• UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ACADEMIC SENATE


  •   
  • FileName: e4attach.pdf [preview-online]
    • Abstract: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ACADEMIC SENATEBERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZHenry C. Powell Chair of the Assembly and the Academic Council

Download the ebook

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ACADEMIC SENATE
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
Henry C. Powell Chair of the Assembly and the Academic Council
Telephone: (510) 987-0711 Faculty Representative to the Board of Regents
Fax: (510) 763-0309 University of California
Email: [email protected] 1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor
Oakland, California 94607-5200
June 22, 2010
MARK YUDOF, PRESIDENT
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Re: BOARS’ Report on Comprehensive Review
Dear Mark:
At the request of the Regents, BOARS has completed the enclosed report on “Comprehensive
Review in Freshman Admissions at the University of California, 2003-2009.” The Academic
Council endorsed the report and its findings at its meeting on May 26. The report is a thorough and
valuable review of admissions practices on all of the campuses and it offers a number of
recommendations for refining campuses processes to meet the Guidelines for Comprehensive
Review. We request that you transmit it to the Regents for their consideration.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
Henry C. Powell, Chair
Academic Council
Copy: Lawrence Pitts, Provost and Executive Vice President
Judy Sakaki, Vice President, Student Affairs
Academic Council
Martha Winnacker, Academic Senate Executive Director
Encl (1)
Comprehensive Review in 
Freshman Admissions at the  
University of California  
2003 – 2009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools  
Systemwide Academic Senate  
University of California  
May 2010 
Table of Contents 
 
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3 
Key Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 4 
Key Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 6 
Introduction  ........................................................................................................................................ 8 
.
Structure of the Current Report  ............................................................................................................... 9 
Section I. What is Comprehensive Review? ........................................................................................ 10 
Section II. Comprehensive Review Outcomes: Selective Admissions 2003‐2009 ................................. 11 
II.1 Achieving Academic Excellence: Attracting and Admitting Promising Students .............................. 11 
II.2 First Year Academic Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 16 
II.3 Enrollment Trends and College Destinations of UC Admits .............................................................. 18 
II.4 Achieving Inclusive Excellence: Attracting and Admitting Diverse Students .................................... 20 
Section III. The Review Process: Assuring the Quality and Integrity of the Review of Applications ...... 27 
III.1 Description of Campus Selection Processes Using Comprehensive Review .................................... 27 
III.2 Consideration of Achievement in Context of Opportunity .............................................................. 35 
III.3 Quality Assurance: Training, Oversight, and Evaluation .................................................................. 36 
III.4 Communicating the Process to the Public/Transparency ................................................................ 38 
III.5 Achievements in Efficiency, Coordination, and Collaboration  ........................................................ 38 
.
 
Section IV. Challenges Ahead ............................................................................................................. 39 
Section V. Conclusions and Recommendations  .................................................................................. 40 
.
V.1 Reviewing the Guidelines and Campus Practice ............................................................................... 41 
V.2 Using the 14 Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 43 
V.3 New Principles for Adoption ............................................................................................................. 45 
V.4 Best Practices Identified Across the System ..................................................................................... 47 
V.5 Twelve Recommendations for Comprehensive Review  .................................................................. 48 
Appendices 
A. Guidelines for Implementation of University Policy on Undergraduate Admissions ......................... 50 
B. Comprehensive Review Outcomes 2003‐2009 (Academic and Demographic Indicators .................. 55 
C. Enrollment Trends for the University of California Admits (Residents Only) ..................................... 76 
D. Increase in URM Applicants 2003‐2009  ............................................................................................. 92 
.
E. UC Relative Admissions Rates and Change Since 2003 ....................................................................... 93 
F. UC Applicants and Admits by GPA and SAT/ACT Quintiles, Fall 2009 ................................................. 97 
G. School Profile Data Fields from the Freshman Application Read Sheet Fall 2010 ............................. 99 
H. Matrix of Campus Comprehensive Review Processes ...................................................................... 100 

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Since their inception in 2001, the University of California’s Guidelines for Implementation of
University Policy on Freshman Admissions have helped UC campuses develop undergraduate
admissions processes that adhere to the Regents’ order to seek out and select the most
academically or personally accomplished and diverse class of entering students for UC. The
policy stipulates eight principles as guidelines for the use of 14 Comprehensive Review criteria
that capture a broad view of applicants’ talents–both inclusive of and beyond traditional
measures of academic achievement—by examining the “full range of an applicant’s academic
and personal achievements and likely contributions to the campus community, viewed in the
context of the opportunities and challenges that the applicant has faced.” 1 In 2003, when the
Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) last reported to the Regents about
Comprehensive Review, only six campuses had developed procedures for incorporating the eight
principles and 14 criteria outlined in the Guidelines into their local processes. Today, all of UC’s
undergraduate campuses use a form of Comprehensive Review that incorporates the use of
multiple criteria, achievement in the context of opportunity, and individualized student review to
varying degrees in rating applicants before selection.
For this report, BOARS worked with local admissions committees and the Office of the
President to analyze Comprehensive Review policies, practices, and outcomes between 2003 and
2009 to determine the impact of each campus’ application of the criteria on the pool of applicants
and admitted students. While campus practices differ, it is important to note that BOARS never
expected campuses to employ identical processes or use all 14 criteria in the same way.
Selectivity varies across UC’s diverse system of excellent campuses, and each has different
values and goals for undergraduate education that are brought to bear in selection decisions. As
such, for this report BOARS focused on investigating whether each process functions effectively
and fairly within the same normative framework of Comprehensive Review Guidelines. BOARS
maintains that there are, and have been, multiple ways campuses achieve the Regents’ goals of
identifying talent among the state’s aspiring young citizens, which fulfill the promise of a great
public university committed to excellence that is also inclusive of diversity. The outcomes in this
report document how across the UC system, Comprehensive Review is capturing talent and
diversity and helping UC continue to serve as an engine of social mobility for students with
promise from modest backgrounds. In addition, we identify several areas for improvement.
UC’s new eligibility policy, taking effect for fall 2012, provides a greater number of well-
qualified and diverse students the opportunity to apply to the University and have their
applications reviewed comprehensively. It will require all campuses to apply individualized
student review to larger applicant pools. As admission to most UC campuses becomes more
selective, applicants must have confidence that the full breadth of their qualifications will be
considered in admissions. Campuses have begun to bring additional measures of school and
home context into their review processes, and all campuses are looking at ways to address future
challenges. The developments over the last seven years, and additional challenges in the future
are addressed in this report.
                                                            
1
 http://www.ucop.edu/sas/adguides.html  

 
Key Findings: 
• Between 2003 and 2009, demand for access to UC increased on all campuses, and rising
numbers of admitted students have generally followed rising numbers of applicants. This
was expected. The UC system was projected to grow to accommodate the increasing size of
the California high school graduate pool, assisted by the opening of UC Merced. The
exception to this pattern occurred in years when enrollment constraints were imposed due to
budget issues.
• Between 2003 and 2009, campuses became more selective, and today, six campuses admit
less than 50% of their applicants.
• The Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC) program remains an effective way for UC to
attract students from high schools across the state. Between 2003 and 2009, the percentage
of ELC-eligible students applying to UC climbed steadily; now, 77.5% of ELC designated
high school graduates apply to UC (or 3.2% of all California high school graduates) and
over 62% attend UC. All campuses give priority to ELC students in Comprehensive Review,
and six campuses nearly guarantee their selection.
• The academic qualifications of UC applicants and admitted students have improved.
Admitted students have taken many more a-g courses and have higher high school grade
point averages (HS-GPA) than the minimum eligibility requirements, which now serve as a
modest floor. Standardized test scores and the number of semesters of honors courses have
also increased among both applicants and admitted students.
• Academic accomplishments must be viewed within the context of opportunity, and
Comprehensive Review helps campuses account for inequalities in California’s K-12
educational system at the same time that they increase selectivity. Campuses have
incorporated contextual factors in their review processes to varying degrees, and recent
developments in campus practice and electronic information sharing will help broaden the
use of school context factors in review processes.
• More first-generation college students (from families where neither parent had a bachelor’s
degree) are seeking and gaining admission to UC. The proportion of first-generation
students in the applicant pool was 35% in 2009-10, and 34.3% of all admits systemwide.
First generation and low income students are admitted at comparable rates to the overall
admit pool. However, declines during this period were evident among applicants and admits
from the lowest API high schools. Recruiting applicants from low API high schools remains
a critical challenge for UC and is directly linked to diversity outcomes.
• Nearly 93% of freshmen students are retained after their first year, indicating that campuses
select students who are very likely to succeed. Retention rates range from 83% at Merced to
96.6% at UCLA in the first year, and although these rates can be improved at some
campuses, all do quite well considering the large number of low-income and first generation
students they admit. Most campuses also show improvements in four-year and five-year
degree completion rates over this period, with more than two-thirds completing degrees in
five years (four campuses are over 80 percent).

 
• While California residents declined as a proportion of the applicant pool between 2003 and
2009 (from 85.4% to 82.6%), they continued to have priority admission, comprising 90.2%
of all admits in 2009-10.
• An increasing number of underrepresented minority (URM) students are becoming UC
eligible; however, campuses vary in their ability to recruit and subsequently admit URM
students. Most disturbing is the fact that the relative admit rate for African Americans
remains substantially below the admission rates for other racial/ethnic groups on every UC
campus. This African American rate ratio is below 80% at all but one campus, the guide
established in Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act to determine “disparate impact.” The
Comprehensive Review process alone is not sufficient to overcome the disadvantages that
African American face in admissions, as analyses show the majority of African Americans
fall in the two lower quintiles on academic indicators. At four campuses, Chicano/Latino
admit rates fall below the 80% disparate impact threshold. Campuses that admit more
broadly across the academic quintiles using multiple criteria can admit these qualified
students, but beyond this, significant K-12 initiatives will be necessary to increase the
preparation and recruitment of underrepresented groups—particularly African Americans.
• Campuses are using three general models of Comprehensive Review for selection: a single-
score “holistic” process; a two-stage, multiple score process that assigns points and weights
to academic and personal accomplishment criteria; and a fixed weight model with a
supplemental read to review files before denying an applicant.
• Comprehensive Review has become synonymous with the use of multiple criteria and
individualized student review for the rating of applicants before a student is denied
admission. In fact, all campuses also review applicants who may be “ineligible” to look for
indications of promise in the case they may qualify for admission by exception. However,
campuses differ in the weighing of criteria in selection and the value placed on reader
ratings.
• Campuses have clearly defined criteria; the reliability and integrity of the process is
diligently monitored; and campuses strive for transparency through communicating criteria
for admission by providing public information about their processes. Those campuses that
employ external readers also provide transparency through actual “public involvement” in
the process.
• Over the last seven years, campuses have increased collaboration and shared best practices
to better achieve their individual admission goals, create greater efficiencies in the review
process, and effectively handle a growing number of applications.

 
Key Recommendations: 
Campuses have made steady progress in refining their processes to meet the Guidelines;
nevertheless, several important recommendations result from this review:
1. The 2002 Guidelines for Comprehensive Review stipulate that no applicant be denied
admission without an individualized review; however, some campuses have used
individualized review only at the border of denial. As all campuses become more selective,
BOARS recommends that they implement individualized review of all applicants to ensure
that the boundary is not defined by criteria that are too narrow.
2. Based on the reform of eligibility policy anticipated in 2012, we recommend that additional
resources be provided to admissions offices to train and retain external readers and
experienced staff, and to handle the increased volume of applications. Each office will need
access to more of the funds from each application fee, and/or assistance in finding other
sources of support. In addition, campuses should commit to making more of the admissions
fee available to admissions offices to implement the other recommendations defined here. The
Office of the President should investigate the current use of the application fees to support a
quality review of students’ files.
3. Standardized test scores and academic performance must be reviewed in the context of factors
that impact test performance, including students’ personal and academic circumstances (e.g.
low-income status, access to honors courses, and the college-going culture of the school).
Campuses should not employ test score “cut-offs” or grade point averages above 3.0 (the
minimum score in the criteria for entitled to review) to disqualify students. Campuses should
base an admission decision on the total information about achievement using multiple criteria
in the applicant file.
4. The Guidelines should be updated to reflect admissions policy to be implemented in 2012.
BOARS recommends several changes for the Guidelines, including changes to Principles 3
and 8 to assure that campuses review all files comprehensively. BOARS will submit a
revision of Comprehensive Review Guidelines for Academic Senate approval based on the
results of this report.
5. Four new principles to guide selection are recommended including: 1) Weighing academic
accomplishments and personal achievements comparably in selection to identify students who
strive for excellence in many areas, 2) Priority for ELC students in selection, 3) Evaluating
standardized tests and academic indices in the context of other factors that affect performance,
and 4) Steps taken to ensure the quality and integrity of the review process. These were
identified through best practices employed in specific campus comprehensive review
processes.
6. UC should document and report outstanding accomplishments of admitted students.
Currently, there is no uniform way to aggregate the personal accomplishments and talents of
admitted students in areas such as leadership, community service, and creative pursuits, the
consideration of which is a hallmark of a University striving for excellence and the
advancement of the public good. The Comprehensive Review processes should include the

 
evaluation of these criteria, and in the interest of transparency, UC should disseminate this
information to inspire other students with unique talents and commitments.
7. A distinctive feature of UC Comprehensive Review is the attention paid to students’
achievements in the context of their high school. This feature is employed differently across
the campuses, but recent developments in central databases now allow campuses to consider
school context factors more uniformly. Campuses should use this information in decision-
making to assess students in the context of opportunity. As part of its ongoing work, BOARS
will continue to clarify for campuses and the public what is meant by “considering the context
in which each student has demonstrated academic accomplishment”.
8. BOARS will consider, in collaboration with the Admissions Processing Task Force, wider use
of ratings and scores that capture many dimensions of talents among all applicants. Reader
training across the system should be broadened to include and help readers identify criteria
outside of the traditional academic indicators, including criteria listed in the holistic scoring
systems at Berkeley and UCLA. A common scoring method can also be explored, along with
simulation studies to identify whether it increases both excellence and diversity at every
campus.
9. Although campuses will retain their autonomy in admissions decisions, more faculty guidance
is needed in terms of principles to guide selection processes to ensure that campuses achieve
excellence inclusive of diversity. Increased faculty involvement and oversight is also
important through active participation on Senate committees charged with developing
admissions policy.
10. Selective campuses should consider using a single-score holistic review process in selection,
which relies on reader ratings that incorporate all information from the file. Some campuses
that use Two-stage and Multiple Score review methods make variable use of ratings,
presumably because they value criteria such as personal accomplishment and talents less in
their processes.
11. Individual campuses should conduct disparate impact analyses to monitor the differential
impacts of their admissions criteria, identify factors causing disparate impact, and implement
intervention strategies to address the underrepresentation of specific populations in both the
admitted and enrolled classes. It is important that campus intervention strategies and actions
focus both on the next admission cycle as well as longer term interventions.
12. This report details a disturbing persistence of low African American admit rates across UC
campuses, which now is affecting the educational climate. The University should invest in a
new strategic outreach campaign to increase the identification, recruitment, and academic
preparation of underrepresented students with the help of distinguished alumni, local
communities, and schools. In addition, campuses should develop admission policies that place
value on the importance of diversity to enhancing the learning environment as they prepare
students to enter a diverse workforce. Finally, we recommend the formation of a new study
group to collaborate with BOARS to assess the situation in California high schools and
determine how UC can use its expertise to diminish the academic achievement gap and
disparities due to opportunity for African Americans and other under-represented groups.

 
Introduction 
 
In a May 2001 meeting, the UC Board of Regents approved Comprehensive Review 2 and passed
a resolution 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.” 3 The Regents also
reaffirmed the Academic Senate’s authority under Standing Order 105.2(a) 4 to determine the
conditions for admission to UC subject to approval by the Regents. President Atkinson asked the
Senate to consider adopting evaluation procedures that would look at applicants in a
comprehensive manner and using a variety of measures of achievement.
BOARS subsequently proposed eight principles and 14 criteria as guidelines that campuses may
use in selection. In doing so, the faculty sought to promote the goal of achieving excellence that
is inclusive of talent and promise among students from a diversity of backgrounds, and to devise
methods of selective admissions that define merit broadly and are also inclusive of the varied
circumstances California students face in terms of college opportunity. These are the Senate’s
central principles that are intended to drive campus review and selection procedures.
In November 2001, the Regents adopted BOARS’ Comprehensive Review process for selective
admission, which was implemented for freshmen applying to enter UC in fall 2002. In November
2002, BOARS presented a report to the Regents summarizing the first year of implementation. 5
In September 2003, BOARS issued a second report summarizing follow-up studies of
Comprehensive Review processes undertaken during the 2002-03 academic year, as well as
outcomes of the fall 2003 admissions processes at six UC campuses that could not admit all UC-
eligible applicants. 6
This third report covers Comprehensive Review between the 2003-04 and 2009-10 academic
years. BOARS concluded in its 2003 report that “the comprehensive review policy continues to
be quite successful and that faculty and staff have worked diligently… to make a good process
even better.” 7 Since 2003, several significant external events have impacted the implementation
of Comprehensive Review or its outcomes: an unrelenting demand for access to UC and the
growing number of multi-campus applications and campus interdependencies that result; the
implementation of the new SAT Reasoning Test in 2006 8 ; advances in technology, including the
automation of student information; and reductions in campus enrollment targets as a result of
state funding cuts. In the 2003 report, BOARS recognized a principal concern affecting
                                                            
2
 http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/policies/2104.html 
3
 http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/policies/4401.html 
4
 http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/bylaws/so1052.html 
5
 http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/boars/yr1compreview.pdf 
6
 In 2003, UCSC had not yet implemented comprehensive review, although they denied a small number of eligible 
applicants; UCR was still admitting all eligible applicants, and UCM did not admit a freshmen class until fall 2005.  
7
 Comprehensive Review in Freshman Admissions‐Fall 2003: A Report from the Board of Admissions and Relations 
with Schools, September 2003. 
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/boars/yr2compreview.pdf 
8
 BOARS addresses changes in admissions tests and test use in Admissions Tests and UC Principles for Admission 
Testing: A Report from the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, December 2009. 
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/boars/boars.testingrpt.toRegents_000.pdf  

 
Comprehensive Review outcomes as “the need to slow enrollment growth in response to deep
budget reductions that will reduce opportunity for students in California,” particularly for
students who have been underrepresented historically at UC. Despite continued progress and
improvements in Comprehensive Review, this concern has resurfaced today due to the current
state budget crisis. This report addresses the potential impact these factors may have on the
ability of BOARS to fully assess the comprehensive review process, and more generally, on our
ability to identify, admit, and attract the most talented and diverse students.
Structure of the Current Report 
 
The current report summarizes Comprehensive Review processes at the nine UC campuses that
admit high school graduates applying for freshman admission. It is organized into five sections
discussing key aspects and assessing the comprehensive review policy in practice.
Section I defines Comprehensive Review for audiences unfamiliar with the process and clarifies
key principles regarding its use and criteria used in review processes.
Section II discusses Comprehensive Review outcomes between 2003 and 2009, including trends
and changes in academic indicators that show increases in academic quality and a wide range of
demographic indicators that show changes in diversity across the system. We focus on the
representation of students from schools, families, and backgrounds that have attended the
University at lower rates historically. Appendix B provides detailed data on these academic and
demographic indicators at each of the nine campuses.
Section III addresses the evolution of Comprehensive Review processes between 2003 and 2009,
including advances campuses have made in evaluating students in the context of opportunity,
new achievements in efficiency, the use of readers, and ways campuses are ensuring the quality
and integrity of the review process.
Section IV discusses some of the challenges ahead for the Comprehensive Review process,
including the need to enhance efficiencies but maintain quality in an era of budget reductions;
the importance of maintaining access and affordability for California residents; the need to
communicate with students about how best to prepare for competitive admissions under the new
policy taking effect in 2012, and with a discerning public about UC’s review and selection
policies and practices.
Section V summarizes BOARS' conclusions and recommendations based on our examination of
outcomes and Comprehensive Review processes in relation to established Academic Senate
guidelines. Several new principles regarding the use of criteria are detailed based on best
practices among campuses.

 
SECTION I. WHAT IS COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW?
No single campus can accommodate all California high school graduates deemed eligible for
admission to UC; therefore, each campus with more qualified applicants than available places
employs selective admissions to meet freshmen enrollment targets. The most selective campuses
tend to require more information on all applicants in order to make fine distinctions between
many qualified students. The eligibility index provides a modest floor of academic achievement
and does not provide information about school context, students’ particular academic talents, or
personal accomplishments, and therefore, more information is gleaned from each student’s
application to help campuses select the top students from their applicant pool and create an
entering class consistent with University policy. BOARS defines Comprehensive Review as “the
process by which students applying to UC campuses are evaluated for admission using multiple
measures of achievement and promise while considering the context in which each student has
demonstrated academic accomplishment 9 .
In practice, Comprehensive Review now includes three main Comprehensive Review is 
features: the use of multiple criteria to define merit; the “the process by which 
evaluation of school context and/or the context of opportunity;
and, an individualized student review. The Guidelines for students… are evaluated 
Implementation of University Policy on Freshman Admissions for admission using 
requires campuses to use multiple measures in evaluating
applicants, and stipulates that these measures reflect a broad multiple measures of 
conception of merit based on both academic and personal
achievement and promise 
accomplishments. Faculty committees have flexibility to
establish criteria for selecting students consistent with each while considering the 
campus’ distinctive mission, values, and goals for
context in which each 
undergraduate education that are also consistent with
University-wide criteria. Thus, each applicant file is reviewed student has demonstrated 
and rated, and students are selected based on the applicant pool
academic accomplishment” 
and priorities for that particular campus. Campuses have clearly
defined criteria; the reliability and integrity of the process is
diligently monitored; and campuses strive for transparency
through communicating criteria for admission and public information about their processes.
Section III provides more detail on each campus process, which is also outlined in a matrix in
Appendix H.
Campus Comprehensive Review processes are highly data-driven, and rely on a variety of
academic and socioeconomic indicators that are available electronically to all campuses for each
applicant. The process also requires a “human read” of a students’ file with scoring by a trained
evaluator or set of evaluators (also referred to as individualized student review). Faculty
committees determine the priority given to criteria to guide selection processes, with the most
weight given to academic criteria. All campuses have comprehensive review processes in place
but each consigns a different priority to each criterion and each varies in their use of a “human
read.” Six campuses (Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Barbara)
incorporate a thorough read of the application file to evaluate multiple criteria in the selection of
the majority of students; and three campuses (Santa Cruz, Riverside, and Merced) primarily
                                                            
9
 http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/nov01/302attach2.pdf  
10 
 
review academic criteria along with a limited set of personal accomplishment factors, and also,
employ a read of the file to look for indication of promise before any student is denied admission
or is admitted by exception. Therefore, principle 8 of the Guidelines that states “no student is
denied admission without a comprehensive review of their files,” is being met. It is important to
note that Comprehensive Review processes are expected to follow the guidelines established by
BOARS, including the evaluation of students within the context of opportunity in their schools,
and information in students’ files about academic and personal accomplishments. Such context-
sensitive review has long been regarded as a common-sense best practice among highly selective
institutions across the country. 10 Appendix A details the eight principles and 14 criteria BOARS
established to guide campus faculties in developing and implementing campus-level policies and
the University’s systemwide admission guidelines and criteria. 11 The conclusion of this report
contains recommendations for improvement of these original guidelines and criteria.
SECTION II. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OUTCOMES: SELECTIVE ADMISSIONS 2003‐2009 
BOARS examined Comprehensive Review outcomes in terms of academic talent, based on
selected academic indicators, as well as access for California students and diversity, based on
demographic indicators. While many more measures of talent are identified in students’ files
during the review process (e.g. leadership, artistic and creative talent, contributions to the
community, determination and resilience), we provide information only on key indicators that
are available electronically for all campuses. This section also features information about the
ultimate destinations of students admitted to UC over the last five years, as well as academic
outcomes in the first year of college. Selected summary charts are presented here, while more
detailed data are found in Appendices B through G. It is important to note that while all years are
reported in Appendix B, in the text of the report we compare 2009 data (the last full admissions
cycle) with data from the last Comprehensive Review report in 2003. Enrollment constraints
were imposed in 2009, and while it may be an anomalous year, we think it represents a good test
of outcomes when selectivity is increased across the system. When enrollment growth is allowed
to proceed according to original projections in the future, we may see more favorable outcomes
in comparison with 2009-10.
II. 1. Achieving Academic Excellence: Attracting and Admitting Promising Students 
The applicant pool. The University of California has seen steady growth in applications over this
review period, and admissions offices have managed to keep pace with the demand for access.
Rising applications reflect not only the increasing number of high school graduates in California,
but also increased demand for access to UC. In 2009-10, UC posted a record 98,286 freshman
applicants, which represents a 25% increase in applicants since 2003-04 (Table 1). All campuses
posted double digit increases except UC San Diego (8%). Berkeley, Davis, and Irvine saw
applications rise at a gre


Use: 0.5087