UC Berkeley Admissions Scrutinized

UC Berkeley, the University of California’s oldest and most prestigious campus, admitted hundreds of freshmen in 2002 who were “marginally academically qualified” at the expense of many more highly qualified applicants, according to a confidential report obtained by The Times.

The preliminary analysis of UC Berkeley admissions, prepared for the UC Board of Regents, showed that nearly 400 students were admitted to the campus in 2002 with scores of 600 to 1000 on the SAT entrance exam, far below the 1337 average SAT score for last year’s admitted class. Sixteen hundred on the test is considered a perfect score.

The report also shows that more than 600 applicants with scores on the SAT of 1500 or above were not admitted, along with nearly 2,600 others with scores from 1400 to 1500. Berkeley officials say many of the rejected students with high SATs had relatively low grade-point averages.

Overall, the document finds, the admissions process at UC Berkeley “might not be compatible with [the school’s] goal of maintaining academic excellence.”

The report was prepared at the request of regents Chairman John J. Moores. It is based on university data, but contains extensive analysis that primarily was written by Moores. The report does not attempt to explain the reasons for UC Berkeley’s admissions patterns. It does not break down admissions by race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status, nor does it measure changes over time.

But it urges a more comprehensive study of admissions -- including some of these factors -- at Berkeley and the university’s seven other undergraduate campuses.

One regent, Ward Connerly, said Berkeley’s flexible standards might be an attempt to get around the state’s ban on affirmative action and admit more underrepresented minority students.

The analysis provides a highly unusual window into the student admissions process at UC Berkeley, one that -- despite the institution’s status as one of the top public universities in the nation -- is largely hidden from public view.

UC Berkeley officials and faculty members acknowledged that the statistics in the report are generally accurate, but cautioned that in some instances the data were misinterpreted or misunderstood. They strongly defended their admissions practices, saying that academics are the leading criterion in all decisions, apart from a small number of exceptions for those with “exceptional personal talent” -- often athletes.

The campus is “in full compliance with the regents’ stated policy on admissions,” said David Stern, a UC Berkeley education professor who heads its admissions committee.

But he and others at the campus also acknowledged that 381 students -- 3.5% of the admitted students that year -- were invited to enroll in 2002 despite test scores far below the average for Berkeley students, or applicants. All had “other indicators of academic strength,” Stern said, adding that SAT scores alone are not the best predictor of success at the university.

Of those, 236 -- or about 5% of the entering class -- enrolled at the campus, the report shows.

Richard Black, UC Berkeley’s assistant vice chancellor for admission and enrollment, said the students with the 600 to 1000 SAT scores were accepted largely because they “made the most of the opportunities that were available to them.”

He explained that a “substantial portion” of the accepted students with low SAT scores were underrepresented minority students from California’s lowest-performing high schools.

“We’re in the unfortunate position of not being able to admit some truly outstanding students, and that is difficult for us,” Black said.

UC Berkeley officials said the largest group of rejected applicants with 1400-plus SAT scores were denied admission largely because of their lower grade-point averages. This group, university officials said, also took fewer semesters of honors and Advanced Placement courses, which allow students to gain college credit in high school if they pass certain exams.

Yet statistics provided by UC Berkeley officials on Friday showed that these rejected students actually had, on average, higher grade-point averages and more semesters of honors and AP courses than the students with SATs in the 600 to 1000 range who were accepted.

Students, parents and high school counselors often complain that the process of applying to the UC system, particularly Berkeley, is opaque, complex and confusing -- and the resulting decisions seemingly arbitrary.

The report, even in preliminary form, seems likely to fuel concerns by regents and others that a recently revamped “comprehensive review” admissions policy at the university would lower UC’s academic standards.

The policy, in use systemwide for two years -- and at Berkeley, in various forms since 1998 -- allows admissions officials to weigh personal factors, not just grades and test scores, in reviewing each applicant, although academic considerations are still required to be paramount.

The switch to more flexible selection guidelines came in the years after the university -- and later the state -- banned consideration of race or ethnicity in public college admissions and hiring decisions. The changes were designed to broaden access to the university for students from diverse socioeconomic and geographic backgrounds, without factoring in race.

Faculty studies have found there has been no subsequent decline in the academic quality of students at UC, and that some academic indicators have risen. But several regents, including Moores, remain concerned that too many high-achieving students are being rejected by the university, while others -- seemingly less well-qualified -- are being admitted.

Moores, who said he requested the analysis after hearing complaints about the university’s new admissions policy from parents, described himself as “shocked” by Berkeley’s admissions data.

“You really can’t tell exactly why some people are getting in and others are not getting in,” he said. “I just don’t see any objective standards”

The report also surprised several higher education researchers around the country. One said he was “flabbergasted” that UC Berkeley would admit significant numbers of students scoring below 1000, particularly those in the 600 to 800 range.

“I’m not a big supporter of SAT scores at all,” said William G. Tierney, director of USC’s Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis. “But if you sign your name, you get a 400.”

Patrick M. Callan, president of the nonprofit National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education in San Jose, said the number of students with SATs below 1000 who were admitted “certainly raises a question about what the actual selection criteria are used in the university.”

“You would expect a handful of those, where there was some special consideration -- maybe the kid was genius who doesn’t test well, a musician, a poet, a football player, something.... But it’s the magnitude that surprises me,” Callan added, referring to the number of students admitted who had SAT scores below 1000.

The analysis did not include data about race. But Connerly, a strong opponent of affirmative action, seized on the findings as evidence that that the comprehensive review process, inherently more subjective than previous policies, could serve as a backdoor way for admissions officials to slip consideration of a student’s race back into the process.

Connerly said that while his primary concern was that the Berkeley campus might not be taking the best students it could, he also believes that race may be an unstated factor in at least some of its admissions decisions.

“Either the University of California at Berkeley really believes that students who are lower academic achievers based on SATs are better students than those who are higher achievers on those tests, or there is some other reason here. You know which I think,” he said, adding that “this is a damning report.”

Other regents expressed concern about the report as well -- along with chagrin at its release. But several said it was too preliminary to comment on at any length.

Regents Velma Montoya and Joanne Kozberg also noted that it highlighted students’ SAT scores, despite the university’s decision in recent years to downplay those scores in its admissions decisions.

The report also focused on high school grade-point averages, which the authors said was significantly correlated with SAT scores.

Some regents stood by UC Berkeley’s approach to admissions. “I can see why people would have reasons to be concerned I suppose, and I don’t begrudge them for that,” said Matt Murray, a senior at UC Berkeley who is a student member of the UC Board of Regents. “But I would not say, based on this report, that somehow there’s something terribly wrong with what the university is doing.”

“The admissions process is a horribly complicated thing,” he said. “The SAT is not the end-all and be-all.... There are all of these other factors that go into the admissions process.”

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Questions linger

The higher the SAT score, the more likely an applicant got into UC Berkeley in 2002. But 641 students with near-perfect scores were not admitted, while thousands with lower scores were accepted.

*--* Admitted Not SAT score in 2002 admitted 400-500 0 6 501-600 0 36 601-700 3 119 701-800 22 421 801-900 92 975 901-1000 264 1,675 1001-1100 528 2,934 1101-1200 1,070 4,699 1201-1300 1,927 6,095 1301-1400 2,768 4,936 1401-1500 2,798 2,577 1501-1600 1,387 641

*--*

Source: University of California