UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC SENATE
BOARD OF ADMISSIONS AND RELATIONS WITH SCHOOLS
Minutes of Meeting – June 15, 2005
Approved October 13, 2005
I. Welcome and Chair’s Announcements
Michael T. Brown, BOARS Chair
Comprehensive Review Report
BOARS members were reminded that the committee will finalize its two-year Comprehensive
Review report over the summer (via email and teleconferences). The report must be completed
in time to be reviewed by the Academic Council before it is presented to The Regents in
November.
Transfer Initiatives
At its May 11, 2005 meeting, the Assembly of the Academic Senate approved the implementing
legislation for both the SciGETC (SR 478) and Major-Preparation Course Articulation (SR 477)
initiatives. Academic Senate Chair George Blumenthal has specifically asked BOARS to
monitor the implementation of SciGETC, and the University Committee on Educational Policy
(UCEP) has been asked to monitor the Major-Preparation Course Articulation implementation.
BOARS and UCEP might also join together to proactively address issues and future directions
related to transfer (e.g., develop “transfer eligibility”).
College Board Meeting
Chair Michael Brown, Vice Chair David Stern, and Analyst Kimberly Peterson met recently with
a small group of College Board representatives: James M. Montoya, Vice President for Higher
Education; Peter J. Negroni, Senior Vice President for K-12 Education; and Kris Zavoli, Acting
Assistant Vice President for the Western Region. Topics discussed included the National Merit
Scholarship Program/PSAT, Advance Placement courses, new SAT, and College Board
initiatives regarding access (e.g., “Springboard” curriculum program, new College Board 6-12
Schools).
ACTION: Director Susan Wilbur will provide BOARS with a list of the UC campus
representatives to the College Board.
Civic Engagement Symposium
Several BOARS Members attended or gave presentations at a June 10-11 symposium, “Civic and
Academic Engagement in the Multiversity: Institutional Trends and Initiatives at the University
of California” (http://cshe.berkeley.edu/events/civicacademic/index.html). Sponsors of the
symposium included Student Regent Jodi Anderson, the Student Experience in the Research
University - 21st Century Project (CSHE) and the UC Office of the President. The conference
included an assessment of the civic and academic engagement of undergraduate students at UC
using the UC Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) and national data, and a discussion on
how civic engagement is currently integrated into teaching and research efforts and institutional
priorities.
BOARS / June 15, 2005 Minutes 1
ACTION: BOARS Member Dick Flacks will present preliminary UCUES admissions-
related findings at the next committee meeting.
II. Consent Calendar – Approval of Minutes
ACTION: The minutes of the May 6, 2005 BOARS meeting were approved with revisions.
III. Resolution on UC’s Definition of Merit and the National Merit Scholarship
Program
Michael T. Brown, BOARS Chair
ISSUE: At its May 18, 2005 meeting, the Academic Council requested that BOARS draft a
resolution on why UC should discontinue its participation in the NMSP. The draft resolution, if
adopted by BOARS, will be brought before Council for consideration in June.
DISCUSSION: Chair Michael Brown reviewed the timeline of the committee’s investigation
into and actions regarding the selection process of the National Merit Scholarship Program.
Members observed that the committee had carefully considered and investigated this issue.
Concerns were raised, however, that even though the rationale for BOARS’ position on the
NMSP is clearly articulated, people who were not part of the committee’s deliberations may still
misinterpret the intent of BOARS’ actions. There must be a clear distinction made between
criticism of the NMSP and its selection procedures and criticism of students selected for the
National Merit Scholarship. If UC chooses to discontinue its sponsorship of National Merit
Scholarships, it must be stressed in the public message that: (1) BOARS and the University still
honor individual student achievement and merit, (2) the UC campuses will continue to honor
scholarship commitments made to students already awarded UC-sponsored National Merit
Scholarships, and (3) students who choose to attend UC will still be eligible for corporate- and
NMSC-sponsored National Merit Scholarships, as well as UC’s own merit-based scholarships.
The following revisions to the resolution were suggested by BOARS members and endorsed by
the committee:
• Add another “whereas” to the resolution: “WHEREAS UC campuses have been phasing
out the role of National Merit Scholarship Program standing in their admissions and
financial aid decisions.”
• Add information to the background of the resolution about the fact that UC’s public and
private comparison institutions do not participate as institutional sponsors of National
Merit Scholarships.
ACTION: The BOARS “Resolution on the Failure of the National Merit Scholarship
Program to meet the Requirements of UC’s Definition of Merit” was unanimously
approved with the noted revisions.
IV. California Student Data Systems
A. California Student ID Tracking System
Charles Masten, Assistant Director of Admissions
BOARS / June 15, 2005 Minutes 2
REPORT: Assistant Director Charles Masten provided the committee with information on the
California School Information System (CSIS) Student Identifier. In September 2002 California
enacted Senate Bill 1453 in order to comply with the federal accountability standards defined in
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This bill called for the creation of a statewide
longitudinal database for tracking individual pupil performance over time. Every student in
California that attends a public K-12 school will be assigned a unique CSIS student identifier,
which will eventually connect to their entire K-12 educational record. UC has made plans to add
the CSIS ID to the fall 2007 admissions application. Additional information on the CSIS student
identifier is available at: http://www.csis.k12.ca.us/library/statewide-identifier/default.asp.
B. California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS)
Sam Agronow, Associate Director of Admissions
ISSUE: Associate Director Sam Agronow informed the committee of the possibility that “small
schools” or academies within a larger high school might be assigned a special identifier in the
future by the California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS). CBEDS has agreed to
consider adding a “small school” identifier if the University provides a working definition of
“small schools” and a rationale for the need to specifically identify this school type.
DISCUSSION: Members noted the importance of UC having an accurate picture of a student’s
high school environment given that for the Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC) program,
student achievements are evaluated within the context of the student’s “school.” Some students
might be inadvertently penalized depending on how their school is identified. UC already
considers separately magnet and regular students within a school – schools that have both a
regular and a magnet component are treated as two separate schools for ELC purposes. By
separating the magnet and regular students, neighborhood students are not disadvantaged
because their school attracts students from beyond the school’s regular attendance zone. This
policy, however, only applies to programs within a school that attract students from beyond the
regular geographic boundary. Schools that breakup into academies or “small schools” are not
considered separate entities under the current ELC policy.
The committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives for identifying these
“small schools.” One possibility would be for each of the small schools to obtain their own
individual national identifier or American Testing Program (ATP) code. The state, however,
might not encourage such a practice because of various fiscal and accountability considerations
related to No Child Left Behind reporting requirements.
ACTION: The Analytic Subcommittee will work with Associate Director Sam Agronow to
determine how “small schools” should be defined and why identifying this school type is
important for UC admissions and broader purposes.
ACTION: The policy question of which entities within a school might be treated separately
for ELC purposes will be placed on the 2005-06 BOARS agenda for consideration.
V. Testing Subcommittee Report
Mark Rashid, Testing Subcommittee Chair
BOARS / June 15, 2005 Minutes 3
REPORT: The BOARS Testing Subcommittee met for a day-long meeting on June 6th. The
primary issues considered at this meeting were:
• How to evaluate the new SAT and ACT tests for alignment with BOARS’ testing
principles (e.g., “curriculum basedness”).
• Where to set the new Eligibility by Exam Alone score so that it is in alignment with the
new testing pattern requirement.
• What does it mean for a campus or to indicate a “preference” for a specific SAT II exam?
Some campuses have major programs (e.g., engineering) that have indicated a preference
for a particular SAT II exam on their websites and in publications. The subcommittee
would like to obtain more information from the campuses about their plans or processes
for implementing such preferences.
ACTION: Director Susan Wilbur will ask the Admissions Directors to report on their
campus’s SAT II preferences policies at the joint meeting with BOARS in July.
VI. Consultation with the Office of the President
A. Announcements and Updates
Susan Wilbur, Director of Admissions
REPORT: Director Susan Wilbur reported to the committee on the following topics:
Admissions Processing Contract
The University is in the final stages of selecting a new vendor for admissions processing. In the
past admissions processing has been a two-step process involving multiple entities; however,
with the new contract, UC will have a single, comprehensive vendor solution for admissions
processing. The new system will be called the Centralized Admissions and Scholarship
Application (CASA) and will be implemented in stages. Ideally this new system will allow
campuses to expedite and streamline their admissions processes.
Fall 2005 SIRs
Director Wilbur also provided BOARS with the fall 2005 Freshman Statements of Intent to
Register (SIRs) data. This information will soon be posted on the University of California
Office of the President website. Highlights of the SIR data include:
• Systemwide, SIRs increased 9.6 percent for fall 2005 and 3.7 percent for the full
academic year (including winter and spring terms).
• This year 6,066 applicants were referred to Merced or Riverside for admission; 345 of
these referrals (5.7%) accepted their referral admissions offer.
• Merced has received 870 freshman SIRs; 32 percent of these students are from referral
pool admits.
• Systemwide, underrepresented student SIRs increased 12.7 percent; six campuses
(Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and Santa Cruz) experienced increases
in the number of underrepresented students filing SIRs for fall 2005.
B. Resolution in Honor of Asc. VP Dennis Galligani
Michael T. Brown, BOARS Chair
BOARS / June 15, 2005 Minutes 4
In honor of Associate Vice President Dennis Galligani, who is retiring after 30 years of service
to the University, and in recognition of his service as a consultant to BOARS, the following
resolution was proposed for the committee’s endorsement:
The Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools expresses its respect, affection and
gratitude to Dennis J. Galligani for his exceptional stewardship of Student Academic
Services as Assistant and then Associate Vice President from 1990 to 2005 and his
unfailing support of the Academic Senate and shared governance. He was true to his
motto, “We are here to serve.”
ACTION: The BOARS resolution to honor Associate Vice President Dennis Galligani was
approved unanimously.
VII. Principles for Evaluating Eligibility Requirements
Michael T. Brown, BOARS Chair
REPORT: Chair Michael Brown informed the committee of the latest revisions to the draft
“Principles for Evaluating Eligibility Requirements.” The goal is to develop a set of principles
that BOARS can use to guide its evaluation of the appropriateness of the various individual
components of the University’s eligibility requirements (e.g., Honors Level Course GPA bump).
Although BOARS articulated a set of eligibility principles last year, those principles focused on
guiding changes to how the top 12.5% for eligibility is determined, not the evaluation of the
individual components that comprise the eligibility requirements.
DISCUSSION: The committee recommended that the draft “Principles for Evaluating
Eligibility Requirements” be combined with the previous eligibility principles document and
background information to create a single, comprehensive document on the nature of UC
eligibility. It was suggested that this eligibility principles document should also begin with an
introduction that explains that UC eligibility is defined as the “top 12.5%” by the Master Plan
and why the University supports the concept of “eligibility.” Members made a number of
recommendations for principles and ideas that might be included in this eligibility principles
document:
• Include the fundamental principle that eligibility is a systemwide determination.
• Recognize that the eligibility construct is currently based on a narrow set of indicators of
past academic achievement.
• Acknowledge the other important eligibility-related access provisions contained within
the Master Plan: students who don’t fulfill UC’s freshman eligibility requirements have a
second chance to demonstrate their readiness and transfer to the University; there are
other components of the California public higher education system – the California State
University (CSU) system and California Community Colleges – that provide valuable
postsecondary educational opportunities for students.
• Relate eligibility to the idea of “building a class” and the educational goals UC seeks to
achieve in offering undergraduate education.
ACTION: BOARS Chair Michael Brown and Member Dick Flacks will revise the draft
eligibility principles.
BOARS / June 15, 2005 Minutes 5
VIII. Role of Honors Level Courses in Admissions
Michael T. Brown, BOARS Chair
Sam Agronow, Associate Director, SAS
Roger Studley, Assistant Director, SAS
ISSUE: Senate Regulation 424 currently allows a grade point advantage for admissions
purposes for a limited number of “honors level” courses:
Grades in up to 4 units of certified honors level courses, a maximum of two of which can
be taken in the 10th grade, from the areas of history, English, advanced mathematics,
laboratory science, and language other than English, will be counted on the scale A=5,
B=4, C=3. Grades in all other units will be counted on the scale A=4, B=3, C=2.
As part of the committee’s general review of eligibility components and in response to the final
report of the Academic Senate’s AP/Honors Task Force, BOARS is currently reassessing the
appropriateness of this policy for calculating GPAs for UC eligibility.
DISCUSSION: The committee reviewed additional data analyses and information related to the
Honors Level grade bump policy. One member indicated that the compelling reasons for
eliminating the Honors Level grade bump policy may not be data driven, but will likely be based
primarily on educational principles and policy concerns. Discussion returned to Asc. VP Dennis
Galligani’s suggestion that BOARS develop a set of principles specifically for the purpose of
evaluating the Honors Level course grade bump policy (see March 18, 2005 minutes). One
member proposed that developing a more general set of principles on how the GPA should be
constructed for UC eligibility might be more useful than developing a set of principles specific
to evaluating the Honors Level grade bump policy.
ACTION: Member Mark Rashid and Chair Michael Brown will draft a set of principles
for the calculation of the GPA for UC eligibility.
ACTION: Further discussion of the Honors Level grade bump policy will be scheduled for
the July BOARS meeting.
IX. Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC)
Michael T. Brown, BOARS Chair
Judy Kowarsky, Associate Director, SAS
REPORT: Associate Director Judy Kowarsky reported on the possibility of conducting an ELC
expansion-related analysis using fall 2005 admission data. An analysis using fall 2005 data,
although limited, could examine differences in application and enrollment rates of students that
received an “ELC” letter and students that received a “Qualified on Track” letter. By examining
the admissions behavior of students at the margins of ELC, such an analysis could provide some
information on how academically similar students are impacted by receiving or not receiving an
“ELC” letter.
BOARS / June 15, 2005 Minutes 6
ACTION: Associate Director Judy Kowarsky and Chair Michael Brown will further
discuss the possibility of conducting a limited ELC analysis using fall 2005 data.
ACTION: The BOARS ELC Subgroup will continue to explore the possibility of
conducting a systemwide ELC expansion pilot program.
Meeting adjourned 4:00 p.m. Minutes drafted by
Attest: Michael T. Brown Kimberly Peterson
Committee Analyst
BOARS / June 15, 2005 Minutes 7