davis attracted more applications from low income, first generation, ELC, domestic and international non-resident, and CA resident students last year. However, as of fall 2012 UC Davis no longer guarantees admission to all ELC applicants, given that the ELC scope was expanded to 9%. The overall academic quality of the Davis applicant and admitted pools was comparable to last year, but the holistic review process did not result in the diversity gains hoped for relative to the increase in underserved applicantsLatino/Chicano (8.8%), first generation (9.5%), and low income (19.15) applicants. Davis expected that the admitted pool would reflect a similar pattern, but it did not.</p>
<p>Irvine</p>
<p>UCI has implemented single-score Holistic Review for the past two admissions cycles. In general, UCI found that holistic review has increased inclusiveness, flexibility, and efficiency. Holistic review allows the campus to consider the entire application within the context of all information provided by and about the applicant. In comparison, previous review procedures may have overly penalized applicants who were somewhat deficient in one or two areas, but exhibited extraordinary achievements in others. It helps meet the campuss goal to not disadvantage strong students from any group (low income, middle class, or financially-successful; educated parents or first-generation college) due to circumstances beyond their control. In addition, the Supplemental Review process allows readers to submit applications they believe to be competitive and worthy of a second review by one of the specially trained internal readers.</p>
<p>The total number of applications to UCI increased (up 3% in 2010-11, up 15% in 2011-12) on top of a longer-term trend of an increased number of applicants to UCI, which has been leading Irvine to become more selective in admissions. Applicant GPAs have held flat, SAT scores have trended slightly down, and first generation college and low-high-school API applications have risen. Students who were in the top 9% in both ELC and statewide categories fared exceptionally well as a cohort.</p>
<p>UCI has had to address the concern expressed by parents at a local high school that giving weight to overcoming challenges could disadvantage applicants because they attended a high API school, are not economically disadvantaged, or are not the first in their family to attend college. It is also a concern that students who do not express themselves well in the written form can disadvantage themselves; usually by not including critical information, not addressing the personal statement prompts effectively, or with regard to general writing style. At Irvine the staff has emphasized that it is crucial for the ultimate success of Holistic Review that resource needs are met, and that there is constant monitoring to ensure that potential scoring biases are investigated and addressed.</p>
<p>Los Angeles</p>
<p>UCLA adopted a Holistic Review Process beginning with the fall 2007 freshman class. Berkeley Admissions faculty and staff worked closely with UCLA during that transition and UCLA adopted a similar five point scoring rubric to the one used by Berkeley. Since that time UCLA has provided training to the other campuses, particularly those in the southern region, and shares scores with campuses that use these scores as part of their reviews.</p>
<p>UCLA trains readers to review files and assign a single score to candidates on the basis of a review of the entire application. No single attribute or characteristic guarantees the admission of any applicant. The review is based on a wide range of both academic and non-academic achievements, which are considered in the context of the available high school and life opportunities, and how fully the student has taken advantage of those opportunities and resources. UCLA considers all Comprehensive Review factors except for location of the applicants secondary school and residence. At UCLA, at least two readers review each file and UCLA devotes a significant amount of time to norming student ratings and crosschecking the ratings of readers. Additional reads are used in the case of discrepant scores or if readers flag the students file for additional attention. These third reviews sometimes require obtaining additional information from the student to clarify their case. Third reads can also break ties on cases where there are similar ratings and fewer places for students in score ranges that are near the boundary of normally admissible ratings.</p>
<p>At the end of the process, several post-decision reviews determine if any decisions need to be reconsidered before admission offers are extended. This includes a By High School review, in which senior readers view an array of quantifiable academic data from applicants from the same high school to either validate decisions or identify apparent anomalies. This prompts a further review by the Director of Undergraduate Admissions for a final decision based upon criteria specified by the faculty admissions committee.</p>
<p>In May 2012, UCLA released a report on Holistic Review in Freshman Admissions10 authored by UCLA Professor Robert Mare, which examined fall 2007 and 2008 holistic outcomes at that campus, where holistic review was first implemented in 2006. The report found that holistic scoring at UCLA is proceeding according to the criteria set by the UCLA Admissions Committee. In the Executive Summary Mare writes, Academic achievement and other personal qualities that contribute to a stimulating, diverse campus environment govern holistic ranking. In Regular Review, which is carried out by qualified members of the education community in the southern California region in conjunction with UARS staff, the importance of academic merit is paramount and I find no important differences along lines that depart from the prescribed ranking criteria. Traditional academic indicators influence scoring most strongly, and achievement in the context of available opportunities and life challenges are also taken into account.</p>
<p>Merced</p>
<p>As the newest campus in the system, UC Merceds admissions policies are fluid, and should be viewed through the lens of progressiverather than before and afterchange. UCMs comprehensive review 2012 was implemented with the goals of: (1) gaining experience in applying a comprehensive review; (2) developing models for implementing a comprehensive reviewincluding creating a matrix of scores with input from our Faculty Admissions Committee; (3) setting up procedures, trainings, and norming sessions for the staff; (4) developing procedures to make greater use of available applicant data in the selection process (e.g., elements related to the students extra activities, challenges, strengths of character, work or volunteer experiences, and context of the learning environment); and (5) ensuring that any applicants who were denied received a full comprehensive review prior to denial.</p>
<p>UC Merceds applicant pool continues to be among the most diverse in the system, with high percentages of underrepresented minorities, low income, low API, and first generation students. Admits are correspondingly diverse, and percentages in virtually all of these categories have increased over the past few years. There were modest increases in overall number of applicants and the number of non-resident and international applicants. UC Merced saw a major jump in ELC students in 2012: from ca. 5-6% to over 20% of applicants, and from 7-8% of admits to 26%.</p>
<p>For the fall 2012 cycle, UC Merced was able to accommodate and admit all eligible and guaranteed applicants without further review, but needed a method for selecting admits from the remaining applicants. Merced implemented a pilot comprehensive review based on traditional academic factors and the 14 criteria approved by BOARS. Merceds comprehensive review incorporated relevant academic factors (75%) together with socioeconomic factors, school context, and a human read score (25%); this process was applied to approximately 50% of the applicantsalthough a larger number of applicants received a human read and score for the purpose of collecting data across the entire applicant pool. This approach seems effective given the level of required selectivity (based on demand and capacity), the overall low number of applicants compared to other UC campuses, and the relatively small admissions staff. The staff met weekly to discuss the review process, discussed difficult decisions in detail, achieved consensus on scores, and referred some applicants for Admission by Exception review. Overall, the process was successful and was completed on schedule, and admissions will proceed in a similar way in 2012-13.</p>
<p>Merced is concerned about admitting ELC students in the lower ranges of their applicant pool due to the new minimum course requirements in a-g and the lack of historic outcomes. Merced admits the largest number of freshmen in the middle and lower ends of the applicant pool, which is a challenging and time-consuming effort due to the amount of work needed to carefully assess the academic preparation of these students. For students at the margin, even a slight drop in performance can have a substantial effect on the ability of these students to sustain the necessary level of achievement. For these reasons, Merced will implement comprehensive review for marginally eligible ELC applicants for 2013.</p>
<p>The admission process at UC Merced is used to adapting to change, however several issues have developed over the past few years while others will become evident in the near future. One issue is the leveling off of freshman class sizes relative to past years: with delayed expansion and hiring plans, demand for classroom space and maintaining reasonable student faculty ratios present a challenge. While freshman class sizes grew markedly in the past, this is no longer the case. This has major implications for students that qualify for admission to the UC system and are referred to UC Merced by other campuses. These students constitute ~20% of the student body, but it will be difficult for UC Merceds available admissions spots to keep pace with the number of students that are UC-eligible and are referred to UCM in coming years.</p>
<p>Another issue is the implementation of admissions requirements for specific majors, especially for transferring students. There are a variety of reasons for these policiesespecially unsustainable demand for introductory science and math coursesbut they result in students that are otherwise qualified for admission not being accepted into their majors of choice. This issue may not be unique to UC Merced, but it does factor into admissions and has been a recent change.</p>
<p>Riverside</p>
<p>Admission to UCR is still based on a fixed-weight calculation, rather than a single score holistic review. However, UCR obtained holistic scores from UCI this year to study the level of overlap between admissions decisions based on its current system, and a holistic system. UCR found near perfect overlap for students with the highest HR scores and the highest fixed-weight scores, but also found a large subset of students with very high fixed weight scores but very low HR scores. These students would be among the top applicants and would almost certainly be admitted to UCR based on their fixed-weight scores. This means that each campus needs to use other campus scores carefully, given the differences between pools and local priorities.</p>
<p>In response to the changes in the UC eligibility construct, the Admissions Committee modified UCRs Comprehensive Review process by optimizing the weights to better identify students who will succeed at UCR, and by increasing the participation of the colleges in the reading and evaluation of student applications. The goals of these changes were to raise the academic profile of admitted students, to maintain the inclusiveness and diversity of the student body, and to maintain the transparency and integrity of the admissions process at UCR. The modifications assigned no weight to ELC status because the undergraduate admissions committee did not have sufficient data to know how changes in the definition of ELC would affect the composition of our applicant pool, or how it would be associated with academic success at UCR. The revision did not have a negative effect on the inclusiveness and diversity of the UCR student body. UCR admitted more African American students and more Latino/Chicano students than any other campus in the UC system.</p>
<p>Santa Barbara</p>
<p>UCSB has not implemented a holistic review procedure because it has consistently been meeting campus and systemwide goals. UCSB has had the highest percentage of underrepresented minority students in its incoming class after UCR and UCM, while also seeing a significant increase in the quality of the incoming class as measured by average test scores and GPA. The Comprehensive Review at UCSB is based on a blended system combining points from academic indicators with points from an individualized review as follows: half on GPA and test scores, one quarter on other indications of academic promise given by the read, and one quarter on socio-economic criteria. Readers undergo extensive training (30 hours) to read files and rate student achievement in context of opportunity, employing quantitative data about the socioeconomic circumstances of each case and using all information regarding student activities. CAERS has identified four characteristics that readers should seek evidence for during the read: challenges, special circumstances, hardships, and persistence; leadership, initiative, service, and motivation; diversity of intellectual and social experience; and honors, awards, special projects, talents, creativity, and intellectual vitality. Additional files are flagged for supplemental review if the student appears ineligible but demonstrates special talents, were home-schooled or attended an unaccredited high school, missed a test, or had a high individualized review score. The eligibility check has helped identify students who could be contacted and become eligible for admission.</p>
<p>There was been an increase in applications due to the introduction of ETR. UCSB admitted very few applicants who were Entitled to Review but not in a guaranteed pool. UCSB admitted 79% of applicants designated as ELC (the new 9%). In previous years, UCSB offered a guarantee of admission to all ELC applicants (4%) but dropped this practice for 2012 due to the change, but the ELC designation was embedded in the comprehensive reading process. However to mitigate this, UCSB continues to use a unique school context process that compares California applicants only to other applicants from the same high school, and admits the top applicants from each school in numbers equal to 3% of the size of the graduating class. This process appears to play a key role in UCSB sustaining diverse admit and yield pools.</p>
<p>Santa Cruz</p>
<p>This year UC Santa Cruz transitioned to a holistic review process modeled after the Berkeley and Los Angeles 1 to 5 scale, with UCSC using scores from UCB and UCLA given their consistent correlation to UCSC admit decisions in previous years. Due to the drastically increased time/cost associated with holistic review, UCSCs holistic review only involved a single read, with random monitoring for conformity to the UCSC scoring guidelines. UCSC conducted its holistic review using the UCB reading tool, thus averting the need to develop a similar tool on the UCSC campus. The UCB reader training was invaluable (as was a previous session conducted by UCLA) in devising the UCSC reader training, which was required for all staff reading for the freshman holistic review. As a result, UCSC was well positioned to make the transition to holistic review, even with an increase of nearly 5,000 freshman applications.</p>
<p>The holistic review method appears to have served UCSC well; UCSCs admission decisions showed gains, both in number and percentage, in: first-generation students, low-income students, students coming from low API schools, African-American students, and Chicano/Latino students. The grade point average of the admitted students was on par with the previous year. There were several unanticipated problems that made the admissions cycle a challenge, however. Fewer applicants than expected received the high score of 1, 2, or 3 under the Berkeley system, with the majority receiving a score of 4. As there was no differentiation among the students who scored a 4, academically prepared students were grouped with students who had not even completed the a-g requirements. This meant that tiebreak review was required for nearly 20,000 applicants, nearly 2/3 of UCSCs freshman applicant pool. This resulted in increased workload, and reader fatigue. The UCSC Admission Committee, CAFA, will consider adjustments prior to the next cycle to resolve these issues, including finer subdivisions in the holistic rubric in the 4 range.</p>
<p>San Diego</p>
<p>UCSD moved to a fully holistic system this year after experimenting with a dual process in 2011 where half of applicants were evaluated using a system based upon the UCLA model and half of applicants were evaluated using the prior years point system. UCSD found that the class of students it admitted under holistic review had a similar academic profile to prior classes and included more ELC-eligible admits, but was also less diverse socioeconomically, sparking concerns that holistic review could reverse past diversity gains. During 2012-13 the UCSD Admissions office personnel will be discussing how to return UCSD to a more balanced pattern of admission across the socioeconomic spectrum within the holistic framework.</p>
<p>Between the 2010 and 2012 applicant pools, ELC percentages in the applicant pool grew from 18.3% to 39% while ELC percentages among admitted students grew from 44% to 79%. ELC was used as a tiebreaker and the consensus from the Office of Admissions is that ELC and the other changes to the eligibility pool are a net positive and do not create a problem for UC San Diego. Campus admissions personnel reported that they received adequate funds and staffing to cover the increased cost associated with individualized review. Moreover, having had two years of holistic review, staff felt that the process had largely gone smoothly.