We Need More Information, Please

By Quetzal Mama • February 4, 2014

We Need More Information, Please
Copyright 2014 Roxanne Ocampo
 
            When one of my students recently received an email from UC Berkeley and UC Davis (two of her top schools), she asked me, “What does this mean?”  After responding to the student, I thought it would be a good idea to share my response in a blog article.
 
            A very small percentage of students receive one of these “We need more information please” emails from UC's each year.  The selective UC campuses are seeking to understand more about a candidate before making an admission decision.  In my experience, students receive these letters because they are either “borderline” admit/deny, have an imbalanced academic profile, or indicated a hardship or learning disability within their application.  The imbalanced profile is when the reader cannot ascertain why and how the student performed very well academically in one area, but significantly underperformed in another.  For example, a 1400 SAT score and a 4.0 GPA with many AP courses.  A hardship could be any obstacle(s) the student stated or alluded to within the application – socioeconomic, lack of resources, psychological issues, family crisis, medical issues, etc.  Then there are students who may have a learning disability, but did not affirm this within their application.  Any of these items may trigger the “we need more info” email.
 
            Now, to understand what is driving this letter, we need to go back in time.  It stems from a policy adopted by the University of California Regents in November 2001.  The policy adopted is called Comprehensive Review and is used in freshman admissions within the UC system.  Comprehensive Review is defined as follows:
 
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.
 
            Key in on multiple measures.  This basically means they will not admit or deny students based exclusively on traditional measures of academic merit.  For example, many of my students hold an impressive 4.0 GPA and are within the top 5% of their graduating class.  However, some of these student’s scores on the ACT or SAT do not correlate with their GPA.  Should they be booted out?  Not necessarily.  Should they get a chance to be evaluated using more than one measure of achievement?  Comprehensive Review says yes, but a cautious yes.  Now, before the Abigail Fisher1 and Suzy Weiss2 camps begin ranting “reverse discrimination!” let me preach:
 
No, this does not mean minority and low-income students get a free pass for admission to selective campuses.  It does not mean their test scores and GPA are waived, or that other traditional measures of academic achievement are overlooked.  It simply means the university will carefully consider how the student was able to thrive academically amidst various obstacles.
 
            The cautious yes comes from the fact that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a huge leap to college, versus those students who did not have the additional burdens, obstacles, and hardship that many disadvantaged students endured.  Back to the “more information please” letter.  The UC Berkeley email includes 13 questions so they can “. . .carefully review your responses as we make admission decisions.”  UC Davis, on the other hand, may send an email like this: 
As part of our comprehensive review, would you like us to consider the extreme hardship or difficult circumstances (medical, personal, judicial) that you have disclosed to us? – UC Davis
 
In both instances, the campus is seeking more information so they can make an informed and well-rounded assessment of the student’s performance.  Maybe the student with the high GPA and low SAT or ACT exam has a documented learning disability?  Or the student with the solid SAT/ACT scores had a dip in GPA in his/her junior year.  Is there something that can explain this?  Many of my students work part-time jobs, are surrogate parents for their younger siblings, or hold other responsibilities that take them away from study time.
 
What they are looking for – they are not looking for the student to regurgitate what they included in their application.  If the information in the application was sufficient, the student would not be asked to elaborate or explain further.
 
They are trying to understand, in a logical and reasonable way, how a claimed disadvantage precluded or prohibited the student from performing at their ability or potential.
 
In this scenario, the student should be able to quantify and qualify their response.  For example, if their GPA slipped for one academic year then they should be able to articulate the specific obstacle(s) that impacted their performance.  It should be logical, like this:  “During my junior year, my parents filed for divorce and we moved to another school district.  Changing schools and dealing with the psychological impact of this change significantly affected my grades.”  That is provable because both the transcript (indicating a new school) and the cumulative academic record illustrate a definite correlation between the event and the GPA dip.  On the other hand, it would not be credible or reasonable to say that an overall low GPA (3+ years) could be explained by this same scenario.  Why? Because the pattern of grades are consistent for all three years, and do not reflect that an event triggered a dip. 
 
In addition to responding to the email questionnaire, the student may be required to submit updated, official transcripts, new test scores, or an essay describing the reason(s) the student wishes to receive admission to their campus.  Regardless of the request, my recommendation is to follow these general guidelines:
  • Respond as soon as possible, prior to the designated deadline.
  • Follow the directions carefully and submit or respond to every item requested.
  • Conduct research regarding the types of information requested, and potential reasons why the student may have been targeted.
  • Seek help from an experienced Admissions consultant or high school counselor.
  • Contact the requester directly for more information.
Good luck!  Quetzal Mama
 
1Abigail Fisher, plaintiff in “Fisher v. University of Texas – a 2008 US Supreme Court case that unsuccessfully challenged race admissions practices at the University of Texas.
2Suzy Weiss (high school graduate) wrote a 2013 article published in the Wall Street Journal entitled,  “To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me:  If only I had a tiger mom or started a fake charity.”