SACRAMENTO – After several years of internal debate, the University of California's faculty has finalized a proposal to recast the system's decades-old promise to admit one of every eight graduating high school seniors in the state.

The revised formula would limit the UC admissions guarantee to one in 10 graduating seniors starting in fall 2012, but it's much more complicated than that.

Supporters call it a long-overdue overhaul of criteria that exclude thousands of deserving students simply because they failed to complete one step or another.

So while the guaranteed percentage would drop, the policy would open a door for high-achieving students who had been excluded, supporters say.

Skeptics are not convinced that the change is necessary. They warn it could be expensive and could lower admissions standards at campuses struggling with many of the system's lesser-qualified students.

Tomorrow, the freshman eligibility proposal is scheduled to be discussed at the UC Board of Regents meeting in Santa Barbara. A vote will be taken at a later date.

The UC Academic Assembly approved the plan 38-12 last month, with most of the opposition coming from three campuses: Berkeley, Riverside and Santa Cruz.

Highlights Proposed changes in University of California freshman admissions standards: About 9.7 percent of California high school graduating seniors would be guaranteed admission, rather than the current 12.5 percent, or one in 10 instead of one in eight. Applications from students falling just short of the new standards would be given an automatic review for admission. Together with the guaranteed admissions, the total pool under consideration would encompass more than 20 percent of the state's graduating seniors. The policy also would promise a spot at one of the UC campuses for all students who graduate in the top 9 percent of their senior classes, compared with the 4 percent now promised admission.

James Posakony, a biological sciences professor who heads UC San Diego's faculty, said he and other UCSD faculty are “cautiously supportive” of the proposal. Posakony predicted the changes would “make no difference to the great majority of students” who have been working hard to get into a UC school.

“Where it will make a difference is in situations in which, for reasons that are often no fault of the students or the students' parents, they miss one little item of eligibility . . . and that excludes them permanently from consideration,” Posakony said.

“For those students, it could make a great deal of difference. They will now get an entitlement to be reviewed. They at least get to have their application looked at.”

There were 2,200 of those students who applied to UC campuses in fall 2007, said Mark Rashid, a UC Davis civil engineering professor and chairman of the committee that developed the proposal.

Many had grade-point averages above 3.5 and other indicators of high achievement, Rashid said. They were never told why they were denied admission.

The group was more ethnically and economically diverse than the larger pool of students guaranteed admission, Rashid said.

“These are people the UC should be just bending over backward to be fair to,” he said. “Yet they are people who are getting on the wrong side of this rigid bureaucratic system and being bounced because of it.”

Thomas Cogswell, a history professor who heads the UC Riverside faculty, is not so sure. Cogswell said the proposal relies largely on four-year-old data. Moreover, he said, Rashid and others have been unable to explain how it will change things.

“It seems to me a moderately drastic measure with uncertain results,” said Cogswell, who voted against the proposal. “I'm not adverse to experimenting on small animals occasionally, but it seems to me a bit much to experiment on several hundred thousand taxpayers and their children.”

For decades, high school seniors have been able to secure an admissions guarantee to a UC campus by taking a regimen of required college-prep classes, SAT and ACT tests and maintaining a minimum grade-point average, currently 3.0, in some 15 UC-required courses.

The index of test scores and GPA is adjusted periodically to keep the guaranteed pool at 12.5 percent of each year's graduating class. Students also can qualify for the UC guarantee by graduating within the top 4 percent of their class.

The proposal would eliminate a requirement to take two SAT subject tests in courses such as math, chemistry or a foreign language. But it would raise the index of test scores and GPA to limit the admissions guarantee to 9 percent of students statewide.

The local guarantee, to those who now graduate in the top 4 percent of their class, would be expanded to include all those who graduate in the top 9 percent of their class.

The combined groups would cover 9.7 percent of the state's high school seniors, according to calculations by Rashid and his committee.

Students below the new line, those who no longer would receive a guarantee, as well as those with at least a 2.8 GPA in UC-required courses, would be assured their applications would be reviewed by every campus to which they apply. That would encompass more than 20 percent of the state's graduating seniors, Rashid said.

“We expect lots and lots of students to be admitted that aren't guaranteed just because they are entitled to review and they turn out to be more competitive than some of the guaranteed students,” he said.

The cost of the mandatory reviews has raised concerns among UC Riverside's Cogswell, UCSD's Posakony and others. Rashid said the added expense should be covered by the $60 fee the system charges for each application.

The value of the UC promise to students at the lower end of the eligibility pool also is debatable. For those not accepted by a campus of their choice, the guarantee provides a referral to a campus with a spot. In recent years, that has been UC Riverside and UC Merced.

Few students, 300 to 500 a year, or about 6 percent of the eligible pool, have taken that referral, Rashid said.

“Almost everybody who gets them turns them down,” he said.

Nonetheless, many believe the guarantee still provides a valuable benchmark and regimen for students and parents.

It provides “a predictable path by which, if they work hard enough and achieve well in high school, they will get to the UC,” Posakony said.

Expanding the local threshold, from the top 4 percent to the top 9 percent of graduating classes, also could spur high school counselors to pay closer attention to the requirements, he said.

“Now it's 9 percent of your students, one in 11, who gets to come to UC as long as you pay attention and have your counselors coach those students appropriately,” Posakony said.

Opponents say they are not convinced that the proposal would improve the overall quality of incoming UC freshman. They also cite data that suggest the revised eligibility guidelines could disproportionately hurt minority students.

“The problem with this proposal . . . is the numbers make it very complicated, depending on how they are sorted and when they are sorted,” said William Drummond, a journalism professor who heads the UC Berkeley faculty.

Berkeley faculty members also were uncomfortable with the reliance on data from 2003, Drummond said. Data from 2007 should be available this fall, he said.

“There's no reason to do this now,” said Drummond, who noted that UC President Mark Yudof has just taken office. “This is likely to be the most controversial thing he would have to deal with other than the budget.”