University of California needs to take some of the mystery out of its admissions policies to promote greater understanding among a public that is often confused about what it takes to get into selective campuses.

At the same time, campuses must strive harder to find "commonality" in the way they apply UC's comprehensive review admissions policy, which weighs factors such as socioeconomic status, leadership potential and demonstrated hardships alongside academic prowess.

Those were some of the recommendations of a UC study group convened late last year to study eligibility and admissions issues. The group's findings were first revealed in March during a presentation to UC's governing Board of Regents, but were codified Thursday with the release of the final report of the group's work.

"We have this surging demand in higher education and we need to be able to respond and to know exactly how we're doing things," said UC Regent and study group co-chairwoman Joanne Kozberg.

UC admissions policies have been under the microscope since October, when a report commissioned by Regents Chairman John Moores revealed that1,421 California students with SAT scores of 1400 or above were denied admission to UC Berkeley, yet 359 with scores of 1000 or below were admitted.

Moores said the university's admissions processes are confusing and opaque. Moores' report also started a debate about whether UC was using comprehensive review to circumvent a ban on affirmative action.

The debate was fueled by UC's independent analysis of admit rates that showed African-American and Latino students are admitted at slightly higher rates than expected at UC Berkeley and UCLA. The report urges campuses to identify the reasons behind the apparent disparities and implement changes before the fall 2005 admissions cycle.

The group's final report contains 15 recommendations on how UC can streamline its practices. Recommendations include monitoring eligibility requirements more frequently to ensure that UC continues to admit only the top 12.5 percent of the graduating high school class, as required under the state's Master Plan for Higher Education.

Based on the evaluation, new criteria for determining eligibility for UC -- such as new minimum grade-point averages and admissions test scores -- should be considered, the report said.

The report also acknowledged that UC's eight undergraduate campuses vary slightly in their application of comprehensive review. Some campuses, for instance, assign "fixed weights" to certain criteria, while others do not.

Campuses should develop "greater commonality" in how they apply comprehensive review, the report said.

"We understand this is a very complicated process, and it certainly gets more complicated with comprehensive review," said study group member Barbara Sawrey, chair of UC's Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, which develops admissions and eligibility policies. "We do want to improve our communication with students, parents and teachers so that students are aware of what we're looking for and how they can meet our requirements."

The group also said UC must work to ensure the public understands its admissions practices, although the report said such a task may be difficult, given varying degrees of selectivity at UC's eight undergraduate campuses.

"... It is not possible to provide data that will allow applicants to predict with certainty their likelihood of admission to a given campus," the report said. "The implementation of several of the recommendations in this report -- for example, better alignment of campus practices to UC policies, more extensive reporting on the annual outcomes of the admissions process and increased commonality of definitions and processes across the campuses -- will enhance public understanding of the admissions process."