ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

ON ADMISSIONS AND ENROLLMENT

2000–2001

 

To: The Representative Assembly, Davis Division of the Academic Senate

 

The Committee met three times this year. As the Davis campus representative on the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS), the chair attended the seven regular BOARS meetings and represented BOARS at  the UC Freshman Admissions Conference (Dec. 6-7, 2000), the UC Santa Barbara UC Counselors Conference (Sept. 15, 2000), as a member of the ASSIST Board of Directors, which met twice, and as a member of the UC-wide Undergraduate Academic Experience Survey planning team, which met once. Additionally, the chair participated in the file-reading process for the Fall 2001 admissions cycle, participated in the Irvine and Los Angeles Decision UC Davis admissions recruitment programs as a faculty presenter, attended the Chancellor’s 2000 Fall Conference, attended two of the three meetings of the Undergraduate Enrollment Workgroup, served as a facilitator at  the UC Davis Reinventing Transfer Conference (May 7, 2001) and a member of the conference planning committee, and served as an ex officio member of the UC Davis Committee on Preparatory Education, which met twice.

 

The Committee’s work this year focused on the following matters:

 

        •   an analysis of the academic performance at UC Davis of Tier-2 admits from the admissions procedure adopted for the Fall 1998 cycle and subsequent cycles,

        •   the Dual Admissions proposal from President Atkinson and BOARS, 

        •   how we might better use Eligibility in the Local Context as an admissions criterion,

        •   the possibility of using Step 2 somewhat differently within the Tier-2 admissions cycle, and

        •            President Atkinson’s proposal concerning the elimination of the SAT-1 exam requirement for UC Admissions.

 

1.   Tier-2 Admit Study

Art Amos, a senior administrative analyst from the Department of Student Affairs, was asked to give an initial report on the long-term study of applicant success that was designed in connection with the admissions procedures that were adopted for the Fall 1998 and subsequent frosh classes, following the post-SP-1 admissions guidelines (see Attachment 1 for the selection procedure details) . The study focused on the pre-admissions academic characteristics, the first- and second-year UC GPA, and the persistence rates for the Fall 1998 and Fall 1999 Tier-2 admits who enrolled at UC Davis (i.e., the enrollees who were admitted at either Step 2 or Step 3 of our selection process) as they compare with the Fall 1996 and Fall 1997 Tier-2 enrollees. The principal conclusions of the report, which may be accessed online at http://linguistics.ucdavis.edu/pfarrell/tier2report.pdf, are as follows.

 

1.       The Fall 98/99 Tier-2 admits enrolled at a higher rate (38%) than their Fall 96/97 counterparts (31.1%).

2.       The Fall 98/99 Tier-2 enrollees had somewhat lower mean SAT-I scores and high-school GPAs than their Fall 96/97 counterparts.

3.       Nevertheless, the Fall 98/99 Tier-2 enrollees are performing as well at UC as their Fall 96/97 counterparts both in terms of persistence and GPA.

 

As there has been considerable interest in how UC admissions policies mesh with our outreach efforts, we wanted to get a sense of how Tier-2 enrollees satisfying the “pre-collegiate motivational program” criterion are performing. Amos’ analysis revealed that students satisfying this criterion also tended to satisfy one or more of three other significantly overlapping criteria (first generation of university attendance; “individual initiative”, i.e. coming from a high-school with traditionally low UC-going rates, and “non-traditional”, i.e., low-income, single-parent, etc.). Thus, our current admissions policies are working in such a way as to give considerable credit to indicators of economic and academic disadvantage, including participation in our own outreach programs. Enrollees satisfying these criteria were found to have high-school GPAs that were higher than average for Tier-2 enrollees and test scores that were lower than average. Moreover, their mean first-and second-year UC GPAs were lower than the Tier-2 mean. The Fall 98 “pre-collegiate motivational program” enrollees, for example, had a first-year UC GPA of 2.25, whereas the Tier-2 mean was 2.48. However, the “pre-collegiate motivational program” enrollees showed somewhat more improvement in their second-year GPA (2.32) than the Tier-2 group as a whole (2.50).

 

The Committee concluded that the study does not indicate the need for any changes in admissions policy. The Tier-2 admissions criteria were developed, in accordance with university-wide policies, with a view to enhancing the socio-economic diversity of the admitted class and recognizing individual achievement in the face of adversity as well as strong academic preparation. Tier-2 admits, on the whole, are performing adequately (the mean GPA for the entire enrolled class for Fall 1998 was not much higher, at 2.68, than the tier-2 mean) and, in fact, better than might be predicted from the purely academic admissions measures. The lower first-year GPA and the first- to second-year improvement of disadvantaged students is consistent with our expectations.

 

2.   The Dual Admissions Program

Responding to a request from Jeffrey Gibeling, Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate, the Committee discussed President Atkinson’s Dual Admissions idea and the more detailed BOARS proposal, according to which UC-ineligible high-school seniors who apply to a UC campus and are in the top 12.5% of their high-school class could be simultaneously admitted to a UC campus and a community college (CC). Overall, the Committee enthusiastically endorses the proposal, as it promises to increase transfer admissions and the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the UC student body, while maintaining high academic standards. It also encourages CCs throughout the state to provide coursework that is useful for university-bound students and stimulates enhancements in UC/CC articulation and transfer-student support services. Such enhancements would benefit not only participants in the dual-admissions program, but a much broader population of CC students with transfer aspirations or transfer potential.

 

The Committee felt that in order to be successful this program will require a substantial financial commitment on the part of the State and the University and that implementation of the policy should be contingent on the availability of appropriate funding. It is critical that the “scaffolding” envisioned in the BOARS proposal be provided. Without adequate support services, DAP admits would be more likely to end up not enrolling at a UC campus, in which case the program would fail to serve its intended purpose, and those who would enroll would be more likely not to succeed, in which case the program would be a tremendous disservice.

 

A letter summarizing the Committee’s deliberations and detailing some specific recommendations was sent to Professor Gibeling. The full text of this letter is available at http://linguistics.ucdavis.edu/pfarrell/dualadmissions.pdf.

 

3.   Eligibility in the Local Context

Beginning with the Fall 2001 frosh class, the Step 2 and Step 3 admissions procedure includes the criterion “achieving Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC)”, which is met by applicants ranked in the top 4% of a high-school class in terms of performance on UC a-f/g courses. The Committee reconsidered its original decision to have this criterion count no more than any of the other Step 2 criteria, in light of the fact that it is given more value at certain other campuses. UC Irvine, for example, sent a letter in the Fall to ALL ELC applicants, stating that they would be admitted if they applied. UC San Diego essentially admits all ELC applicants from San Diego and Imperial Counties. Since, according to Gary Tudor, 97% of ELC applicants to UC Davis were admitted for Fall 2001, there seems to be little difference between simply admitting all ELC applicants and making ELC a Tier-2 admissions criterion. If we were to at least admit all ELC applicants from the counties in which we have partnership schools or are otherwise highly involved in outreach, we would be sending a positive message to our outreach program participants about our commitment to their schools and them. The Committee has asked Tom Lindholtz to study the ELC applicants for Fall 2001, focusing on the makeup of the overall and Tier-2 ELC admit pools as well as the makeup of the non-admitted ELC applicant pool, and what impact there might be from a more inclusive ELC admissions policy. The Committee plans on revisiting this issue once the study is completed.

 

4.   Step 2 in Admissions

Under current policy, 60% of admissions offers are based solely on an Academic Index (AI) ranking (= Step 1). For Step 2, which is used for up to 5% of offers, a subset of the remaining applicant pool is defined by satisfaction of at least one of five criteria (EOP, ELC, participation in a pre-collegiate motivational program, etc.) and the highest ranking applicants on the AI are selected. For Step 3,  which is used for 35% or so of the offers, the AI is augmented incrementally with points for each of the five Step 2 criteria as well as several others. Since Step 2 involves selecting the applicants with the highest  AI from a fairly large post-Step 1 pool and Step 3 involves selecting from the post-Step 2 pool applicants who rank highest either based on AI or based on meeting multiple criteria or some combination thereof, one would expect that the academic qualifications of Step 1 admits would be higher than those of Step 2 admits and that the academic qualifications of Step 2 admits would in turn be higher than those of Step 3 admits. Indeed, this is the case, according to an analysis by Patrick Farrell of the Fall 2001 admit pool:

Synopsis of Fall 2001 Admissions by Step

 

Step 1

Step 2

*Step 3

Average AI

7,174

6,659

6,330

Average GPA

3.99

3.87

3.63

# of admits

10572

929

5008

 

*preliminary data; Step 3 was 90% complete at time of analysis

 

Since Step 2 is as effective in terms of diversity effects as Step 3 and is also effective in identifying high academic achievement, it seems reasonable to consider increasing the number of offers made at Step 2. In fact, the highest achieving applicants from the unsuccessful Step 2 pool are highly likely to be selected at Step 3. According to Tom Lindholtz, if Step 2 were increased to 10% and Step 3 were reduced to 30%, there would be very little difference in outcomes. The average AI of Step 2 admits would be reduced somewhat and the average AI of Step 3 admits would be increased proportionately. The main virtue of increasing the percentage of admissions at Step 2 is that it would simplify the admissions procedure by reducing the number of files that need to be read for the Step 3 criteria, since the Step 2 criteria are automatically generated from the files.

 

Tom Lindhotlz has agreed to analyze the Fall 2001 applicant pool to ensure that there would be no unforeseen adverse impact from the proposed change. The Committee is unanimously in favor of the Step 2 increase/Step 3 decrease, on the condition that no problems emerge from Tom’s analysis.

 

5.   The SAT-1 Exam Requirement

The Committee briefly discussed the proposal by President Atkinson that UC eliminate the SAT-I requirement and move to “holistic” admissions procedures. The Committee considered Atkinson’s speech on the matter, as well as a UCOP study on the predictive validity of SAT exams and high-school grades, which shows that the SAT-II exams are better predictors of UC academic success than the SAT-I exams and that although grades and exams, taken together, are more effective in predicting success than either kind of measure alone, adding the SAT-I exams to high-school GPA and SAT-II exams does not yield any significant improvement in the success prediction equation. In addition, Patrick Farrell did a simulation of UC Davis admissions without SAT-I exams (http://linguistics.ucdavis.edu/pfarrell/UCDSATsimultation02.pdf), which shows that there would have been increases in diversity in Fall 2001 admissions under certain scenarios. However, the admissions results would not have differed significantly if the SAT-II Math and Writing exams were simply doubled in value, so as to effectively substitute for the SAT-I Math and Verbal exams.

 

As various UC committees will be weighing in on this question and BOARS will apparently not take action until sometime in Fall of 2001 at the earliest, the Committee, which currently has diverse views on the matter, will continue the discussion at a later time.

 

The Committee proposes no new legislation at this time.

 

The Committee wishes to thank Cherie Felsch and Donna Pratt from the Academic Senate office for their administrative support  and Tom Lindholtz, administrative analyst for Undergraduate Admissions, and Art Amos, senior administrative analyst for Student Affairs, for their expert assistance with data and analysis.

 

Rianna Au, student representative

Tsu-Shuan Chang

Marlene Clarke

Linton Corruccini

Patrick Farrell, Chair

Michelle Piro, student representative

Riche Richardson

Mikal Saltveit

Gary Tudor, ex officio

UCD Selection Process for Fall 2002

(with pending recommended Step 2 change indicated)

 

Applicants are assigned an academic index, as follows:

            Maximum allowed

Calculated GPA* ´ 1,000                  4,000

Total SAT I/ACT‡                  1,600                  (2 ´ 800)

Total SAT II                  2,400                  (3 ´ 800)

Academic index is the SUM                  8,000

 

Offers of admission are made in 3 steps, as follows:

 

Step 1:

UC-eligible applicants are ranked according to their academic index.

60% of the offers that are made to UC-eligible applicants are made based on this ranking alone.

 

Step 2:

Remaining members of the UC-eligible pool who satisfy any one of the following are ranked separately, according to their academic index.

               •               Completed a pre-collegiate motivational program[1]

               •               EOP[2]

               •               First generation of university attendance

               •               Individual initiative factors[3]

               •               Achieved UC eligibility in local context (ELC)[4]

Up to 5% 10% of offers made to UC-eligible applicants are made according to this ranking.

 

Step 3:

Remaining members of the UC-eligible pool are ranked separately according to an academic potential/campus contribution index (AP/CCI). For members of this pool who do not meet the UCD mimimum basic skills criterion,† this index is equivalent to the academic index. Otherwise, the AP/CCI is determined as follows:

 

            Maximum allowed

Academic index                  8,000

Campus enhancement quotient                  2,000

Persistence/determination quotient                  2,000

AP/CCI is the SUM                  12,000

 

The remaining offers that are made, with the exclusion of admissions by exception, are made based only on the ranking by academic potential/campus contribution index.

Schema for assignment of academic potential/campus contribution index

 

The up to 2,000 points that can be added for the campus enhancement quotient are added in blocks according to the number of items that are met form the following list of campus enhancement criteria (CEC):

                 •     Completed one or more pre-collegiate motivational programs1

                 •     One or more special (extraordinary) talents[5]

                 •     Demonstrated leadership promise[6]

                 •     Veteran/ROTC scholarship

                 •   Achieved UC eligibility in local context4

 

                              Number of points               Maximum allowed

               Meets any 1 from CEC list  500

               Meets any 2 from CEC list  875

               Meets any 3 from CEC list  1,250

               Meets any 4 from CEC list  1,625

               Meets any 5 from CEC list  2,000                       

                                                      2,000

 

The up to 2,000 points that can be added for the persistence/determination quotient are added in blocks according to the number of items that are met from the following list of persistence/determination criteria (PDC):

                 •     Having a significant disability

                 •     First generation of university attendance

                 •     Individual initiative factors3

                 •     Marked improvement in 11th grade (C’s or less to B or A)

                 •     Demonstrated specific instance or instances of perseverance[7]

                 •     Nontraditional[8]

           

 

                              Number of points               Maximum allowed

               Meets any 1 from PDC list  500

               Meets any 2 from PDC list  800

               Meets any 3 from PDC list  1,100

               Meets any 4 from PDC list  1,400

               Meets any 5 from PDC list  1,700

               Meets any 6 from PDC list  2,000

                                       2,000

NOTES

 


*  GPA includes extra credit for up to eight honors courses and is capped at 4.0.

‡  ACT composite score is converted to an SAT 1 score equivalent.

†  The UCD mimimum basic skills criterion is not met by applicants with SAT 1 Math score < 230 or BOTH SAT II Writing < 325 and SAT I Verbal < 335.


[1] This is for participation in motivational or recruitment programs that help students master basic academic skills and encourage them to pursue a university education. Programs to consider include EAOP, Upward Bound, Talent Search, CAL SOAP, Professional Development, MESA, etc.

 

[2] Applicants can apply for membership in the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) by offering proof of low income status or by demonstrating a history of educational disadvantage in the family. (See NOTE below).

 

[3] The individual initiative factors criterion acknowledges the extraordinary effort of applicants who have achieved UC eligibility in an environment that currently yields low UC eligibility and enrollment rates. To fulfill this criterion, an applicant must come from a California high school that has three socio-economic characteristics AND two socio-academic characteristics. The socio-economic characteristics are: AFDC participation rate above the state median of 11.2%, Free Lunch Program participation above the state median of 23.2%, and Limited English Proficiency rate above the state median of 9.6%. As for socio-academic characteristics, the high school must have at least two of the following three: UC a-f enrollment rate below the state median of 54.6%, UC admission rate below 10.7%, and/or SAT take rate below the state median of 17.9%.

 

[4] Eligibility in the local context is achieved by being in the top 4% of the applicant’s high school class by UC a-f GPA at the end of the junior year. Students who achieve eligibility by this path will be so designated by UC.

 

[5] A special talent or skill involves substantial participation or exceptional performance in the arts, sciences, languages, athletics, etc., that demonstrates hard work and accomplishment. The participation or skill level must have received DISTINGUISHED recognition on the school, regional, and/or national levels. This category can include contributions or achievements in academic pursuit (debate team, science fair), a community service, or talent.

 

[6]  This is based on the applicant’s significant involvement in extracurricular leadership activities in their school, community, and/or home.

 

[7]  This is based on a reading of the personal statement and any other supporting information that is supplied by the applicant in order to document ability to persist and rise above unusual difficulties or challenges. Factors considered are those over which the applicant has little or no control. Such difficulties or challenges might include, but are not limited to, high mobility during previous schooling, unusual family disruption, childhood poverty, unusual medical/emotional problems, lack of exposure to academic role models, inadequate primary and secondary education, a dysfunctional environment such as alcohol or drug abuse, adverse immigrant experience, English as a second language, etc.

 

[8]  A nontraditional applicant is one who comes from a segment of California’s population that has had low UC going rates. This would include such things as being from a low income family (this must be reported as required for EOP status), being a single parent, or being a person who is applying to a the university to start a new career because of being laid off (result of corporate downsizing), etc.

 

 

NOTE: For computation of the AP/CCI, EOP is not a single category. This is because an applicant can be in the EOP by being from a low income family OR by demonstrating a history of educational disadvantage in the family. For computation of the AP/CCI, if both of these criteria are met, an applicant would be ranked as having met at least 2 of the PDC under the persistence/determination quotient, by virtue of meeting the criteria described in notes 7 or 8.