QUICK LINKS

Total Undergraduate New Students (Freshman and Transfer)  | Applicants | Admits | Enrollees |

Freshman Admissions by Residency | African American | American Indian | Chicano/Latino | Asian | White | Unknown |

Freshman Admissions by Source School Type | African American | American Indian | Chicano/Latino | Asian | White | Unknown |

Transfer Admissions by Residency | African American | American Indian | Chicano/Latino | Asian | White | Unknown |

Transfer Admissions by Source School Type | African American | American Indian | Chicano/Latino | Asian | White | Unknown |

International Student Data

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

1. The University of California is a taxpayer funded public land grant institution.

2. The University of California is a public trust, administered by “The Regents of the University of California,” with full powers of organization and government. California Constitution Article 9 Section 9.

3. The University of California Master Plan for Higher Education has an "Access Guarantee" that guarantees all California resident students in the top 12.5% (1/8th) of their high school graduating class admission to the University of California based solely on merit.

4. The "Access Guarantee" is for recent high school graduates who are California residents, not for community college transfer students, out-of-state, or international students.

5. Public Education is the State of California's number one constutionally mandated spending priority. California Constitution Article 9 Sections 5, 6, and 14

6. California Education Code 66202.5 codifies the State of California's commitment to ensure that resources will be made available to accommodate all eligible students an appropriate place within the UC system.

7. The state of California is currently enjoying record high revenues of $209 billion dollars, an increase of $66 billion since 2007-08. California Budget: 2007-08 and 2019-20$55 billion of the $66 billion is currently budgeted for High Speed Rail project.

 

California Budget
2019-20 209,069,327 2015-16 164,703,066  2011-12 127,370,952  2007-08 143,408,832
2018-19 190,319,420  2014-15 154,937,996 2010-11 118,755,483

Revenues are up 

$66 Billion

   since 2007-08

2017-18 179,450,102  2013-14 145,826,550  2009-10 134,764,078 
2016-17 170,727,252  2012-13 137,327,827  2008-09 141,038,573

 

California 5-year Infrastructure Plan 

8. The State has sufficient revenues to fund a seat for every recent high school graduate in the top 12.5% (1/8th) of their high school graduating class, but are "choosing" not too. Instead the State is "choosing" to spend taxpayer dollars on new programs and entitlements that are not Constitutionally mandated.

9. The California State Auditor Report #2015-107 concluded that the University of California's admissions and financial decisions disadvantaged California resident students by:

Denying California resident students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class admission to at least one campus of their choice, while guaranteeing every other applicant (out-of-state, international and community college transfer students) admission to at least one campus of their choice.

Denying California resident students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class admission to at least one campus of their choice, while admitting out-of-state, international and community college transfer students with much lower GPA's and test scores.

10. By design; every year, the University of California denies approximately 10,700 California resident students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class admission to a campus of their choice. These students are then placed in a referral pool and offerd UC Merced as their only option. UC Merced is not an "appropriate" placement for any student in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class. According to the Legislative Analysit Office, 99.1% of the California resident students offered UC Merced as their only option declined to enroll. LAO: 2019-20 Budget: February 19, 2019 Higher Education Analysis page 39

11. UC Merced is a "FALSE CHOICE" for California residents students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class. The UC's manipulation of the referral pool for California Residents is a fraud upon the public. The University  of California has broken its promise to California taxpayers and California resident students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class. California State Auditor Report #2015-107 at page 35

  Admit Rate GPA ACT SAT English SAT Math
UC Berkeley 14.9% 4.16 - 4.30 30 - 35 660 -750 680 - 790
UCLA 14.1% 3.97 - 4.25 24 - 31 600 - 700 620 - 780
UC Merced 66.9% 3.46 - 3.96 19 - 27 510 - 630 510 - 650

 

Screen_Shot_2019-04-15_at_93931_AM.png 

DATA 

Source: University of California by Source School

California State Auditor: The University of California- Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students Report Number: 2015-10727736

Undergraduate New Students Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
New Students Freshman (recent high school graduates)  98,204 182,129 76,526  107,439 34,242 46,677

 Increase 16,075

Up 16%

Increase 30,913

Up 40% 

Increase 12, 435

Up 36% 

CA Public School 67,969 105,904 57,638  63,096 28,784  38,802

Increase 37,935

Up 56%

Increase 5,458

Up 9% 

Increase 10,018

35% 

CA Private High School 12,678 14,815 11,151 8,677 3,607 3,591

Increase 2,137

Up 17%

Applicants up

Decrease 2,474

Down 22%

Admits down

Deacrease 16

Down <1%

Enrollment no change

The UC has intentionally limited the number of admits given to all CA resident students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class, while dramatically increasing admits to out-of state and international students and community college transfer students.

The UC engaged in affirmative action and invidious discrimination against California resident students that it considered to be "privileged" (able to afford private school) and sold their seats to out-of-state, international students in violation of CA state law and the UC Master Plan for Higher Education. 

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state) 12,515 36,605 5,711 19,450 1,285 4,298

Increase 24,090

Up 192%

Increase 13,739

Up 241%

Increase 3,013

Up 235%

Foreign Institutions 5,042 24,805 2,026 16,216 566 4,986

Increase 19,763

Up 392%

Increase 14,190

Up 700%

Increase 4,420

Up 781%

New Students Transfer Students 29,551   41,349  21,765 28,533  15,133 21,015

 Increase 11,798

Up 40%

Increase 6,788

Up 31% 

Increase 5,882

Up 39% 

CA Community College Transfers 23,849  34,933 19,339  26,319  13,717 19,738

 Increase 11,084

Up 46%

Increase 6,980

Up 36% 

Increase 6,021

Up 44% 

Other USA/Unavailable 5,397 6,032 2,392 2,156 1,393 1,240

 Increase 635

Up 12%

Decrease 236

Down 10% 

Decrease 153

Down 11% 

Foreign Institutions 305 384 34 58 23 37

Increase 79

Up 26% 

Increase 24

Up 71% 

Increase 14

Up 61% 

 

Ethnicity
 

Undergraduate New Student Applicants 

Applicants – Students who make a formal application to attend the University of California.

2009 2018

 Change in the number of Applicants

% Change in the number of Applicants

Freshman Transfers Total % Freshman Transfer Total %
African American   4,925  1,191  6,116 5% 10,294 2,332  12,626 6%   6,510  106% 
American Indian   658  261  919  <1% 902  268 1,170 <1%   251   27%
American Indian Applicants are up by 27%, but Admits are down 2%
Chicano Latino  20,185  4,801  24,986 20% 48,478  10,938 59,416 27%   34,430 138% 
Asian   29,517  7,284  36,801  29%   48,591  9,778 58,369 26%   21,568 59% 
White   32,159   10,643  42,802 34% 40,078 11,243  51,321 23%   8,519 20% 
White Applicants are up 20%, but Admits are down 10%
Unknown 4,786   2,424  7,210 6%  5,220 1,090 6,310  3%   900 -12% 
International   5,974 2,947  8,921 7%   28,566 5,700 34,266  15%   25,345 384%
International Applicants  is up by 384% by Admits are up by 404%
Total 98,204 

29,551

Error 29371

 127,575  101% 182,129 41,349  223,478  100%  95,903  75%

 

Ethnicity
 

Undergraduate New Student Admits

Admits – Students who have been made a formal offer of admission to attend the University of California.

2009 2018

 Change in the number of Students

% Change in the number of students

Freshman Transfers Total % Freshman Transfer Total %
African American  2,951  723  3,674  4%  4,444  1,393 5,837 4%  2,163  Increase   59% Increase 
American Indian  518  178  696  <1% 507  175 682  <1%  14 Decrease  2% Decrease 
American Indian Admits are down 2% (14) since 2009
Chicano Latino 15,387  3,661  19,048  19%  25,078  7,629 32,707  24% 15,841  Increase  79% Increase 
Asian  24,933  5,655  30,588   31% 32,403    6,976 39,379  29%  8,791 Increase  28% Increase 
White   26,244  7,884  34,128   35% 22,874  7,793 30,667 23%  -3,461 10% Decrease 
White Admits are down 10% (3,461) since 2009.
Unknown  3,945 1,711  5,656  6% 3,232  730  3,962  3%  -1,694 30% 
International  2,548 1,965  4,513   5% 18,901  3,837  22,738  17% 18,225  404% 
  International Admits are up 404% (18,225) since 2009
Total  76,526 21,765   98,291 100%  107,439  28,533   135,972 100     

 

Ethnicity
 

Undergraduate New Student Enrollees

Enrollees – Students who have accepted an offer of admission and are enrolled at the University of California.

2009 2018

 Change in the number of Students


% Change in the number of students

Freshman Transfers Total % Freshman Transfer Total %
African American  1,257 475 1,732 4% 1,915 981 2,896 4% 1,164  67%
American Indian  214 132 346 <1% 223 128 351 <1%  5  No Change
Chicano Latino 6,642 2,439 9,081 18% 11,678 5,359 17,037 25% 7,956  43%
Asian  13,602 4,058 17,660 36% 16,396 5,340 21,736 32% 4,076  22%
White  10,127 5,585 15,712 32% 8,871 5,758 14,629 22% -1,083 -7%
  White enrollment is down 7% (1,038) since 2009
Unknown 1,621 1,161 2,782 6% 1,327 518 1,845 3% -937  -5%
International 779 1,283 2,062 4% 6,265 2,931 9,196  14% 7,134 39%
  International enrollment is up 39% (7,134) since 2009
Total 34,242 15,133 49,375 100% 46,677 21,015 67,690 100%  18,315 99+% 

 

Source: Undergraduate Admissions Summary

Undergraduate Admissions by Residency & Source School Type

 African American

African American Freshman California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  +70% 3,056  +404 2,313 +75% 2,689 +39% 267 +362% 2,303
Admits +21% 585 +796%  908 +26% 604 +11% 56 +46% 891
Enrolllee +46% 561 +262%  97 +50% 531 +11% 17 +213% 96

 

   California Residency

African American Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    4,352 7408  2,837  3,422 1,220  1,781

Increase 3,056

Up 70%

Increase 585 

Up 21%

Increase 561

Up 46%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    573  2,886  114 1,022 37 134

Increase 2,313

Up 404%

Increase 908

Up 796%

Increase 97

Up 262%

 

 Source School Type

African American Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   3,573 6,262  2,289  2,893 1,055  1,586

Increase 2,689

Up 75%

Increase 604 

Up 26%

Increase 531

Up 50%

CA Private High School    685  952  518 462 156 173

Increase 267

Up 39%

Increase 56

Up 11%

Increase 17

Up 11%

Non-CA Domestic Out-of-state   636  2,939  138  1,029  45  141

 Increase 2,303

+ 362%

 Increase 891

+ 46%

 

Increase 96

+ 213%

 

 

 American Indian

American Indian California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  +13% 76  +212 168 +17% 78 +2% 2 +177% 160
Admits 21% 115 +385%  104 +12% 2,517 -71% 35 +291% 99
Enrollee -6% 13 +262%  97 +13% 1,582 -35% 11 +314% 22

 

 California Residency 

American Indian Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident   579 655  491  376 209  196

Increase 76

Up 13%

Decrease 115 

Up 21%

Decrease 13

Down 6%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)   79 247  27 131 37 134

Increase168

Up 212%

Increase 104

Up 385%

Increase 97

Up 262%

 

 Source School Type

American Indian Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   469 547 399  323 176  173

Increase 78

Up 17%

Decrease 76

Down 19%

Decrease 3

Down 2%

CA Private High School    98  100  85 49 31 20

Increase 2

Increase 2%

Decrease 35

Down 71%

Decrease 11

Down 35%

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state)  90  250 34 133 7 29

 Increase 160

+ 177%

 Increase 99

+ 291%

 

Increase 22

+ 314%

 

 

 

 Chicano/Latino

American Indian California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  +131% 25,362  +345 2,193 +143% 24,174 +46% 1,056 +305% 2,863
Admits +55% 8,264 +478%  1,427 +65% 8,541 -11% 303 +375% 1,346
Enrollee +74%% 4,870 +319%  166 +78% 4,719 -22% 117 +258% 168

 

California Residency 

Chicano/Latino  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    19,335 44,697  15,088  23,352 6,590  11,460

Increase 25,362

Up 131%

Increase 8,264

Up 55%

Increase 4,870

Up 74%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    850  3,781 299 1,726 52 218

Increase 2,931

Up 345%

Increase 1,427

Up 478%

Increase 166

Up 319%

 

 Source School Type

Chicano/Latino Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   16,890 41,064  13,086  21,627 6,031  10,750

Increase 24,174

Up 143%

Increase 8,541 

Up 65%

Increase 4,719

Up 78%

CA Private High School    2,290  3,346  1,912 1,609 537 654

Increase 1,056

Up 46%

Decrease 303

Down 11%

Decrease 117

Down 22%

Non-CA Domestic Out-of-state   939  3,802  359  1,705  65  233

 Increase 2,863

+ 305%

 Increase 1,346

+ 375%

 

Increase 168

+ 258%

 

 

 Asian

Asian California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  +41% 10,680  +345 2,931 +3% 646 -25% 694 +232% 7,336
Admits 55% 2,231 +478%  1,427 +12% 2,517 -11% 270 +265% 4,299
Enrollee +11% 1,513 +319%  166 +13% 1,582 -9% 100 +281% 1,019

 

California Residency 

Asian Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    26,142 36,822  23,314  25,545 13,276  14,789

Increase 10,680

Up 41%

Increase 2,231

Up 55%

Increase 1,513

Up 11%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    850  3,781 299 1,726 52 218

Increase 2,931

Up 345%

Increase 1,427

Up 478%

Increase 166

Up 319%

 

 Source School Type

Asian Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   22,884 23,530 20,378  22,895 12,049  13,631

Increase 646

Up 3%

Increase 2,517 

Up 12%

Increase 1,582

Up 13%

CA Private High School    2,723  3,417  2,513 2,243 1,076 976

Increase 694

Down 25%

Decrease 270

Down 11%

Decrease 100

Down 9%

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state)  3,159  10,495  1,621  5,920 363  1,382

 Increase 7,336

+ 232%

 Increase 4,299

+ 265%

 

Increase 1,019

+ 281%

 

  

 White 

White California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  <1%> 119  +142% 7,800 5% 984 -15% 826 +125% 7,298
Admits -34% 8,111 +194%  4,741 18% 3,238 -48% 2,382 +158% 4,295
Enrollee -77% 2,237 +192%  981 -21% 1,664 -35% 507 +132% 834

 

California Residency 

 White Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    26,651 26,770  23,811  15,700  9,615  7,378

Increase 119

<1%

Decrease 8,111

Down 34%

Decrease 2,237

Down 77%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    5,508  13,308  2,433  7,174  512 1,493 

Increase 7,800

142%

Increase 4,741

194%

Increase 981

Up 192%

 

 Source School Type

White Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   20,513 21,497 18,389  21,627 7,988  6,324

Increase 984

Up 5%

Increase 3,238 

Up 18%

Decrease 1,664

Down 21%

CA Private High School    5,525  4,699  5,003 2,621 1,464 957

Decrease 826

Down 15%

Decrease 2,382

Down 48%

Decrease 507

Down 35%

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state)  5,826  13,124  2,710  7,005 630  1,464

 Increase 7,298

+ 125%

 Increase 4,295

+ 158%

 

Increase 834

+ 132%

 

  

 Unknown  

White California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  +70% 3,056  +111% 810 <1% 8 -34% 310 +94% 697
Admits -34% 1,209 +130%  496 -27% 701 -54% 452 -80% 331
Enrollee -26% 407 +179%  113 -22% 280 -35% 507 -98% 82

 

California Residency 

 Unknown Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident   4,352 7,408  3,564  2,355  1,558  1,151

Increase 3,056

70%

Decrease 1,209

Down 34%

Decrease 407

Down 26%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    732  1,542  381 877  63 176

Increase 810

111%

Increase 496

130%

Increase 113

Up 179%

 

 Source School Type

White Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   3,009 3,001 2,626 1,925 1,282 1,002

Decrease 8

Down <1%

Increase 701

Down 27%

Decrease 280

Down 22%

CA Private High School    914  604 841 389 1,464 957

Decrease 310

Down 34%

Decrease 452

Down 54%

Decrease 507

Down 35%

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state)  739  1,436  415  804 84  166

 Increase 697

+ 94%

 Decrease 331

-80%

 

Decrease 82

+ 98%

 

 

Source: Undergraduate Admissions Summary

Transfer Admissions by Residency & Source School Type

African American

African American Transfer California Residency Source School Type
CA Community College  Out-of State  CA Community College Other USA/Unavailable
Applicants +95%  1,079  +105%  62 +188%  1,073 +23%  64
Admits +93%  661  +64%  14  +108%  670 -1<%  1
Enrollee +107  500  +200%   6 <1%  500  +9%  5

 

California Residency

African American Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Community College  1,132 2,211 709 1,370 469  969

Increase 1,079

Up 95%

Increase 661 

Up 93%

Increase 500

Up 107%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    59  121  14  23  6  12

Increase 62 

Up 105%

Increase 14

Up 64% 

Increase 6

Up 200% 

 

Source School Type

African American Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Community College 906 1,979 618  1,288 417 917

Increase 1073

Up 188%

Increase 670

 108%

Increase  500

<1%

Other USA/Unavailable  280  344 105 104 58 63

Increase 64

Up 23% 

Decrease 1

Down <1%

Increase 5

 9%

 

American Indian

American Indian Transfer California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA ommunity College Domestic nonresident (Out of State)
Applicants +95%  1,079 40%  +10% 20  - 22%  11
Admits +93%  661 No Change  + <1% 1  - 25% 4
Enrollee  107% 500  200%   1 - 2% 2  9%  5

 

California Residency

American Indian Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    1,132 2,211 709 1,370 469  969

Increase 1,079

Up 95%

Increase 661 

Up 93%

Increase 500

Up 107%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    10  14  3  3  1  2

 Increase 4

Up 40%

No Change 

Increase 1

200% 

 

Source School Type

American Indian Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Community College 210  230  162  163  121   119

Increase 20

Up 10% 

Increase 1

Up <1% 

Decrease 2

 2%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    49 38  16 12 58 63

Decrease 11

Down 22% 

Decrease 4

Down 25% 

Increase 5

Up 9% 

 

Chicano/Latino

Chicano/Latino Transfer California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Community College Other USA/Unavailable
Applicants + 128%   6,028  +125% 109   + 140%  5,818 + 49%  318 
Admits +109%  3,946  + 85%  22 + 118%  3,977 - 3% 
Enrollee  +120  2,916  + 57%  +130%  2,954 - 20%  34 

 

California Residency

Chicano/Latino Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    4,714 10,742 3,635 7,581 2,432 5,348

Increase 6,028

Up 128%

Increase 3,946

Up 109%

Increase 2,916

+120%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    87  196  26  48  7  11

 Increase 109

Up 125%

Increase 22

Up 85% 

Increase 4

Up 57% 

 

Source School Type

Chicano/Latino Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Community College  4,147 9,965  3,360   7,337 2,264  5,218 

 Increase 5,818

Up 140%

Increase 3,977

Up 118% 

Increase 2,954

Up 130% 

Other USA/Unavailable  644 962  298 289 173 139

 Increase 318

Up 49%

Decrease 9

-3% 

Decrease 34

- 20% 

 

Asian

Asian Transfer California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Community College Other USA/Unavailable
Applicants +33%   2,362 96%   132 +37%  2,,226   +19% 224 
Admits +23%  1,281  82%  40  +26%  1,317   - <1% - 2 
Enrollee +32%   1,260 147%  22  +33%  1,245  +11%  11 

 

California Residency

Asian Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    7,146 9,508 5,606 6,887 4,043 5,303

Increase 2,362

Up 33% 

Increase 1,281

Up 23% 

Increase 1,260

Up 32% 

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State) Transfer  138  270 49  89  15  37

 Increase 132

Up 96%

Increase 40

Up 82%

Increase 22 

Up 147%

Source School Type

Asian Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Community College Transfers  6,087 8,353 5,086 6,403 3,731 4,976

Increase 2,266

Up 37% 

Increase 1,317

Up 26% 

Increase 1,245

Up 33% 

Other USA/Unavailable  1,167  1,391  564  562  323  357

Increase 224

Up 19% 

Decrease 2

Down <1% 

Increase 34

Up 11% 

 

 

White

White Transfer California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Community College Other USA/Unavailable
Applicants + 5%  542   + 12% 58  + 13%  1,138 - 25%  542 
Admits  - <1% 101   + 5% + 6%  335 - 44%  432 
Enrollee + 3%  175  + 4%   2 + 10%  485  - 52%  310 

 

California Residency

White Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    10,170 10,712 7,756 7,658 5,535 5,710

Increased by 542

Up 5%

Decreased by 101

Down <1%>

Increased by 175

Up 3%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    473  531  128  135  50  48

 Increased 58

Up 12%

Increased 7

Up 5% 

Decreased 2

Down 4% 

 

Source School Type

White Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Community College Transfers  8,454  9,592 6,896 7,231 4,983 5,468

Increased by 1,138

Up 13% 

Increased by 335

Up 6% 

Increased by 485

Up 10% 

Other USA/Unavailable  2,138  1,596  976 544 593 283

 Decreased by 542

Down  25%

Decreased by 432

Down 44% 

Decreased by 310

Down 52% 

 

Unknown

Unknown Transfer California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Community College Other USA/Unavailable
Applicants - 55%  1,043  - 48%   43  - 50% 921  68%  365 
Admits - 57%  996 - 52%   15 - 55%  802  74%  176 
Enrollee -55%   632 - 69%  11  - 52%  536  77%  105 

 

California Residency

Unknown Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
California Resident   2,334 1,043 1,682 716 1,145  513

Declined by 1,291

Down 55%

Declined by 966

Down 57%

Declined by 632

Down 55%

Domestic nonresident   90  47  29  14  16  5

Declined by 43 

Down 48%

Declined by 15

Down 52% 

Declined by 11

Down 69% 

 

Source School Type

Unknown Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Community College Transfer 1,873 916 1,469 667 1,022  486

Declined by 921

Down 50%

Declined by 802

Down 55%

Declined by 536

Down 52%

Other USA/Unavailable    537  172 239  63 137 32

Declined by 365 

Down 68%

Declined by 176

Down 74% 

Declined by 105

Down 77% 

 

Undergraduate International Nonresident Transfer Students

by Residency

 All Ethnicities

*International data is not broken out by ethnicity on the University of California Data by Source School

(All Ethnicities) International nonresident Applicants Admits  Enrollees 
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
305 384 34 58 23 37

Increase of 79

Up 392%

Increase of 24

Up 71%  

Increase of 14

Up 61%  

 

Source School Type

Unknown Transfer Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Community College Transfer 2,172 3,898 1,748 3,230 1,179  2,554

 Increase by 1,726

Up 79%

Increase by 1,482

Up 85% 

Increase by 1,375

 Up 117%

Other USA/Unavailable   582 1,529 194  582 98 357

Incresed by 947

Up 163% 

Increased by 388

Up 200% 

Increased by 259

Up 264% 

Foreign Institutions 305 384 34 58 23 37

Increased by 79

Up 26% 

Increased by 23

Up 9% 

Increased by 14

Up 61% 

  

International Student Undergraduate Admissions by Residency

2018 University of California 

Total Nonresident International Student Enrollment

40,122 students

The University of California does not break out International students by ethnicity in order to hide the fact that:

88% of International students are from Asia and the Middle East

12% are from the rest of the world

Of the 88% of International students from Asia and the Middle East,

61% are from a single country- The People's Republic of China


International nonresident: 

*International data is not broken out by ethnicity on the University of California Data by Source School

(All Ethnicities) International nonresident Applicants Admits  Enrollees 
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
5,042 24,805 2,026 16,216 566 4,986

Increase of 19,763

392%

Increase of 14,190

700%  

Increase of 4,420

780%    

 

Screen_Shot_2019-09-15_at_6.03.33_AM.png

 

2018 Ethnicity of International Students enrolled at the University of California

Screen_Shot_2019-04-06_at_120503_PM.png

Source:

Data University of California Enrollment by Headcount 

2018 Fall Enrollment for Nonresidential International Students is 45,461

Source:

Fall Enrollment at a Glance [Ethnicity]: Data for "Sending Countries for Nonresident International Students" shows records for 163 Countries totaling 40,122 students. 

That is a difference of 5,339 students

Of that 421 students have "unknown ethnicities"

Of that 4 students have Invalid codes

4,914 students cannot be accounted for. 

Source: 

University of California Undergraduate Admissions Summary

"UC was to select from among the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the high school graduating class." [1960 Master Plan page 1] That specifically excludes Transfer students as part of that count.

Source:

[2010 Accountability Report]

"UC has shrunk the size of the freshman class in response to state budget cuts, but those reductions have been partially offset by increases in the enrollment of new community college transfer students. In addition, UC has begun to increase the proportion of nonresident students at its campuses." [2011 Accountability Report page 1] 

Source:

California State Auditor: The University of California- Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students Report Number: 2015-107

"From academic years 2010–11 through 2014–15, total nonresident enrollment at the university increased by 82 percent, or 18,000 students, while resident enrollment decreased by 2,200 students, or 1 percent."

The Auditor recommended that International undergraduate enrollment be limited to 5%

University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment

3 YEARS AFTER AUDIT

AUDIT Released

       AUDIT YEARS         (2010-2014)

2018

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2017

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2016

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2015

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2014

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2013

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

Total Undergraduate Enrollment 46,677 46,006  47,479  41,556  41,568  39,964 
California Resident  

37,393   80%

 36,991    80%  38,938    82%  30,127 79.5%  34,202   82.3%  33,229   83.1%
  Private School 3,591 7.69%

3,512   7.6% 

3,746  7.9% 3,098   7.5%  3,185  7.7%  3,136  7.8% 
  Public School 33,802 72.4%

33,479   72.8% 

35,192  74.1%  29,729 71.5%  31,017 74.6%  30,093  75.3% 
Non-Resident  9,284 20%  9,016    19.5%  8,541   18%  8,489   20.5%  7,366    17.8%  6,755   16.9%
  Out-Of-State 4,298 9.2%  4,060  8.7% 3,569 7.5% 3,729 9%  3,348 8.1%  3,133 7.8% 
   International 4,986 10.7%  4.956 10.8%  4,972 10.5% 4,760 11.5%  4,018 9.7%  3,622  9.1% 

 

University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment

AUDIT YEARS

  

2012

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Total Undergraduate Enrollment 38,731 36,343  32,422 34,242 36,538   35,251  
California Resident  

33,195 85.7%

32,223 88.7%  29,930   92.3%    32,391 94.6% 34,396 94.1%  33,497 95% 
  Private School 3,186

3,319

3,334 3,607 3,941 3,991
  Public School 30,009

28,904

26,596  28,784 30,455 29,506 
Non-Resident  5,536 14.3% 4120  11.3% 2,492  7.7%  1,841  5.4%  2,142   5.9%  1,754 5%
  Out-Of-State 2,575 (6.6%)  2,328 (6.4%) 1,574 (4.9%) 1,285 (3.8%) 1,501 (4.1%)  1,376 (3.9%)
   International 2,961 (7.6%) 1,792 (4.9%) 918 (2.8%) 556 (1.6%) 641 (1.8%) 378 (1.1%)

  

UC All Campuses 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment 35,328 31,464 29,545 31,866 31,514 30,495 
California Resident   33,523 94.9% 30,048 95.5%   28,095 95% 30,239 95%  29,784 94.5%  28,619 93.9% 
  Private School 4,015 3,695 3,549 3,934 3,861 3,771 
  Public School 29,508 26,353 24,546  26,305 25,923 24,848 
Non-Resident 1,805 5.1%  1,416 4.5%  1,450 5%  1,627 5%  1,730 5.5% 1,874  6.1%
  Out-Of-State 1,447 (4.1%) 1,176 (3.7%) 1,193 (4.1%) 1,353 (4.2%) 1,438 (4.5%) 1,578 (5.1%) 
  International 358 (1.01%)  240 (0.8%)  257 (0.9%) 274 (0.8%) 292 (1%) 296  (1%)

International 

Nonresident Students Asia

 30,271

66.59% 

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
China  24,387
South Korea 2,088
Taiwan 1,355
Indonesia 576
Japan 539
Vietnam 328
Malaysia 283
Singapore 277
Thailand  239
Phillippines 64
Myanmar  58
Macao 57
Cambodia 16
Brunei 3
North Korea 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Central Asia

 9 

<1%

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
Turkmenistan 3
Uzbekistan 3
Kyrgyzstan 2
Tajikistan 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students India

 3,356 

7.38%

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
India 2,994
Bangladesh (Bengali) 150
Pakistan 116
Sri Lanka 40
Nepal 30
Mongolia (Mongoi) 25
Maldives 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Middle East

 1,758 

3.87%

Ethnicity: US Census "White"
Iran (Persian) 556
Turkey (Turkish) 337
Israel (Jews) 74 
Baharan (Bahrani) 
Arab  391
Saudi Arabia (Arab) 223
Kuwait (Arab) 57 
Lebanon (Arab) 35
United Arab Emirates (Saudi Arabia) (Arab) 24
Jordan (Arab) 19
Iraq (Arab) 12
Oman (Arab) 5
Sudan (Arab) 5
Syria (Arab) 5
Qatar (Arab) 4
Palestine (Arab) 2

 

International 

Nonresident Students Africa

 247

<1%

Ethnicity: US Census "Black"
Nigeria 54
Kenya 35
South Africa 31
Ethiopia 16
Morocco 16
Ghana 15
Tunisia 9
Comoros 7
Rwanda 7
Cameroon 5
Cote D Ivoire 5
Botswana 5
Senegal 4
Sierra Leone 4
Uganda 4
Libya 4
Tanzania 3
Mauritius 3
Algeria 2
Congo (Brazzaville) 2
Zambia 2
Liberia 2
Benin 1
Burkina Faso 1
Eritrea 1
Gabon 1
Gambia 1
Guinea 1
Malawi 1
Mali 1
Mozambique 1
Niger 1
Togo 1
Zaire (Democratic republic of Congo 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students North America

Canada

 835

1.84% 

Ethnicity: White 
Candada 835

International 

Nonresident Students North America

Mexico

 351

<1% 

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino(a)
Mexico 351

 

International 

Nonresident Students Central America

 109

<1% 

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino(a)
Costa Rica  31 
Panama 13 
Guatemala 11
El Salvador  8
Bermuda 7
Jamaica 7
Dominican Republic 6
Honduras 6
Cuba 4
Belize 4
Saint Kitts 2
Haiti 2
Bahamas 2
Barbados 2
Antigua and Barbuda 1
Nicaragua 1
Grenada 1
St Vincent & St Thomas 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students South America

868 

1.91% 

   
Brazil 365
Chili 142
Columbia 123
Peru 72
Argentina 65
Ecuador 32
Venezuela 27
Trinidad & Tobago 19
Bolivia 8
Uruguay 7
Paraguay 5
Guyana 2
Suriname 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Europe

1,898

4.18% 

Ethnicity: White (US Census) 
United Kingdom 339
France  244
Italy 185
Spain 177
Germany 164
Russia 152
Greece 97
Portugal 53
Netherlands 49
Kazakhstan 41
Belgium 38
Switzerland 37
Sweden 31
Poland 22
Ukraine 22
Norway 21
Austria 21
Finland 19
Denmark 18
Bulgaria 17
Ireland 17
Armenia 16
Serbia 16
Cyprus 14
Hungary 14
Czech Republic 13
Albania 10
Croatia 8
Georgia  8
Iceland 7
Azerbaijan 6
Lithuania 6
Slovenia 6
Latvia 5
Macedonia 5
Belarus 3
Estonia 3
Slovakia 3
Bosnia-Herzegovina 3
Kosovo 2
Monaco 2
Montenegro 2
Luxembourg 1
Netherland - Antilies 1
Northern Ireland 1
Scotland 1
Serbia & Montenegro 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Oceana

 240

<1% 

Ethnicity: White 
Australia (White) 152
New Zealand (White) 85
Kiribati 2
Micronesia (White/Chamorro)  1

  

Admitted International students GPAs' and Test Scores are much lower than CA Resident Students

Source:

University of California Admission by Source School FR GPA by Year

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UC Admission of Private High School Students has Declined by 25% since 2009

This is by design. In order to increase revenues for the University, the UC started to deny Admits to California Private High School students, and offer their seats to out-of-state and international students. In particular, they replaced "WHITE" California resident students with "WHITE" out-of -state students in order to keep the number of "WHITE" students in line with the ethnicity of the state as required by the University of California's Master Plan for Higher Education.

The UC accomplished this by denying 10,700 California resident students who were academically more qualified than out-of-state and international students who were admited to a campus of their choice. They placed these students in a referral pool and offered them UC Merced as their only option. Both the State Auditor and the LAO concluded that 99.1% of students placed in the referral pool, declined to enroll at a UC, choosing to go to an out-of-state or private school. UC Merced is not an "appropriate" placement for students who are qualified to attend flagship schools like a UCLA and UC Berkeley. This was a "forced" choice that has cost 10,700 students each year an additional $160,000 in increased tuition expense. That is $1.7 billion dollars stolen from California taxpayers each year.

The University of California then unjustly enriches itself by re-selling those seats to out-of state and international students.

The greatest reduction in admits has been "WHITE" "PRIVIELGED" students from PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOLS.

 

Source: University of California by Source School

California State Auditor: The University of California- Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students Report Number: 2015-10727736

Ethnicity
 

Undergraduate New Student Applicants 

Applicants – Students who make a formal application to attend the University of California.

2009 2018

 Change in the number of Applicants

% Change in the number of Applicants

Freshman Transfers Total % Freshman Transfer Total %
African American   4,925  1,191  6,116 5% 10,294 2,332  12,626 6%   6,510 Increase 106% Increase
American Indian   658  261  658  <1% 902  268 1,170 <1%   512 Decrease 79% Decrease 
Chicano Latino  20,185  4,801  24,986 20% 48,478  10,938 59,416 27%   34,430 138% 
Asian   29,517  7,284  36,801  29%   48,591  9,778 58,369 26%   21,568 59% 
White  32,159   10,643  42,802 34% 40,078 11,243  51,321 23%   8,519 20% 
  WHITE applicants are up 20% (8,519) since 2009.
Unknown 4,786   2,424  7,210 6%  5,220 1,090 6,310  3%   900 -12% 
International  5,974 2,947  8,921 7%   28,566 5,700 34,266  15%   25,345 384%
Total 98,204 

29,551

Error 29371

 127,575  101% 182,129 41,349  223,478  100%  95,903  75%

 

Ethnicity
 

Undergraduate New Student Admits

Admits – Students who have been made a formal offer of admission to attend the University of California.

2009 2018

 Change in the number of Students

% Change in the number of students

Freshman Transfers Total % Freshman Transfer Total %
African American  2,951  723  3,674  4%  4,444  1,393 5,837 4%  2,163  Increase   59% Increase 
American Indian  518  178  696  <1% 507  175 682  <1%  14 Decrease  2% Decrease 
Chicano Latino 15,387  3,661  19,048  19%  25,078  7,629 32,707  24% 15,841  Increase  79% Increase 
Asian  24,933  5,655  30,588   31% 32,403    6,976 39,379  29%  8,791 Increase  28% Increase 
White  26,244  7,884  34,128   35% 22,874  7,793 30,667 23%  -3,461 10% Decrease 
  WHITE admits are down 10% (3,461) since 2009.
Unknown  3,945 1,711  5,656  6% 3,232  730  3,962  3%  -1,694 30% Decrease 
International  2,548 1,965  4,513   5% 18,901  3,837  22,738  17% 18,225 Increase  404% Increase 
Total  76,526 21,765   98,291 100%  107,439  28,533   135,972 100     

 

Ethnicity
 

Undergraduate New Student Enrollees

Enrollees – Students who have accepted an offer of admission and are enrolled at the University of California.

2009 2018

 Change in the number of Students


% Change in the number of students

Freshman Transfers Total % Freshman Transfer Total %
African American  1,257 475 1,732 4% 1,915 981 2,896 4% 1,164  67%
American Indian  214 132 346 <1% 223 128 351 <1%  5  No Change
Chicano Latino 6,642 2,439 9,081 18% 11,678 5,359 17,037 25% 7,956  43%
Asian  13,602 4,058 17,660 36% 16,396 5,340 21,736 32% 4,076  22%
White  10,127 5,585 15,712 32% 8,871 5,758 14,629 22% -1,083 -7%
  WHITE enrollment is down 7% since 2009
Unknown 1,621 1,161 2,782 6% 1,327 518 1,845 3% -937  -5%
International 779 1,283 2,062 4% 6,265 2,931 9,196  14% 7,134 39%
Total 34,242 15,133 49,375 100% 46,677 21,015 67,690 100%  18,315 99+% 

 

Undergraduate Admissions by Residency & Source School Type

African American

American Indian California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  +70% 3,056  +404 2,313 +75% 2,689 +39% 267 +362% 2,303
Admits 21% 585 +796%  908 +26% 604 +11% 56 +46% 891
Enrollee +46% 561 +262%  97 +50% 531 +11% 17 +213% 96

 

California Residency

African American Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    4,352 7408  2,837  3,422 1,220  1,781

Increase 3,056

Up 70%

Increase 585 

Up 21%

Increase 561

Up 46%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    573  2,886  114 1,022 37 134

Increase 2,313

Up 404%

Increase 908

Up 796%

Increase 97

Up 262%

 

Source School Type

African American Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   3,573 6,262  2,289  2,893 1,055  1,586

Increase 2,689

Up 75%

Increase 604 

Up 26%

Increase 531

Up 50%

CA Private High School    685  952  518 462 156 173

Increase 267

Up 39%

Increase 56

Up 11%

Increase 17

Up 11%

Non-CA Domestic Out-of-state   636  2,939  138  1,029  45  141

 Increase 2,303

+ 362%

 Increase 891

+ 46%

 

Increase 96

+ 213%

 

 

American Indian

American Indian California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  +13% 76  +212 168 +17% 78 +2% 2 +177% 160
Admits 21% 115 +385%  104 +12% 2,517 -71% 35 +291% 99
Enrollee -6% 13 +262%  97 +13% 1,582 -35% 11 +314% 22

 

American Indian Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident   579 655  491  376 209  196

Increase 76

Up 13%

Decrease 115 

Up 21%

Decrease 13

Down 6%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)   79 247  27 131 37 134

Increase168

Up 212%

Increase 104

Up 385%

Increase 97

Up 262%

 

Source School Type

American Indian Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   469 547 399  323 176  173

Increase 78

Up 17%

Decrease 76

Down 19%

Decrease 3

Down 2%

CA Private High School    98  100  85 49 31 20

Increase 2

Increase 2%

Decrease 35

Down 71%

Decrease 11

Down 35%

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state)  90  250 34 133 7 29

 Increase 160

+ 177%

 Increase 99

+ 291%

 

Increase 22

+ 314%

 

 

 

Chicano/Latino

Chicano/Latino  CA Resident  Out-of State 
Applicants +131%  25,362 + 345%  2,913
Admits + 55% 8,264 +478%  1,427
Enrollee + 74%  4,870 +319% 166

 

Chicano/Latino  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    19,335 44,697  15,088  23,352 6,590  11,460

Increase 25,362

Up 131%

Increase 8,264

Up 55%

Increase 4,870

Up 74%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    850  3,781 299 1,726 52 218

Increase 2,931

Up 345%

Increase 1,427

Up 478%

Increase 166

Up 319%

 

Asian

Asian California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  +41% 10,680  +345 2,931 +3% 646 -25% 694 +232% 7,336
Admits 55% 2,231 +478%  1,427 +12% 2,517 -11% 270 +265% 4,299
Enrollee +11% 1,513 +319%  166 +13% 1,582 -9% 100 +281% 1,019

 

California Residency 

Asian Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    26,142 36,822  23,314  25,545 13,276  14,789

Increase 10,680

Up 41%

Increase 2,231

Up 55%

Increase 1,513

Up 11%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    850  3,781 299 1,726 52 218

Increase 2,931

Up 345%

Increase 1,427

Up 478%

Increase 166

Up 319%

 

Source School Type

Asian Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   22,884 23,530 20,378  22,895 12,049  13,631

Increase 646

Up 3%

Increase 2,517 

Up 12%

Increase 1,582

Up 13%

CA Private High School    2,723  3,417  2,513 2,243 1,076 976

Increase 694

Down 25%

Decrease 270

Down 11%

Decrease 100

Down 9%

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state)  3,159  10,495  1,621  5,920 363  1,382

 Increase 7,336

+ 232%

 Increase 4,299

+ 265%

 

Increase 1,019

+ 281%

 

  

White 

White California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  <1%> 119  +142% 7,800 5% 984 -15% 826 +125% 7,298
Admits -34% 8,111 +194%  4,741 18% 3,238 -48% 2,382 +158% 4,295
Enrollee -77% 2,237 +192%  981 -21% 1,664 -35% 507 +132% 834

 

California Residency 

 White Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    26,651 26,770  23,811  15,700  9,615  7,378

Increase 119

<1%

Decrease 8,111

Down 34%

Decrease 2,237

Down 77%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    5,508  13,308  2,433  7,174  512 1,493 

Increase 7,800

142%

Increase 4,741

194%

Increase 981

Up 192%

 

Source School Type

White Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   20,513 21,497 18,389  21,627 7,988  6,324

Increase 984

Up 5%

Increase 3,238 

Up 18%

Decrease 1,664

Down 21%

CA Private High School    5,525  4,699  5,003 2,621 1,464 957

Decrease 826

Down 15%

Decrease 2,382

Down 48%

Decrease 507

Down 35%

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state)  5,826  13,124  2,710  7,005 630  1,464

 Increase 7,298

+ 125%

 Increase 4,295

+ 158%

 

Increase 834

+ 132%

 

 

 

Unknown 

Unknown CA Resident  Out-of State 
Applicants  +70% 3,056  +111% 810
Admits - 34% 1,209 +130%  496
Enrollee - 26% 407 +179%  113

 

 Unknown Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident   4,352 7,408  3,564  2,355  1,558  1,151

Increase 3,056

70%

Decrease 1,209

Down 34%

Decrease 407

Down 26%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    732  1,542  381 877  63 176

Increase 810

111%

Increase 496

130%

Increase 113

Up 179%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Undergraduate Admissions by Residency

International nonresident: 

*International data is not broken out by ethnicity on the University of California Data by Source School

(All Ethnicities) International nonresident Applicants Admits  Enrollees 
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
5,974 28,566 2,548 18,901 779 6,265

Increase of 22,592

378%

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits and Enrollees
CA Resident WHITE STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrollees  (not transfer students) 
  2009  2018

Applicants 

 26,651 26,770
Admits  23,811 15,700
% Admitted 89% 58.6%
Enrolled  9,615 7,378
 % Enrolled 40.4%  47.0%
The UC admission of WHITE California Resident students admitted to a UC has declined by 40.4% since 2009
Out-of-state WHITE STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrollees  (not transfer students) 
  2009  2018

Applicants 

5,508 13,308
Admits  2,433 7,174
% Admitted 44.2% 53.9%
Enrolled  512 1,493
 % Enrolled 21.0%  20.8%
The UC admission of WHITE out-of -state students admitted to a UC has increased by 9.7%
International *WHITE STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrollees  (not transfer students) 
  2009  2018

Applicants 

5,974 28,556
Admits  2,548 18,901
% Admitted 42.7% 66.2%
Enrolled  779 6,265
 % Enrolled 30.6%  33.1%
The UC data for Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits and Enrollees for International students does not break out data by ethnicity. To see ethnicity data for international students you need to look at applicants, admits, and enrollees by source school.

 

UC Admission of Private High School Students has Declined by 25% since 2009

This is by design. In order to increase revenues for the University, the UC started to deny Admits to California Private High School students, and offer their seats to out-of-state and international students. In particular, they replaced "WHITE" California resident students with "WHITE" out-of -state students in order to keep the number of "WHITE" students in line with the ethnicity of the state as required by the University of California's Master Plan for Higher Education.

The UC accomplished this by denying 10,700 California resident students who were academically more qualified than out-of-state and international students who were admited to a campus of their choice. They placed these students in a referral pool and offered them UC Merced as their only option. Both the State Auditor and the LAO concluded that 99.1% of students placed in the referral pool, declined to enroll at a UC, choosing to go to an out-of-state or private school. UC Merced is not an "appropriate" placement for students who are qualified to attend flagship schools like a UCLA and UC Berkeley. This was a "forced" choice that has cost 10,700 students each year an additional $160,000 in increased tuition expense. That is $1.7 billion dollars stolen from California taxpayers each year.

The University of California then unjustly enriches itself by re-selling those seats to out-of state and international students.

The greatest reduction in admits has been "WHITE" "PRIVIELGED" students from PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOLS.

 

Source: University of California by Source School

California State Auditor: The University of California- Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students Report Number: 2015-10727736

Ethnicity
 

Undergraduate New Student Applicants 

Applicants – Students who make a formal application to attend the University of California.

2009 2018

 Change in the number of Applicants

% Change in the number of Applicants

Freshman Transfers Total % Freshman Transfer Total %
African American   4,925  1,191  6,116 5% 10,294 2,332  12,626 6%   6,510 Increase 106% Increase
American Indian   658  261  658  <1% 902  268 1,170 <1%   512 Decrease 79% Decrease 
Chicano Latino  20,185  4,801  24,986 20% 48,478  10,938 59,416 27%   34,430 138% 
Asian   29,517  7,284  36,801  29%   48,591  9,778 58,369 26%   21,568 59% 
White  32,159   10,643  42,802 34% 40,078 11,243  51,321 23%   8,519 20% 
  WHITE applicants are up 20% (8,519) since 2009.
Unknown 4,786   2,424  7,210 6%  5,220 1,090 6,310  3%   900 -12% 
International  5,974 2,947  8,921 7%   28,566 5,700 34,266  15%   25,345 384%
Total 98,204 

29,551

Error 29371

 127,575  101% 182,129 41,349  223,478  100%  95,903  75%

 

Ethnicity
 

Undergraduate New Student Admits

Admits – Students who have been made a formal offer of admission to attend the University of California.

2009 2018

 Change in the number of Students

% Change in the number of students

Freshman Transfers Total % Freshman Transfer Total %
African American  2,951  723  3,674  4%  4,444  1,393 5,837 4%  2,163  Increase   59% Increase 
American Indian  518  178  696  <1% 507  175 682  <1%  14 Decrease  2% Decrease 
Chicano Latino 15,387  3,661  19,048  19%  25,078  7,629 32,707  24% 15,841  Increase  79% Increase 
Asian  24,933  5,655  30,588   31% 32,403    6,976 39,379  29%  8,791 Increase  28% Increase 
White  26,244  7,884  34,128   35% 22,874  7,793 30,667 23%  -3,461 10% Decrease 
WHITE admits are down 10% (3,461) since 2009.
Unknown  3,945 1,711  5,656  6% 3,232  730  3,962  3%  -1,694 30% Decrease 
International  2,548 1,965  4,513   5% 18,901  3,837  22,738  17% 18,225 Increase  404% Increase 
Total  76,526 21,765   98,291 100%  107,439  28,533   135,972 100     

 

Ethnicity
 

Undergraduate New Student Enrollees

Enrollees – Students who have accepted an offer of admission and are enrolled at the University of California.

2009 2018

 Change in the number of Students


% Change in the number of students

Freshman Transfers Total % Freshman Transfer Total %
African American  1,257 475 1,732 4% 1,915 981 2,896 4% 1,164  67%
American Indian  214 132 346 <1% 223 128 351 <1%  5  No Change
Chicano Latino 6,642 2,439 9,081 18% 11,678 5,359 17,037 25% 7,956  43%
Asian  13,602 4,058 17,660 36% 16,396 5,340 21,736 32% 4,076  22%
White  10,127 5,585 15,712 32% 8,871 5,758 14,629 22% -1,083 -7%
  WHITE enrollment is down 7% since 2009
Unknown 1,621 1,161 2,782 6% 1,327 518 1,845 3% -937  -5%
International 779 1,283 2,062 4% 6,265 2,931 9,196  14% 7,134 39%
Total 34,242 15,133 49,375 100% 46,677 21,015 67,690 100%  18,315 99+% 

 

Undergraduate Admissions by Residency & Source School Type

African American

American Indian California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  +70% 3,056  +404 2,313 +75% 2,689 +39% 267 +362% 2,303
Admits 21% 585 +796%  908 +26% 604 +11% 56 +46% 891
Enrollee +46% 561 +262%  97 +50% 531 +11% 17 +213% 96

 

California Residency

African American Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    4,352 7408  2,837  3,422 1,220  1,781

Increase 3,056

Up 70%

Increase 585 

Up 21%

Increase 561

Up 46%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    573  2,886  114 1,022 37 134

Increase 2,313

Up 404%

Increase 908

Up 796%

Increase 97

Up 262%

 

Source School Type

African American Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   3,573 6,262  2,289  2,893 1,055  1,586

Increase 2,689

Up 75%

Increase 604 

Up 26%

Increase 531

Up 50%

CA Private High School    685  952  518 462 156 173

Increase 267

Up 39%

Increase 56

Up 11%

Increase 17

Up 11%

Non-CA Domestic Out-of-state   636  2,939  138  1,029  45  141

 Increase 2,303

+ 362%

 Increase 891

+ 46%

 

Increase 96

+ 213%

 

 

American Indian

American Indian California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  +13% 76  +212 168 +17% 78 +2% 2 +177% 160
Admits 21% 115 +385%  104 +12% 2,517 -71% 35 +291% 99
Enrollee -6% 13 +262%  97 +13% 1,582 -35% 11 +314% 22

 

American Indian Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident   579 655  491  376 209  196

Increase 76

Up 13%

Decrease 115 

Up 21%

Decrease 13

Down 6%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)   79 247  27 131 37 134

Increase168

Up 212%

Increase 104

Up 385%

Increase 97

Up 262%

 

Source School Type

American Indian Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   469 547 399  323 176  173

Increase 78

Up 17%

Decrease 76

Down 19%

Decrease 3

Down 2%

CA Private High School    98  100  85 49 31 20

Increase 2

Increase 2%

Decrease 35

Down 71%

Decrease 11

Down 35%

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state)  90  250 34 133 7 29

 Increase 160

+ 177%

 Increase 99

+ 291%

 

Increase 22

+ 314%

 

 

 

Chicano/Latino

Chicano/Latino  CA Resident  Out-of State 
Applicants +131%  25,362 + 345%  2,913
Admits + 55% 8,264 +478%  1,427
Enrollee + 74%  4,870 +319% 166

 

Chicano/Latino  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    19,335 44,697  15,088  23,352 6,590  11,460

Increase 25,362

Up 131%

Increase 8,264

Up 55%

Increase 4,870

Up 74%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    850  3,781 299 1,726 52 218

Increase 2,931

Up 345%

Increase 1,427

Up 478%

Increase 166

Up 319%

 

Asian

Asian California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  +41% 10,680  +345 2,931 +3% 646 -25% 694 +232% 7,336
Admits 55% 2,231 +478%  1,427 +12% 2,517 -11% 270 +265% 4,299
Enrollee +11% 1,513 +319%  166 +13% 1,582 -9% 100 +281% 1,019

 

California Residency 

Asian Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    26,142 36,822  23,314  25,545 13,276  14,789

Increase 10,680

Up 41%

Increase 2,231

Up 55%

Increase 1,513

Up 11%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    850  3,781 299 1,726 52 218

Increase 2,931

Up 345%

Increase 1,427

Up 478%

Increase 166

Up 319%

 

Source School Type

Asian Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   22,884 23,530 20,378  22,895 12,049  13,631

Increase 646

Up 3%

Increase 2,517 

Up 12%

Increase 1,582

Up 13%

CA Private High School    2,723  3,417  2,513 2,243 1,076 976

Increase 694

Down 25%

Decrease 270

Down 11%

Decrease 100

Down 9%

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state)  3,159  10,495  1,621  5,920 363  1,382

 Increase 7,336

+ 232%

 Increase 4,299

+ 265%

 

Increase 1,019

+ 281%

 

  

White 

White California Residency Source School Type
CA Resident  Out-of State  CA Public HS CA Private HS Out of State HS
Applicants  <1%> 119  +142% 7,800 5% 984 -15% 826 +125% 7,298
Admits -34% 8,111 +194%  4,741 18% 3,238 -48% 2,382 +158% 4,295
Enrollee -77% 2,237 +192%  981 -21% 1,664 -35% 507 +132% 834

 

California Residency 

 White Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident    26,651 26,770  23,811  15,700  9,615  7,378

Increase 119

<1%

Decrease 8,111

Down 34%

Decrease 2,237

Down 77%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    5,508  13,308  2,433  7,174  512 1,493 

Increase 7,800

142%

Increase 4,741

194%

Increase 981

Up 192%

 

Source School Type

White Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Public High School   20,513 21,497 18,389  21,627 7,988  6,324

Increase 984

Up 5%

Increase 3,238 

Up 18%

Decrease 1,664

Down 21%

CA Private High School    5,525  4,699  5,003 2,621 1,464 957

Decrease 826

Down 15%

Decrease 2,382

Down 48%

Decrease 507

Down 35%

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state)  5,826  13,124  2,710  7,005 630  1,464

 Increase 7,298

+ 125%

 Increase 4,295

+ 158%

 

Increase 834

+ 132%

 

 

 

Unknown 

Unknown CA Resident  Out-of State 
Applicants  +70% 3,056  +111% 810
Admits - 34% 1,209 +130%  496
Enrollee - 26% 407 +179%  113

 

 Unknown Freshman  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
CA Resident   4,352 7,408  3,564  2,355  1,558  1,151

Increase 3,056

70%

Decrease 1,209

Down 34%

Decrease 407

Down 26%

Domestic nonresident (Out-of-State)    732  1,542  381 877  63 176

Increase 810

111%

Increase 496

130%

Increase 113

Up 179%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Undergraduate Admissions by Residency

International nonresident: 

*International data is not broken out by ethnicity on the University of California Data by Source School

(All Ethnicities) International nonresident Applicants Admits  Enrollees 
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
5,974 28,566 2,548 18,901 779 6,265

Increase of 22,592

378%

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: University of California by Source School

Saint Margarets San Juan Capistrano

Admits have dropped from an average of 96% to it's current 62%,  a decline of 34%

 Year  Applications Admints  Enrollees
2018  62

     38          62%

  14    37%
2017  65 

 49    75% 

  16    33%
2016 61

 38   62%

   14      37%
2015 AUDIT RELEASED 2015
2015 66

   39      59%

   7    18%
AUDIT YEARS 2012-2013- 2014
2014 52

 26   50%

    10       38%
2013 53

 35   66%

   15     43%
2012 45

 34   76%

   9     26%
2011 50

 33   66%

  6     18%
2010 52

 51   98%

  11     22%
2009 48

 45   94%

   7     16%
2008 52    50     96%     12       24%
2007 61    57     93%     13       23%
2006  56    55   98%     16     29% 

Bishops School La Jolla

Admits have dropped from an average of 91% to it's current 64%, a decline of 27%

 Year  Applications Admints  Enrollees
2018  80

     51          64%

  16    32%
2017  85 

 61    72% 

  19    31%
2016 74

 49   62%

   15     31%
2015 AUDIT RELEASED 2015
2015 85

   61      72%

   6    10%
AUDIT YEARS 2012-2013- 2014
2014 81

 49   60%

    9      18%
2013 94

 66   70%

   12     18%
2012 88

 68   77%

   10     15%
2011 87

 66   76%

  15     23%
2010 76

 71   93%

     6       8%
2009 84

 71   85%

   21     30%
2008 72    66     92%     14       21%
2007 73    64     88%    5      8%
2006  87   84   97%    19     23%

 

Source: University of California by Source School 

BISHOPS SCHOOL LA JOLLA

Screen_Shot_2019-09-17_at_4.27.13_AM.png

 

SAINT MARGARETS SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

Screen_Shot_2019-09-17_at_4.18.51_AM.png

 

California Resident students are entitled to Equality of Educational Opportunity

On August 21, 2019 I made a formal presentation to the Capistrano Unified School District Board of Trustees, asking them to approve a Resolution In Support of Fair Admissions for California Resident Students to the University of California. 

I presented the board with data that showed that the University of California:

1) Is engaged in discriminatory admissions practices that place ONLY California resident students at a disadvantage for admission to a UC. Out-of-state, international and community college transfer students are admitted with much lower GPA's and lower test scores, and they are guaranteed admission to a campus of their choice while California residents students that graduate in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class are not.

2) Lacks diversity. The diversity on UC campuses is suppose to reflect the diversity of the State of California. It does not. The University of California admits to many students from a single country,- the Peoples Republic of China. That is not "diversity". That is a national security risk for our country.

Undergraduate New  Student Admissions
  2009
  Freshhman Transfers Total Percentage
African American  1,257 475 1,732 4%
American Indian  214 132 346 <1%
 Chicano Latino 6,642 2,439 9,081 18%
Under Represented Groups  8,113 3,046 11,159 22%
Asian  13,602 4,058 17,660 36%
White  10,127 5,585 15,712 32%
Unknown 1,621 1,161 2,782 6%
International 779 1,283 2,062 4%
Total 34,242 15,133 49,375 100%

Diversity of California 2018 Census
African American  6.5%
American Indian   1.6%
 Chicano Latino  39.3%
Under Represented Groups   47.4%
Asian   15.3%
Pacific Islander   .05%
White   36.8%
Total 100%
 
Diversity at UC Schools
% of Asian's Domestic International
Berkeley 44% 38%  6%
Davis  52%  39%  13%
Irvine  60%  45%  15%
LA  43%  36%  7%
Merced   32%  29%  3%
Riverside   46%  40%  8%
San Diego   50%  39%  11%
Santa Barbara 47%  35%  12%
Santa Cruz 44%  33%  11%

 

3) Is engaged in affirmative action which violates California state law. The UC uses the profit from the sale of 10,700 seats to subsidize tuition and living expenses for a growing number of community college transfer students under a new TAG program. These students are admitted with lower GPA's and test scores and they are also guaranteed at least one campus of their choice. UC Berkeley, UCLA and UCSD are not included in the TAG program, but the other six campuses are. 

The University of California is a taxpayer funded public education institution. Because taxpayers fund these schools, California resident students are to be given priority over international and out-of state students. Current admission policies do not align with state and federal law, or the University of California's Master Plan for Higher Education.

 

THE DATA 

University of California Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrolles  (not transfer students)

Screen_Shot_2019-09-14_at_8.13.22_AM.png

 

WHITE STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrolles  (not transfer students)

ALL

WHITE

FRESHMAN

2009  2010 2011 AUDIT PERIOD

Audit  Report  Released  

2016 2017 2018
2012 2013 2014 2015

Applicants

 32,159 30,551 31,354 34,446 36,604 37,484 38,814 40,372 40,187 40,078
Applications from WHITE students have increased by 7,919 students (+ 24.6%) since 2009

Admits

 

26,244

81.6%

25,396

83,1%

22,952

73.2%

23,399

67.9%

23,101

63.1%

22,442

59.9%

22,134

57.0%

25,073

62.1.%

23,941

59.6%

22,874

57.1%

Admits of WHITE students have declined by 3,370 stduents (-24.5%) since 2009

Enrolled

 

10,127 

38.6%

9,195

36.2%

9,274

39.6%

9,039

38.6%

9,155

40.8%

9,081

40.5%

8,719

39.4%

9,790

39.0%

9,314

38.9%

8,871

38.8%

The Number of WHITE students that enrolled declined by 1,256 students, (-12.4%)

 

The percentage of WHITE STUDENTS who enrolled has remaind constant at 39% because the UC places highly qualified WHITE California resident students who did not receive an admission to a campus of their choice into a referral pool which offers them UC Merced as their only option. According to both the State Auditor and the LAO, 99.1% of the students placed into the referral pool decline enrollment to UC Merced because it is not an appropriate campus for these students (California's best and brightest- top 12.5% of their high school graduating class). These students should be guaranteed admission to at least one campus of their choice based on merit under California law. These students are qualified to be admitted to flagship schools like UC Berkeley and UCLA.

All other entering freshmen; out-of-state and international, as well as California community college transfer students are getting admitted with power test scores and GPA's and are guaranteed admission to at least one campus of their choice.

 

The University of California is engaged in race based admissions. 

Screen_Shot_2019-09-14_at_2.07.10_PM.png

INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION 

Treating a class of persons (WHITE STUDENTS) unequally (not guaranteed admission to at least one campus of their choice) in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging (these students are now forced to attend out-of-state or private colleges at an increased tuition cost of $40,000 per year to gain admission to "appropriate" campus).

 

WHITE STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrolles  (not transfer students)
Freshmen from California Public High Schools 2009  2010 2011  AUDIT PERIOD

Audit  Report  Released  

2016 2017 2018
2012 2013 2014 2015

Applicants

 

 

 
20,513 19,491 20,043 20,461 21,412 20,970 20,442 20,829 21,299 21,497
Applications from WHITE students from PUBLIC SCHOOL have increased by 984 students (4.8%) since 2009

Admits

 

 

 

 18,389  89.6%

17,541 90.0%

14,711 73.4% 14,141 69.1%   14,165 66.2%  13,581 64.8% 12,650  61.9% 14,473 69.5%  13,486  63.3% 12,837  59.7%
Admits of WHITE students from PUBLIC SCHOOLS have declined by 5,552 students (-30.2%) 

Enrolled

 

 7,988 7,239  7,103  6,890   6,759  6,662 6,178  7,227  6,704  6,324 
The Number of WHITE students graduating from PUBLIC SCHOOL that enrolled declined by 1,664 students, (20.8%%)

 

If you happen to be considered "WHITE" and "PRIVILEGED" then the chances of being admitted to a UC have declined by 48% since 2009. 

 

WHITE "PRIVILEGED" STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrolles  (not transfer students)

Freshmen   from California Private High Schools

2009  2010 2011  AUDIT PERIOD

Audit  Report  Released  

2016 2017 2018
2012 2013 2014 2015

Applicants

 
5,525 5,194 5,153 5,092 5,009 4,949 4,926 4,837 4,826 4,699
Applications from "WHITE" "PRIVILEGED" students, students from PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOLS have declined by 826 students (-15%) since 2009. These families are no longer applying to UC's, and may explain the recent college admission scandal "Operation Varsity Blue". If a student is WHITE and PRIVILEGED they are denied seats even if they deserve a seat based solely on merit. This may explain why California is the hot bed of the college admissions scandal- if your white and rich you are not getting into a UC even if you are in the top 12.5% of the state based on merit.

Admits

 

 

 

5,003   90.1% 

4,692   90.3%  3,568   69.2%  3,278  64.4% 3,139  62.7% 2,959  59.8% 2,796   56.8%  3,208   66.3%  2,892   59.9%  2,621   55.8% 
Admits of WHITE PRIVILEGED students from PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOLS have declined by 2,382 students (-47.6%) 

Enrolled

 

1,464

29.3%

1,202

 25.6%

1,199

 33.6%

1,058

32.3%

1,079

 34.4%

1,071

 36.2%

1,000

 35.8%

1,190

 37.1%

1,038

 35.9%

957

 36.5%

The Number of WHITE PRIVILEGED students from PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOLS that enrolled declined by 507 students, (-34.6%)

 

By Design, the University of California denied WHITE California resident students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class admission, and replaced them with WHITE OUT-OF-STATE students so that the percentage of WHITE  students entering as freshmen would reamain the constant.  

   

WHITE "OUT-OF-STATE" STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrollees  (not transfer students)

Freshmen   from Out-of-state High Schools

2009  2010 2011  AUDIT PERIOD

Audit  Report  Released  

2016 2017 2018
2012 2013 2014 2015

Applicants

 
5,826 5,568 5,772 8,395 9,596 10,884 12,736 13,845 13,265 13,124
Applications from WHITE OUT-OF-STATE students from OUT-OF-STATE HIGH SCHOOLS have increased by 7,298 students (225%) since 2009

Admits

 

 

 

2,170

37.2% 

 3,007

54.0%

4,435

76.8% 

5,690

67.8% 

5,492

57.2% 

5,551 

51.0%

6,298

49.5% 

6,904

49.9% 

7,096

53/5% 

7,005

53.3% 

Admits of WHITE OUT-OF-STATE students from OUT-OF-STATE HIGH SCHOOLS have increased by 4,835 students (+322.8%) 

Enrolled

 

 630 705  903  1,004  1,204  1,221  1,406  1,222  1,417  1,464 
The Number of OUT-OF-STATE students from OUT-OF-STATE HIGH SCHOOLS that enrolled increased by 834 students, (+232%)

 

WHITE INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrollees  (not transfer students)

The University of California does not break out International students by ethnicity in order to hide the fact that:

88% of International students are from Asia and the Middle East

12% are from the rest of the world

Of the 88% of International students from Asia and the Middle East, 61% are from a single country- The People's Republic of China

Screen_Shot_2019-09-15_at_6.03.33_AM.png

2018 Ethnicity of International Students enrolled at the University of California

Screen_Shot_2019-04-06_at_120503_PM.png

Source:

Data University of California Enrollment by Headcount 

2018 Fall Enrollment for Nonresidential International Students is 45,461

Source:

Fall Enrollment at a Glance [Ethnicity]: Data for "Sending Countries for Nonresident International Students" shows records for 163 Countries totaling 40,122 students. 

That is a difference of 5,339 students

Of that 421 students have "unknown ethnicities"

Of that 4 students have Invalid codes

4,914 students cannot be accounted for. 

Source: 

University of California Undergraduate Admissions Summary

"UC was to select from among the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the high school graduating class." [1960 Master Plan page 1] That specifically excludes Transfer students as part of that count.

Source:

[2010 Accountability Report]

 

 

"UC has shrunk the size of the freshman class in response to state budget cuts, but those reductions have been partially offset by increases in the enrollment of new community college transfer students. In addition, UC has begun to increase the proportion of nonresident students at its campuses." [2011 Accountability Report page 1] 

Source:

California State Auditor: The University of California- Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students Report Number: 2015-107

"From academic years 2010–11 through 2014–15, total nonresident enrollment at the university increased by 82 percent, or 18,000 students, while resident enrollment decreased by 2,200 students, or 1 percent."

The Auditor recommended that International undergraduate enrollment be limited to 5%

University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment

3 YEARS AFTER AUDIT

AUDIT

       AUDIT YEARS         (2010-2014)

2018

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2017

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2016

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2015

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2014

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2013

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

Total Undergraduate Enrollment 46,677 46,006  47,479  41,556  41,568  39,964 
California Resident  

37,393   80%

 36,991    80%  38,938    82%  30,127 79.5%  34,202   82.3%  33,229   83.1%
  Private School 3,591 7.69%

3,512   7.6% 

3,746  7.9% 3,098   7.5%  3,185  7.7%  3,136  7.8% 
  Public School 33,802 72.4%

33,479   72.8% 

35,192  74.1%  29,729 71.5%  31,017 74.6%  30,093  75.3% 
Non-Resident  9,284 20%  9,016    19.5%  8,541   18%  8,489   20.5%  7,366    17.8%  6,755   16.9%
  Out-Of-State 4,298 9.2%  4,060  8.7% 3,569 7.5% 3,729 9%  3,348 8.1%  3,133 7.8% 
   International 4,986 10.7%  4.956 10.8%  4,972 10.5% 4,760 11.5%  4,018 9.7%  3,622  9.1% 

University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment

AUDIT YEARS

  

2012

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Total Undergraduate Enrollment 38,731 36,343  32,422 34,242 36,538   35,251  
California Resident  

33,195 85.7%

32,223 88.7%  29,930   92.3%    32,391 94.6% 34,396 94.1%  33,497 95% 
  Private School 3,186

3,319

3,334 3,607 3,941 3,991
  Public School 30,009

28,904

26,596  28,784 30,455 29,506 
Non-Resident  5,536 14.3% 4120  11.3% 2,492  7.7%  1,841  5.4%  2,142   5.9%  1,754 5%
  Out-Of-State 2,575 (6.6%)  2,328 (6.4%) 1,574 (4.9%) 1,285 (3.8%) 1,501 (4.1%)  1,376 (3.9%)
   International 2,961 (7.6%) 1,792 (4.9%) 918 (2.8%) 556 (1.6%) 641 (1.8%) 378 (1.1%)

  

UC All Campuses 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment 35,328 31,464 29,545 31,866 31,514 30,495 
California Resident   33,523 94.9% 30,048 95.5%   28,095 95% 30,239 95%  29,784 94.5%  28,619 93.9% 
  Private School 4,015 3,695 3,549 3,934 3,861 3,771 
  Public School 29,508 26,353 24,546  26,305 25,923 24,848 
Non-Resident 1,805 5.1%  1,416 4.5%  1,450 5%  1,627 5%  1,730 5.5% 1,874  6.1%
  Out-Of-State 1,447 (4.1%) 1,176 (3.7%) 1,193 (4.1%) 1,353 (4.2%) 1,438 (4.5%) 1,578 (5.1%) 
  International 358 (1.01%)  240 (0.8%)  257 (0.9%) 274 (0.8%) 292 (1%) 296  (1%)

International 

Nonresident Students Asia

 30,271

66.59% 

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
China  24,387
South Korea 2,088
Taiwan 1,355
Indonesia 576
Japan 539
Vietnam 328
Malaysia 283
Singapore 277
Thailand  239
Phillippines 64
Myanmar  58
Macao 57
Cambodia 16
Brunei 3
North Korea 1

International 

Nonresident Students Central Asia

 9 

<1%

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
Turkmenistan 3
Uzbekistan 3
Kyrgyzstan 2
Tajikistan 1

International 

Nonresident Students India

 3,356 

7.38%

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
India 2,994
Bangladesh (Bengali) 150
Pakistan 116
Sri Lanka 40
Nepal 30
Mongolia (Mongoi) 25
Maldives 1

International 

Nonresident Students Middle East

 1,758 

3.87%

Ethnicity: US Census "White"
Iran (Persian) 556
Turkey (Turkish) 337
Israel (Jews) 74 
Baharan (Bahrani) 
Arab  391
Saudi Arabia (Arab) 223
Kuwait (Arab) 57 
Lebanon (Arab) 35
United Arab Emirates (Saudi Arabia) (Arab) 24
Jordan (Arab) 19
Iraq (Arab) 12
Oman (Arab) 5
Sudan (Arab) 5
Syria (Arab) 5
Qatar (Arab) 4
Palestine (Arab) 2

International 

Nonresident Students Africa

 247

<1%

Ethnicity: US Census "Black"
Nigeria 54
Kenya 35
South Africa 31
Ethiopia 16
Morocco 16
Ghana 15
Tunisia 9
Comoros 7
Rwanda 7
Cameroon 5
Cote D Ivoire 5
Botswana 5
Senegal 4
Sierra Leone 4
Uganda 4
Libya 4
Tanzania 3
Mauritius 3
Algeria 2
Congo (Brazzaville) 2
Zambia 2
Liberia 2
Benin 1
Burkina Faso 1
Eritrea 1
Gabon 1
Gambia 1
Guinea 1
Malawi 1
Mali 1
Mozambique 1
Niger 1
Togo 1
Zaire (Democratic republic of Congo 1

International 

Nonresident Students North America

Canada

 835

1.84% 

Ethnicity: White 
Candada 835

International 

Nonresident Students North America

Mexico

 351

<1% 

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino(a)
Mexico 351

International 

Nonresident Students Central America

 109

<1% 

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino(a)
Costa Rica  31 
Panama 13 
Guatemala 11
El Salvador  8
Bermuda 7
Jamaica 7
Dominican Republic 6
Honduras 6
Cuba 4
Belize 4
Saint Kitts 2
Haiti 2
Bahamas 2
Barbados 2
Antigua and Barbuda 1
Nicaragua 1
Grenada 1
St Vincent & St Thomas 1

International 

Nonresident Students South America

868 

1.91% 

   
Brazil 365
Chili 142
Columbia 123
Peru 72
Argentina 65
Ecuador 32
Venezuela 27
Trinidad & Tobago 19
Bolivia 8
Uruguay 7
Paraguay 5
Guyana 2
Suriname 1

International 

Nonresident Students Europe

1,898

4.18% 

Ethnicity: White (US Census) 
United Kingdom 339
France  244
Italy 185
Spain 177
Germany 164
Russia 152
Greece 97
Portugal 53
Netherlands 49
Kazakhstan 41
Belgium 38
Switzerland 37
Sweden 31
Poland 22
Ukraine 22
Norway 21
Austria 21
Finland 19
Denmark 18
Bulgaria 17
Ireland 17
Armenia 16
Serbia 16
Cyprus 14
Hungary 14
Czech Republic 13
Albania 10
Croatia 8
Georgia  8
Iceland 7
Azerbaijan 6
Lithuania 6
Slovenia 6
Latvia 5
Macedonia 5
Belarus 3
Estonia 3
Slovakia 3
Bosnia-Herzegovina 3
Kosovo 2
Monaco 2
Montenegro 2
Luxembourg 1
Netherland - Antilies 1
Northern Ireland 1
Scotland 1
Serbia & Montenegro 1

International 

Nonresident Students Oceana

 240

<1% 

Ethnicity: White 
Australia (White) 152
New Zealand (White) 85
Kiribati 2
Micronesia (White/Chamorro)  1

  

Admitted International students GPAs' and Test Scores are much lower than CA Resident Students

Source:

University of California Admission by Source School FR GPA by Year

  

 

On August 21, 2019 I made a formal presentation to the Capistrano Unified School District Board of Trustees, asking them to approve a Resolution In Support of Fair Admissions for California Resident Students to the University of California. 

I presented the board with data that showed that the University of California:

1) Is engaged in discriminatory admissions practices that place ONLY California resident students at a disadvantage for admission to a UC. Out-of-state, international and community college transfer students are admitted with much lower GPA's and lower test scores, and they are guaranteed admission to a campus of their choice while California residents students that graduate in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class are not.

2) Lacks diversity because it admits to many students from a single country,- the Peoples Republic of China. That is not "diversity". That is a national security risk for our country. The diversity on UC campuses is suppose to reflect the diversity of the State of California. It does not.

Diversity of California 2018 Census
African American  6.5%
American Indian   1.6%
 Chicano Latino  39.3%
Under Represented Groups   47.4%
Asian   15.3%
Pacific Islander   .05%
White   36.8%
Total 100%
 
Diversity at UC Schools
% of Asian's Domestic International
Berkeley 44% 38%  6%
Davis  52%  39%  13%
Irvine  60%  45%  15%
LA  43%  36%  7%
Merced   32%  29%  3%
Riverside   46%  40%  8%
San Diego   50%  39%  11%
Santa Barbara 47%  35%  12%
Santa Cruz 44%  33%  11%

 

3) Is engaged in affirmative action which violates California state law. The UC uses the profit from the sale of 10,700 seats to subsidize tuition and living expenses for a growing number of community college transfer students under a new TAG program. These students are admitted with lower GPA's and test scores and they are also guaranteed at least one campus of their choice. UC Berkeley, UCLA and UCSD are not included in the TAG program, but the other six campuses are. 

The University of California is a taxpayer funded public education institution. Because taxpayers fund these schools, California resident students are to be given priority over international and out-of state students. Janet Napolitano, as President of the University of California has, since her appointment in 2013, unilaterally; without the Board of Regents approval, changed admissions policies such that they no longer comply with state and federal laws, or the University of California Master Plan for Higher Education. 

 

THE DATA 

University of California Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrolles  (not transfer students)

Screen_Shot_2019-09-14_at_8.13.22_AM.png

 

WHITE STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrolles  (not transfer students)

ALL

WHITE

FRESHMAN

2009  2010 2011 AUDIT PERIOD

Audit  Report  Released  

2016 2017 2018
2012 2013 2014 2015

Applicants

 32,159 30,551 31,354 34,446 36,604 37,484 38,814 40,372 40,187 40,078
Applications from WHITE students have increased by 7,919 students (+ 24.6%) since 2009

Admits

 

26,244

81.6%

25,396

83,1%

22,952

73.2%

23,399

67.9%

23,101

63.1%

22,442

59.9%

22,134

57.0%

25,073

62.1.%

23,941

59.6%

22,874

57.1%

Admits of WHITE students have declined by 3,370 stduents (-24.5%) since 2009

Enrolled

 

10,127 

38.6%

9,195

36.2%

9,274

39.6%

9,039

38.6%

9,155

40.8%

9,081

40.5%

8,719

39.4%

9,790

39.0%

9,314

38.9%

8,871

38.8%

The Number of WHITE students that enrolled declined by 1,256 students, (-12.4%)

 

The percentage of WHITE STUDENTS who enrolled has remaind constant at 39% because the UC places highly qualified WHITE California resident students who did not receive an admission to a campus of their choice into a referral pool which offers them UC Merced as their only option. According to both the State Auditor and the LAO, 99.1% of the students placed into the referral pool decline enrollment to UC Merced because it is not an appropriate campus for these students (California's best and brightest- top 12.5% of their high school graduating class). These students should be guaranteed admission to at least one campus of their choice. These students are qualified to be admitted to flagship schools like UC Berkeley and UCLA.

All other entering freshmen; out-of-state and international, as well as California community college transfer students are guaranteed admission to at least one campus of their choice.

 

The University of California is engaged in race based admissions. 

Screen_Shot_2019-09-14_at_2.07.10_PM.png

INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION 

Treating a class of persons (WHITE STUDENTS) unequally (not guaranteed admission to at least one campus of their choice) in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging (these students are now forced to attend out-of-state or private colleges at an increased tuition cost of $40,000 per year to gain admission to "appropriate" campus).

 

WHITE STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrolles  (not transfer students)
Freshmen from California Public High Schools 2009  2010 2011  AUDIT PERIOD

Audit  Report  Released  

2016 2017 2018
2012 2013 2014 2015

Applicants

 

 

 
20,513 19,491 20,043 20,461 21,412 20,970 20,442 20,829 21,299 21,497
Applications from WHITE students from PUBLIC SCHOOL have increased by 984 students (4.8%) since 2009

Admits

 

 

 

 18,389  89.6%

17,541 90.0%

14,711 73.4% 14,141 69.1%   14,165 66.2%  13,581 64.8% 12,650  61.9% 14,473 69.5%  13,486  63.3% 12,837  59.7%
Admits of WHITE students from PUBLIC SCHOOLS have declined by 5,552 students (-30.2%) 

Enrolled

 

 7,988 7,239  7,103  6,890   6,759  6,662 6,178  7,227  6,704  6,324 
The Number of WHITE students graduating from PUBLIC SCHOOL that enrolled declined by 1,664 students, (20.8%%)

 

If you happen to be considered "WHITE" and "PRIVILEGED" then the chances of being admitted to a UC have declined by 48% since 2009. 

 

WHITE "PRIVILEGED" STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrolles  (not transfer students)

Freshmen   from California Private High Schools

2009  2010 2011  AUDIT PERIOD

Audit  Report  Released  

2016 2017 2018
2012 2013 2014 2015

Applicants

 
5,525 5,194 5,153 5,092 5,009 4,949 4,926 4,837 4,826 4,699
Applications from WHITE PRIVILEGED  students from PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOLS have declined by 826 students (-15%) since 2009. These families are no longer applying to UC's, and may explain the recent college admission scandal "Operation Varsity Blue". If a student is WHITE and PRIVILEGED they are denied seats even if they deserve a seat based solely on merit.

Admits

 

 

 

5,003   90.1% 

4,692   90.3%  3,568   69.2%  3,278  64.4% 3,139  62.7% 2,959  59.8% 2,796   56.8%  3,208   66.3%  2,892   59.9%  2,621   55.8% 
Admits of WHITE PRIVILEGED students from PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOLS have declined by 2,382 students (-47.6%) 

Enrolled

 

1,464

29.3%

1,202

 25.6%

1,199

 33.6%

1,058

32.3%

1,079

 34.4%

1,071

 36.2%

1,000

 35.8%

1,190

 37.1%

1,038

 35.9%

957

 36.5%

The Number of WHITE PRIVILEGED students from PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOLS that enrolled declined by 507 students, (-34.6%)

 

By Design, the University of California denied WHITE California resident students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class admission, and replaced them with WHITE OUT-OF-STATE students so that the percentage of WHITE  students entering as freshmen would reamain the constant.  

   

WHITE "OUT-OF-STATE" STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrollees  (not transfer students)

Freshmen   from Out-of-state High Schools

2009  2010 2011  AUDIT PERIOD

Audit  Report  Released  

2016 2017 2018
2012 2013 2014 2015

Applicants

 
5,826 5,568 5,772 8,395 9,596 10,884 12,736 13,845 13,265 13,124
Applications from WHITE OUT-OF-STATE students from OUT-OF-STATE HIGH SCHOOLS have increased by 7,298 students (225%) since 2009

Admits

 

 

 

2,170

37.2% 

 3,007

54.0%

4,435

76.8% 

5,690

67.8% 

5,492

57.2% 

5,551 

51.0%

6,298

49.5% 

6,904

49.9% 

7,096

53/5% 

7,005

53.3% 

Admits of WHITE OUT-OF-STATE students from OUT-OF-STATE HIGH SCHOOLS have increased by 4,835 students (+322.8%) 

Enrolled

 

 630 705  903  1,004  1,204  1,221  1,406  1,222  1,417  1,464 
The Number of OUT-OF-STATE students from OUT-OF-STATE HIGH SCHOOLS that enrolled increased by 834 students, (+232%)

 

WHITE INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS: Fall Freshman Applicants, Admits, Enrollees  (not transfer students)

The University of California does not break out International students by ethnicity in order to hide the fact that:

88% of International students are from Asia and the Middle East

12% are from the rest of the world

Of the 88% of International students from Asia and the Middle East, 61% are from a single country- The People's Republic of China

Screen_Shot_2019-09-15_at_6.03.33_AM.png

2018 Ethnicity of International Students enrolled at the University of California

Screen_Shot_2019-04-06_at_120503_PM.png

Source:

Data University of California Enrollment by Headcount 

2018 Fall Enrollment for Nonresidential International Students is 45,461

 

Source:

Fall Enrollment at a Glance [Ethnicity]: Data for "Sending Countries for Nonresident International Students" shows records for 163 Countries totaling 40,122 students. 

That is a difference of 5,339 students

Of that 421 students have "unknown ethnicities"

Of that 4 students have Invalid codes

4,914 students cannot be accounted for. 

 

Source: 

University of California Undergraduate Admissions Summary

"UC was to select from among the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the high school graduating class." [1960 Master Plan page 1] That specifically excludes Transfer students as part of that count.

 

Source:

[2010 Accountability Report]

"UC has shrunk the size of the freshman class in response to state budget cuts, but those reductions have been partially offset by increases in the enrollment of new community college transfer students. In addition, UC has begun to increase the proportion of nonresident students at its campuses." [2011 Accountability Report page 1] 

 

Source:

California State Auditor: The University of California- Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students Report Number: 2015-107

"From academic years 2010–11 through 2014–15, total nonresident enrollment at the university increased by 82 percent, or 18,000 students, while resident enrollment decreased by 2,200 students, or 1 percent."

The Auditor recommended that International undergraduate enrollment be limited to 5%

University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment

3 YEARS AFTER AUDIT

AUDIT

       AUDIT YEARS         (2010-2014)

2018

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2017

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2016

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2015

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2014

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2013

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

Total Undergraduate Enrollment 46,677 46,006  47,479  41,556  41,568  39,964 
California Resident  

37,393   80%

 36,991    80%  38,938    82%  30,127 79.5%  34,202   82.3%  33,229   83.1%
  Private School 3,591 7.69%

3,512   7.6% 

3,746  7.9% 3,098   7.5%  3,185  7.7%  3,136  7.8% 
  Public School 33,802 72.4%

33,479   72.8% 

35,192  74.1%  29,729 71.5%  31,017 74.6%  30,093  75.3% 
Non-Resident  9,284 20%  9,016    19.5%  8,541   18%  8,489   20.5%  7,366    17.8%  6,755   16.9%
  Out-Of-State 4,298 9.2%  4,060  8.7% 3,569 7.5% 3,729 9%  3,348 8.1%  3,133 7.8% 
   International 4,986 10.7%  4.956 10.8%  4,972 10.5% 4,760 11.5%  4,018 9.7%  3,622  9.1% 

 

University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment

AUDIT YEARS

  

2012

Out of Compliance with Master Plan Mandate 12.5%

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Total Undergraduate Enrollment 38,731 36,343  32,422 34,242 36,538   35,251  
California Resident  

33,195 85.7%

32,223 88.7%  29,930   92.3%    32,391 94.6% 34,396 94.1%  33,497 95% 
  Private School 3,186

3,319

3,334 3,607 3,941 3,991
  Public School 30,009

28,904

26,596  28,784 30,455 29,506 
Non-Resident  5,536 14.3% 4120  11.3% 2,492  7.7%  1,841  5.4%  2,142   5.9%  1,754 5%
  Out-Of-State 2,575 (6.6%)  2,328 (6.4%) 1,574 (4.9%) 1,285 (3.8%) 1,501 (4.1%)  1,376 (3.9%)
   International 2,961 (7.6%) 1,792 (4.9%) 918 (2.8%) 556 (1.6%) 641 (1.8%) 378 (1.1%)

  

UC All Campuses 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
University of California  Undergraduate Enrollment 35,328 31,464 29,545 31,866 31,514 30,495 
California Resident   33,523 94.9% 30,048 95.5%   28,095 95% 30,239 95%  29,784 94.5%  28,619 93.9% 
  Private School 4,015 3,695 3,549 3,934 3,861 3,771 
  Public School 29,508 26,353 24,546  26,305 25,923 24,848 
Non-Resident 1,805 5.1%  1,416 4.5%  1,450 5%  1,627 5%  1,730 5.5% 1,874  6.1%
  Out-Of-State 1,447 (4.1%) 1,176 (3.7%) 1,193 (4.1%) 1,353 (4.2%) 1,438 (4.5%) 1,578 (5.1%) 
  International 358 (1.01%)  240 (0.8%)  257 (0.9%) 274 (0.8%) 292 (1%) 296  (1%)

 

 

International 

Nonresident Students Asia

 30,271

66.59% 

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
China  24,387
South Korea 2,088
Taiwan 1,355
Indonesia 576
Japan 539
Vietnam 328
Malaysia 283
Singapore 277
Thailand  239
Phillippines 64
Myanmar  58
Macao 57
Cambodia 16
Brunei 3
North Korea 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Central Asia

 9 

<1%

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
Turkmenistan 3
Uzbekistan 3
Kyrgyzstan 2
Tajikistan 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students India

 3,356 

7.38%

Ethnicity: US Census "Asian"
India 2,994
Bangladesh (Bengali) 150
Pakistan 116
Sri Lanka 40
Nepal 30
Mongolia (Mongoi) 25
Maldives 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Middle East

 1,758 

3.87%

Ethnicity: US Census "White"
Iran (Persian) 556
Turkey (Turkish) 337
Israel (Jews) 74 
Baharan (Bahrani) 
Arab  391
Saudi Arabia (Arab) 223
Kuwait (Arab) 57 
Lebanon (Arab) 35
United Arab Emirates (Saudi Arabia) (Arab) 24
Jordan (Arab) 19
Iraq (Arab) 12
Oman (Arab) 5
Sudan (Arab) 5
Syria (Arab) 5
Qatar (Arab) 4
Palestine (Arab) 2

 

International 

Nonresident Students Africa

 247

<1%

Ethnicity: US Census "Black"
Nigeria 54
Kenya 35
South Africa 31
Ethiopia 16
Morocco 16
Ghana 15
Tunisia 9
Comoros 7
Rwanda 7
Cameroon 5
Cote D Ivoire 5
Botswana 5
Senegal 4
Sierra Leone 4
Uganda 4
Libya 4
Tanzania 3
Mauritius 3
Algeria 2
Congo (Brazzaville) 2
Zambia 2
Liberia 2
Benin 1
Burkina Faso 1
Eritrea 1
Gabon 1
Gambia 1
Guinea 1
Malawi 1
Mali 1
Mozambique 1
Niger 1
Togo 1
Zaire (Democratic republic of Congo 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students North America

Canada

 835

1.84% 

Ethnicity: White 
Candada 835

 

 

International 

Nonresident Students North America

Mexico

 351

<1% 

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino(a)
Mexico 351

 

International 

Nonresident Students Central America

 109

<1% 

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino(a)
Costa Rica  31 
Panama 13 
Guatemala 11
El Salvador  8
Bermuda 7
Jamaica 7
Dominican Republic 6
Honduras 6
Cuba 4
Belize 4
Saint Kitts 2
Haiti 2
Bahamas 2
Barbados 2
Antigua and Barbuda 1
Nicaragua 1
Grenada 1
St Vincent & St Thomas 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students South America

868 

1.91% 

   
Brazil 365
Chili 142
Columbia 123
Peru 72
Argentina 65
Ecuador 32
Venezuela 27
Trinidad & Tobago 19
Bolivia 8
Uruguay 7
Paraguay 5
Guyana 2
Suriname 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Europe

1,898

4.18% 

Ethnicity: White (US Census) 
United Kingdom 339
France  244
Italy 185
Spain 177
Germany 164
Russia 152
Greece 97
Portugal 53
Netherlands 49
Kazakhstan 41
Belgium 38
Switzerland 37
Sweden 31
Poland 22
Ukraine 22
Norway 21
Austria 21
Finland 19
Denmark 18
Bulgaria 17
Ireland 17
Armenia 16
Serbia 16
Cyprus 14
Hungary 14
Czech Republic 13
Albania 10
Croatia 8
Georgia  8
Iceland 7
Azerbaijan 6
Lithuania 6
Slovenia 6
Latvia 5
Macedonia 5
Belarus 3
Estonia 3
Slovakia 3
Bosnia-Herzegovina 3
Kosovo 2
Monaco 2
Montenegro 2
Luxembourg 1
Netherland - Antilies 1
Northern Ireland 1
Scotland 1
Serbia & Montenegro 1

 

International 

Nonresident Students Oceana

 240

<1% 

Ethnicity: White 
Australia (White) 152
New Zealand (White) 85
Kiribati 2
Micronesia (White/Chamorro)  1

  

Admitted International students GPAs' and Test Scores are much lower than CA Resident Students

Source:

University of California Admission by Source School FR GPA by Year

 

  

 

 

From the Audit

Source: Fact Sheet

Screen_Shot_2019-09-15_at_6.25.51_AM.png 

BACKGROUND
Providing higher education to more than 250,000 students at its 10 campuses, the University of California (university) is administered by a 26-member independent governing board of regents and led by a president. Its Office of the President is the systemwide headquarters and is charged with managing the university’s fiscal and business operations. Campus operations are managed by a chancellor at each campus. University operations are funded by both public and private sources: the State’s General Fund made up about 10 percent of its revenues in fiscal year 2014-15, while tuition and fees contributed 14 percent. All students—residents and nonresidents—pay the same base tuition amount and student services fee (mandatory fees). Nonresidents also pay a supplemental tuition amount.

KEY FINDINGS
During our audit of the university’s enrollment, executive compensation, and budget, we noted the following:

  • Over the past several years, the university has undermined its commitment to residents in an effort to increase its revenue by recruiting and enrolling nonresidents.

Despite a 52 percent increase in resident applicants, resident enrollment increased by only 10 percent over the last 10 years while nonresident enrollment increased by 432 percent.

The university lowered the admission standard for nonresidents and admitted nearly 16,000 nonresidents over the past three years with lower academic scores than the upper half of admitted residents. 

Admitted residents were increasingly denied their campus of choice, yet admitted nonresidents were always admitted to one of their campuses of choice.

Mandatory fees doubled for residents while they increased for nonresidents at a much lower rate.

  • The university encouraged campuses to maximize nonresident enrollment by allowing campuses to retain the nonresident tuition and setting separate enrollment targets for residents and nonresidents.
  • Despite recent increases in state funding, the university continued to enroll nonresidents. In fact, total revenue generated from nonresident enrollment grew from nearly $325 million to $728 million over the past five years.
  • Increased nonresident enrollment has hindered the efforts to enroll more underrepresented minorities—last year only 11 percent of enrolled nonresident domestic undergraduates were from an underrepresented minority.
  • Although the university claims that the state funding shortfalls forced it to seek alternative funding, such as increasing the number of nonresidents and increasing resident tuition, it did not first sufficiently reduce its costs.

University employees’ gross earnings increased by nearly $5 billion over the past 10 years—top executives earned over $400,000 in fiscal year 2014-15 in addition to receiving generous benefits.

It claimed over $660 million in savings or new revenue from its Working Smarter Initiative projects yet could not substantiate these amounts.

It increased recruiting expenses for nonresidents by 400 percent over the last five years.

It does not adequately track and monitor campuses’ spending of state funds or nonresident tuition revenue.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommended that the Legislature consider limiting the number of nonresidents that the university can enroll. We also made numerous recommendations to the university, including that it perform the following:

  • Revise its admissions standard for nonresidents to admit only nonresidents with admissions credentials that place them in the upper half of the residents it admits.
  • Improve internal operations, promote savings related to employee costs, and monitor campus spending.
  • Maximize savings and new revenue from its initiatives and mandate that campuses participate in the initiatives. 

Screen_Shot_2019-09-15_at_6.37.50_AM.png

 

 

Summary

Results in brief

The University of California (university) is one of the premier public university systems in the nation, enrolling more than 252,000 students  at its 10 campuses as of the fall of 2014. As a public institution, the university should serve primarily those who provide for its financial and civic support—California residents. However, over the past several years, the university has failed to put the needs of residents first. In response to reduced state funding, it has made substantial efforts to enroll more nonresident students, who pay significantly more annual tuition and mandatory fees than resident students—$37,000 compared to $12,240 in academic year 2014–15. The results are stark: From academic years 2010–11 through 2014–15, total nonresident enrollment at the university increased by 82 percent, or 18,000 students, while resident enrollment decreased by 2,200 students, or 1 percent.

The decision to increase nonresident enrollment has had profound repercussions for residents who apply for admission. According to the Master Plan for Higher Education in California (Master Plan), which proposed the roles for each of the State’s institutions of higher education, the university should select for admission from the top 12.5 percent of the State’s high school graduating class. Based on the university’s interpretation, to comply with the Master Plan, the university guarantees admission to all residents who meet this standard, although not necessarily at the campuses of their choice. Although the university stated that its decision to enroll more nonresidents has not precluded it from meeting its Master Plan commitment to admit qualified residents, we do not believe that the university has sufficiently substantiated this claim.

Specifically, the Master Plan recommends that nonresidents possess academic qualifications that are equivalent to those of the upper half of residents who are eligible for admission. That is, nonresidents should demonstrate higher qualifications than the median for residents. However, in 2011 the university modified its admission standard to state that nonresidents need only to “compare favorably” to residents. During a three-year period after this change, the university admitted nearly 16,000 nonresidents whose academic scores fell below the median for admitted residents at the same campus on every grade point average and admission test score we evaluated. By admitting nonresidents with lower academic qualifications on these key indicators than the median for residents it admitted, the university essentially deprived admittance to highly qualified residents. 

     Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_5.45.45_AM.png

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_5.41.18_AM.png 

 

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_6.15.00_AM.pngScreen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_6.12.24_AM.png

 

 

 

 

To increase tuition revenue in the face of state funding shortfalls, the university implemented two key procedural changes that encouraged campuses to maximize nonresident enrollment. In 2008 the university began allowing the campuses to retain the nonresident supplemental tuition revenue (nonresident revenue) they generated rather than remitting these funds to the Office of the President, which resulted in campuses focusing resources on enrolling additional nonresidents. Also in 2008, the Office of the President began establishing separate enrollment targets— systemwide targets for the number of students each campus should strive to enroll each year—for nonresidents and residents, and it allowed each campus to establish its own separate enrollment targets. In subsequent years, each of the four campuses we visited— Davis, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Barbara—increased their individual campus enrollment targets for nonresidents at a faster rate than their targets for residents. These two procedural changes satisfied the university’s goal: In fiscal year 2014–15 the university generated $728 million from the supplemental tuition that nonresidents paid—a growth of $403 million, or 124 percent, from fiscal year 2010–11.

Furthermore, over the past 10 years, the university began denying admission to an increasing number of residents to the campuses of their choice. If residents are eligible for admission to the university and are not offered admission to the campuses of their choice, the university offers them spots at an alternative campus through what it calls a referral process. In contrast, nonresidents, if admitted, are always admitted to at least one campus of their choice. Of particular concern is that, over the same time period, the university’s campuses denied admission to nearly 4,300 residents whose academic scores met or exceeded all of the median scores for nonresidents whom the university admitted to the campus of their choice. According to the university, the referral process is critical to it meeting its Master Plan commitment to admit the top 12.5 percent of residents. However, few of the residents whom the university admits and refers to an alternate campus ultimately enroll. In academic year 2014–15 for example, 55 percent of residents to whom the university offered admission to one of the campuses to which they applied enrolled, while only 2 percent of the 10,700 residents placed in the referral pool enrolled.

According to the university, it estimated that it admitted the top 14.9 percent of the eligible California high school graduating class in academic year 2014–15, which included the residents in the referral pool. If we exclude the residents placed in the referral pool and who did not ultimately enroll at the referral campus, the university actually admitted 12.4 percent of the California high school graduating class—less than the 12.5 percent Master Plan commitment. Because placements in the referral

 


 

 

 

pool result in significantly fewer enrollments of residents than admissions to their campus of choice, we question whether the university should include the residents in the referral pool when computing its admission of the top 12.5 percent of California high school graduates.

The university’s admission decisions have also hampered its efforts to meet its own and the Legislature’s desire that the university’s student body reflect the diversity of the State. While underrepresented minorities—which the university considers to be Chicanos/Latinos, African Americans, and American Indians— represent 45 percent of California’s population, they make up 30 percent of the university’s overall undergraduate population. Although nonresidents bring geographic diversity to the university, only 11 percent of domestic undergraduate nonresidents were from underrepresented minorities as of academic year 2014–15. The university will struggle to ensure that its student population reflects the diversity of the State if it continues to increase nonresident enrollment.

In reaction to state funding reductions, the university has doubled resident mandatory fees—base tuition and the student services fee—over the past 10 years, which has made it difficult for California families to afford and budget for this important investment. We expected the university to justify these tuition increases by basing resident tuition on the actual costs to educate students. However, the university has not conducted a usable study to determine those costs, thereby limiting its ability to appropriately justify tuition increases. Although the university produced a report on the total costs of education that the Legislature required, the university cautioned that decision makers should not use the report as a solid rationale for policy decisions or resource allocations because the university used many assumptions, estimates, and proxies to calculate the costs it included in the report. That cost study is also problematic because the source of the data it uses does not tie to readily available public financial data, such as its audited annual financial report.

The university could have taken additional steps to generate savings and revenue internally to mitigate the impact of its admissions and financial decisions on residents. For example, the Legislature required the university to enroll an additional 5,000 residents in academic year 2016–17 as a condition of receiving $25 million in state funds. While the university estimates these 5,000 students will cost approximately $50 million to educate, or $10,000 per student, in addition to the tuition they pay, it has not conducted a study to support that estimate. The university plans to use its other funding sources to pay for the remaining $25 million,

     Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_6.29.55_AM.png

 Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_6.30.03_AM.png

 

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_10.30.21_AM.png

 

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_6.12.24_AM.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

primarily by not offering financial aid to new nonresidents. These actions suggest that the university has the ability to use funds that it had dedicated for other purposes to enroll additional residents.

We also identified key areas in which the university could have reduced its costs in recent years, thus making funds available to enroll more residents. For example, the university’s spending on employee salaries increased in eight of the last nine fiscal years despite the State’s fiscal crisis. By fiscal year 2014–15, its annual salary costs had risen to $13 billion. The university also paid its top executives significantly more than employees in other high-level state positions receive: 14 of 15 of those in its top leadership positions earned at least $400,000 in fiscal year 2014–15, which was significantly more than the executive branch paid the governor and directors of several large state departments. Although the salaries of the university’s chancellors rank low in comparison to other higher education and research institutions, the university could do more to help justify its salaries and benefits by conducting regular compensation and benefits studies.

Moreover, the university could have engaged in cost-saving efforts related to one of its initiatives and to recruiting. Specifically, the university did not maximize the benefits that it could have achieved through an initiative it developed in 2010 called Working Smarter, which the university asserts generated $664 million in savings and new revenue. The university’s goal for Working Smarter was to generate administrative savings and new revenue sources that it could redirect to the university’s academic and research missions. However, the university is unable to substantiate the $664 million of savings and new revenue that it asserts the initiative achieved or even how much the university redirected to its academic and research missions. In addition, the university does not require campus participation in the initiative, nor does it centrally manage the savings or revenue that the campuses generate. The university estimates that if it had achieved a campus participation rate of 80 percent for one program alone, it would have generated $9 million of additional savings. We also found that in fiscal year 2014–15, the university spent $4.5 million to recruit undergraduate nonresidents, a 400 percent increase over the previous five years. A reasonable limit on nonresident recruiting expenditures could have resulted in significant savings for the university.

Additionally, the university publicly claimed in its operating budgets that increased enrollment of nonresidents has allowed it to enroll more residents. The university subsequently clarified to us that nonresident revenue has enabled campuses to continue to enroll residents above state-funded levels. However, the number of residents enrolled at the university actually decreased by 2,200 students—or 1 percent—from fiscal years 2010–11

 


 

 

 

 

through 2014–15 while nonresident enrollment increased by 18,000 students, or 82 percent. Thus, contrary to the university’s claim, the amount of nonresident revenue the campuses received has not had a significant impact on the number of residents that they enrolled. In fact, our review of each campus’s spending of nonresident revenue revealed that they spent these funds across a variety of areas, not all of which directly benefited residents.

The university also did not sufficiently monitor 18 programs that do not directly relate to teaching students but which nonetheless received $337 million in state funds for fiscal year 2014–15. Although these programs may provide indirect and important benefits to students, the university has not regularly evaluated its need to continue funding them through state appropriations rather than seeking alternative funding sources. For example, the university acknowledged that it could potentially find alternative sources of funding for two programs to which it allocated $33 million in state funding in fiscal year 2014–15.

In addition, the university’s efforts to equalize its per-student state funding across its campuses did not completely address past concerns regarding its methods for allocating state funding. After our 2011 audit identified inequity in per-student funding among the campuses and a lack of transparency in how the university distributes funds, the university embarked in 2012 on an effort to address these concerns, which it refers to as rebenching. However, we identified several problems with rebenching, including the fact that the university based the formula it uses to redistribute funds not on the actual costs to educate different types of students but instead on costs it judgmentally assigned.

Moreover, the university made allocation decisions that excluded $886 million in state funds from the amount it distributed to campuses through per-student funding for fiscal year 2014–15. This amount represented nearly one-third of the university’s total state funding for that year, significantly affecting the amount of per-student funding each campus received. Specifically, if the university includes all funds that the State provides to the university, per-student funding would be as much as $10,900 per student or as little as $7,600 per student if the university continues to exclude that state funding.

Although the university’s actions may be justified, this information is not transparent or easily accessible to stakeholders. Furthermore, not including nonresident revenue in a per-student funding calculation contributes to the persistence of per-student funding inequities among the campuses. These funding inequities have continued to disproportionately affect underrepresented minority students. Specifically, the highest-funded campuses

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_10.46.31_AM.png     

 Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_6.30.03_AM.png

 

 

 

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_10.55.13_AM.png

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_6.30.03_AM.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

when we include nonresident revenue—Berkeley, Los Angeles, and San Diego—are among the four campuses with the lowest percentage of underrepresented minority students.

During our audit, the university stated its intent to address several of the key concerns that we raise in this report. In November 2015 the university committed to enrolling an additional 10,000 residents over the next three academic years. In addition, the university addressed two of the flaws we identified in its efforts to equalize per-student state funding. Nonetheless, because of the significant adverse repercussions for residents and their families resulting from the university’s past actions, legislative intervention is necessary to ensure that a university education once again becomes attainable and affordable for all California residents who are qualified and desire to attend.

Specifically, the Legislature should consider limiting the percentage of undergraduate nonresidents that the university can enroll each year. Between academic years 2005–06 and 2007–08— before the fiscal crisis—nonresidents comprised about 5 percent of the university’s new undergraduate enrollment. By academic year 2014–15, that percentage had climbed to more than 17 percent, which translated into more than 7,200 additional new nonresident undergraduates enrolled over a 5 percent limit. Implementing a 5 percent limit on new nonresident enrollment would allow the university to enroll an equivalent number of additional new resident undergraduate students per year—about 7,200—more than the number it enrolled in academic year 2014–15.

Requiring the university to enroll these additional residents would necessitate an increased annual financial commitment from both the university and the State to compensate for the increased enrollment of resident undergraduates and the decrease of nonresidents. If the Legislature were to commit additional funds to the university for the purpose of meeting agreed-upon enrollment percentages, it could do so using a phased-in approach. Specifically, the Legislature could require the university to meet enrollment targets within, for example, four years, and it could provide the university with incremental increases in appropriations each year until the university reaches those targets. 

 


 

 

 

 

Recommendations To meet its commitment to California residents, the university should do the following:

Revise its admission standard for nonresidents to reflect the intent of the Master Plan. The admission standard should require campuses to admit only nonresidents with admissions credentials that place them in the upper half of the residents it admits.

• Amend its referral process by taking steps to increase the likelihood that referred residents ultimately enroll.

To ensure that the university meets its commitment to residents and to bring transparency and accountability to admission outcomes, the Legislature should consider excluding the students who the university places in the referral pool and who do not ultimately enroll at the referral campus when calculating the university’s Master Plan admission rate until the percentage of students who enroll through the referral process more closely aligns with the admission percentages of the other campuses.

The university should conduct a cost study at least every three to five years and ensure that it represents the costs to educate students and contains amounts that are based upon publicly available financial reports. The university should use the results of the cost study as a basis for the tuition it charges and for the proposed funding needs that it presents to the Legislature.

To ensure that it has accurate information upon which to make funding decisions, the Legislature should consider amending the state law that requires the university to prepare a biennial cost study. The amendment should include requirements for the university to differentiate costs by student academic levels and discipline and to base the amounts it reports on publicly available financial information.

To ensure that the university does not base future admission decisions on the revenue that students generate and to make the university more accessible to California residents, the Legislature should consider amending state law to limit the percentage of nonresidents that the university can enroll each year. For example, it could limit nonresident undergraduate enrollment to 5 percent of total undergraduate enrollment. Moreover, the Legislature should consider basing the university’s annual appropriations upon its enrollment of agreed-upon percentages of residents and nonresidents.

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_11.07.24_AM.png     

 Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_6.30.03_AM.png

 

 

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_11.13.50_AM.png

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_6.30.03_AM.png

 

 

 

 

 

To improve its internal operations and promote cost savings related to the $13 billion it spent on employee salaries in fiscal year 2014–15, the university should conduct a systemwide assessment to identify ways to streamline and reduce its employee costs.

To maximize the savings and new revenue from the Working Smarter initiative and ensure that the university uses those funds for its academic and research missions, the Office of the President should:

• Immediately require that the campuses fully participate in all projects.

 

• To the extent possible, implement a process to centrally direct these funds and ensure that it can substantiate any actual savings and new revenue generated.

To ensure that its recruiting efforts benefit residents, the university should prioritize recruiting residents over nonresidents and establish a limit on the amount of funds it spends to recruit nonresidents. In particular, the university should focus its efforts broadly to ensure that it effectively recruits residents who are from underrepresented minorities.

The university should track the use of state funds for programs that do not directly relate to educating students, annually reevaluate these programs to determine whether they continue to be necessary, and explore whether they could be funded from alternate sources.

To increase its transparency and help ensure that it can justify its spending decisions, the university should make publicly available how it allocates state funding to the campuses and to other programs or uses.

To ensure that its rebenching efforts lead to equalized per-student funding among the campuses, the university should update the costs it uses in its formula every three to five years to ensure that they reflect the actual costs of instruction.

Agency Comments

The university disagreed with a key conclusion of our report—that increasing nonresident enrollment has disadvantaged California resident students. However, in its response the university did not provide evidence that refuted our conclusion nor did it

 

 

 

 



identify any factual errors with our draft report. Nevertheless, the university indicated that it plans to implement only seven of our 21 recommendations.

We are disappointed that the university objects to many of our recommendations despite clear evidence that improvements are needed. Beginning on page 105 we provide our perspective on the university’s response to our report.

     Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_11.18.49_AM.png

 Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_6.30.03_AM.png

 

 

 

 
Introduction

Background

The Legislature founded the University of California (university) in 1868 as a public, state-supported, land-grant institution. The California Constitution established the university as a public trust, to be administered by the Regents of the University of California (regents), an independent governing board with full powers of organization and government that is subject to legislative oversight only in certain circumstances. The regents consist of 26 members: 18 members appointed by the governor with the approval of the California Senate; seven ex officio members, including the governor, the speaker of the assembly, and the president of the university; and one student member appointed by the regents.

The head of the university is the president, to whom the regents granted full authority and responsibility over the administration of all the university’s affairs and operations. The university’s Office of the President is the systemwide headquarters of the university. It manages the university’s fiscal and business operations, and it also supports its academic and research missions across its campuses, laboratories, and medical centers. A chancellor at each campus is responsible for managing campus operations. The Academic Senate determines conditions for admission; establishes degree requirements; approves courses and curricula; and advises the university on faculty appointments, promotions, and budgets.

The Master Plan for Higher Education in California

In 1960, the State Board of Education and the regents approved in principle the Master Plan for Higher Education in California (Master Plan), which proposed the roles of the university and the other parts of the system of state-supported postsecondary education in California. The Legislature subsequently passed the Donahoe Higher Education Act, which enacted into law many Master Plan recommendations, such as defining the distinct missions of the three public higher education segments. Over the years, the Master Plan has been updated and the Donahoe Higher Education Act has been amended; however, according to the university, significant principles from the original Master Plan were not enacted into law.

The major features of the Master Plan include the assignment of different functions and different admission pools for the university, the state colleges, and the community colleges. The university is to select from among the top one-eighth (12.5 percent) of the State’s high school graduating class, while the state colleges (the California State University system) are to select from among

     Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_12.57.05_PM.png

 Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_6.30.03_AM.png

Comment by Taxpayer and Student Advocate Dawn Urbanek

Since 2013, Janet Napolitano, as President of the University of California, has used her office and the UC system to promote a progressive political agenda that seeks to re-distribute wealth, engage in affirmative action, and promote social justice and green new deal policies using taxpayer money. 

As president of the University of California, Janet Napolitano is given taxpayer money to fund initiatives. When you see the initiatives, ask why a University system that is claiming they lack adequate funding to provide a seat for all qualified California resident students, has funding for political initiatives.

Source: University of California Office of the President at page 41

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_10.42.03_AM.png

Carbon Neutrality Initiative 2020: $1,380,383

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_10.52.00_AM.png

Global Food Initative 2020: $496,000

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_10.54.22_AM.pngStudent Public Service Fellowships 2020: $168,142
Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_10.56.55_AM.pngPublic Service Law Fellowships 2020: $5,080,000

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_10.58.44_AM.png

UC- Mexico Innitiative 2020: -0- 

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_11.02.26_AM.png

UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement 2020: $565,000

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_11.03.13_AM.png

Undocumented Students Initiative -0-

By agreement the State is now funding this directly . 

After the 2015 Audit, the State agreed to increase funding to create an additional 10,000 seats. All of these seats went to community college transfer students, most under the Undocumented Students Initiative. Very few new seats were created for recent high school graduates.

"1In FY19-20, the State will directlly fund UCIMM1 at $1.3 million per year and UCOP support for the UCIMM Student Services and Financial Aid will be combined into the Undocumented Students Campus Program"

Types of Aid  

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_11.06.33_AM.png

 

The following two programs are on the UCOP web site as well, but not in the 2019-20 budget report.

Documentation from March 14, 2018 Office of the President To members of the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee:

Cuba Faculty Matching Funds $1.5 million 

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_11.51.09_AM.png

Smoke and Tobacco Free Student Fellowships

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_11.52.01_AM.png

 

The University of California is engaged in Race Based Admissions and Affirmative Action

 

Affirmative Action

Under a new Community College TAG program (Transfer Access Guarantee), the University of California guarantees admission to community college transfer students at reduced costs (subsidized tuition and living expenses). These Transfer students are admitted by completing 7 courses at community college earning a 2.4 GPA (2.8 GPA for nonresident students). While there should be a path for community college students to transfer to the UC, the California Master Plan Mandate never intended to guarantee community college transfer students a place within the UC system if it would displace a recent high school graduate in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class

California resident students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class are guaranteed a seat by the State of California and the University of California based soley on merit, as a matter of law. After they are placed, the University of California may admit students for all remaining seats under a holistic review which would allow students with lower test scores and GPA's to be considered.

The University of California's new TAG program is Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is illegal in the state of California.

 

The Fisher Case

Fisher v University of Texas at Austin (June 23, 2016)

"The Court is asked once again to consider whether the race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause."

Under the recent Supreme Court Case Fisher v University of Texas at Austin a public University system must first, provide an appropriate seat for all highly qualified resident students as defined by State law. In the Fisher case, governed by Texas law, that was the top 10% of the State's high school graduating seniors. Fisher was not in the top 10%. The Fischer case challenged the University of Texas's use of "holistic review" to determine admission for students who were not guaranteed admission by state law based solely on merit.

In California, merit based admission is guaranteed to the top 12.5% of the state's high school graduating seniors.

Students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class are to be admitted based solely on merit in order to comply with State law and the University's Master Plan mandate. 

Public Universities are then allowed to use a "holistic review" of students for admission for all remaining seats.  Under Fischer, using a holistic review for all students that result in denying admission to students mandated by law to be guaranteed a seat based solely on merit would be violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and would not be protected under Fisher.

"A holistic review in admissions considers income level, first-generation status, neighborhood circumstances, disadvantages overcome, low-performing secondary school attended, and the impact of an applicant’s background on academic achievement. Factors in selection for scholarships or employment may include applicants’ ability to contribute to a diverse educational or working environment, and/or their potential for leadership in increasing equitable access to higher education." 

 

College Board's Access and Diversity Collaborative

"Holistic Review" and "Race- Conscious Admissions and Enrollment" 

The University of California Office of the President, UCLA and UCI are part of the College Board's Access and Diversity Collaborative which seeks to circumvent laws against affirmative action and admissions based on merit. The State Legislature and the Attorney General must work with the UC Board of Regents to see that the admissions process is fair to California resident students and complies with state and federal laws. 

The UC should be admonished for sharing personally identifiable student data with College Board for the purpose of creating an "adversity score" that will be added to SAT test scores resulting in more admissions based on "holistic review", and less admissions based on merit. See: CUSDWatch: see the Organizations behind 2020's "Affirmative Action Pilot" College Board's Access and Diversity Collaborative"Holistic Review" and "Race- Conscious Admissions and Enrollment" 

College Board's Access & Diversity Collaborative was formed in response to the Supreme Court Case Fisher v University of Texas at Austin which ruled that the University of Texas' use of race as a consideration in the "holistic review" portion of admissions process did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Did the ruling open a door to reviving afirmative action in college admissions?

The Decision was very narrow and specific to the University of Texas's at Austins admissions policy. Race can only be used in admissions decisions in the holistic review of a students Personal Achievement Index. The decision does not allow public educational  instutions to engage in raced based affirmative action.

The University of Texas had an undergraduate admissions policy made of two components:

Part One: As required by Texas law, any student who graduates from a Texas high school in the top 10% of their high school graduating class is guaranteed admission to the University of Texas.

Part Two: The remainder of the incoming freshman class (25%) is filled by combining an applicant's "Academic Index" (the students SAT/ACT score and high school academic performance) with a holistic review a student's background.

"A holistic review in admissions considers income level, first-generation status, neighborhood circumstances, disadvantages overcome, low-performing secondary school attended, and the impact of an applicant’s background on academic achievement. Factors in selection for scholarships or employment may include applicants’ ability to contribute to a diverse educational or working environment, and/or their potential for leadership in increasing equitable access to higher education." 

University of Califonria: Guideines for Enhancing Diversity at UC in Context of Proposition 209, page 3

While the Fisher case ruled that it is legal to use race as a factor in the holistic review of a students background, public educational institutions cannot engage in affirmative action. 

In fact, many states have laws in place that eliminate a pubic educational institutuion's ability to grant preferences to any student based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. 

Proposition 209, California Affirmative Action (1996) prohibits public institutions in California from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity. 

"The Access & Diversity Collaborative is a major College Board Advocacy & Policy Center initiative that was established in the immediate wake of the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court University of Michigan decisions to address the key questions of law, policy, and practice posed by higher education leaders and enrollment officials. The Collaborative provides general policy, practice, legal, and strategic guidance to colleges, universities, and state systems of higher education to support their independent development and implementation of access- and diversity-related enrollment policies — principally through in-person seminars and workshops, published manuals and white papers/policy briefs, and professional development videos."

After tremendous backlash over SAT's "Adversity Score", the College Board & the Diversity Collaborative has renamed it's Affirmative Action pilot "Landscape". Under Landscape, the University of California will continue to deny seats to greater and greater numbbers of California resident students- especially those that the UC preceives to be WHITE, and/or PRIVILEGED. 

For the Class of 2020, the UC has announced that it will only be "guaranteeing" seats to recent high school graduates in the Top 12.5% of their high school graduating class on a space available basis.

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_4.10.53_AM.png

August 2016 Implications from Fisher II: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Guidance for Institutions of Higher Education Regarding Race-Conscious Enrollment Practices

The Access & Diversity Collaborative:  Institutional Sponsors

1. Austin College

2. Barnard College

3. Boston College

4. Bryn Mawr College

5. Cornell University

6. Dartmouth College

7. Davidson College

8. Emerson College

9. Florida International University

10. Florida State University

11. James Madison University

12. Miami University

13. Mount Holyoke College

14. Northeastern University

15. The Ohio State University

16. Pomona College

17. Princeton University

18. Purdue University

19. Rice University

20. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

21. Smith College

22. Southern Methodist University

23. Stanford University

24. Syracuse University

25. Texas A&M University

26. University of California, Office of the President

27. University of California, Irvine

28. University of California, Los Angeles

29. University of Connecticut

30. University of Florida

31. University of Georgia

32. University of Illinois

33. University of Maryland, College Park

34. University of Michigan

35. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

36. University of Nevada, Reno

37. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

38. University of the Pacific

39. University of Pennsylvania

40. University of San Francisco

41. University of Southern California

42. University of Texas at Austin

43. University of Tulsa

44. University of Vermont

45. University of Virginia

46. University of Washington

47. Vanderbilt University

48. Vassar College

49. Virginia Tech

50. Wellesley College

51. Wesleyan University

 

 

Additional Highlights from 2015 Audit: 

Introduction

Background

The Legislature founded the University of California (university) in 1868 as a public, state-supported, land-grant institution. The California Constitution established the university as a public trust, to be administered by the Regents of the University of California (regents), an independent governing board with full powers of organization and government that is subject to legislative oversight only in certain circumstances. The regents consist of 26 members: 18 members appointed by the governor with the approval of the California Senate; seven ex officio members, including the governor, the speaker of the assembly, and the president of the university; and one student member appointed by the regents.

The head of the university is the president, to whom the regents granted full authority and responsibility over the administration of all the university’s affairs and operations. The university’s Office of the President is the systemwide headquarters of the university. It manages the university’s fiscal and business operations, and it also supports its academic and research missions across its campuses, laboratories, and medical centers. A chancellor at each campus is responsible for managing campus operations. The Academic Senate determines conditions for admission; establishes degree requirements; approves courses and curricula; and advises the university on faculty appointments, promotions, and budgets.

The Master Plan for Higher Education in California

In 1960, the State Board of Education and the regents approved in principle the Master Plan for Higher Education in California (Master Plan), which proposed the roles of the university and the other parts of the system of state-supported postsecondary education in California. The Legislature subsequently passed the Donahoe Higher Education Act, which enacted into law many Master Plan recommendations, such as defining the distinct missions of the three public higher education segments. Over the years, the Master Plan has been updated and the Donahoe Higher Education Act has been amended; however, according to the university, significant principles from the original Master Plan were not enacted into law.

The major features of the Master Plan include the assignment of different functions and different admission pools for the university, the state colleges, and the community colleges. The university is to select from among the top one-eighth (12.5 percent) of the State’s high school graduating class, while the state colleges (the California State University system) are to select from among the top one‑third (33.3 percent). The California Community College system is to admit any resident high school graduate and adult who could benefit from postsecondary instruction. The university’s interpretation of the Master Plan is that it will offer all California residents in the top one-eighth of the statewide high school graduating class who apply on time a place somewhere in the university system but not necessarily at the campus of their choice.

Funding:

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_4.53.52_AM.png

 

Highlights from the 2016 Audit: Report Number 2016-201 

Source: Summary Highlights

Screen_Shot_2019-09-15_at_6.52.56_AM.png

Our audit of the University of California Office of the President’s budget and staffing processes revealed the following:

  • The Office of the President did not disclose to the University of California Board of Regents, the Legislature, and the public $175 million in budget reserve funds.
    • It spent significantly less than it budgeted for and asked for increases based on its previous years’ over‑estimated budgets rather than its actual expenditures.
    • It created an undisclosed budget to spend the reserve funds; the budget ranged from $77 million to $114 million during a four-year period.
    • The reserve included $32 million in unspent funds it received from an annual charge levied on the campuses—funds that campuses could have spent on students.
  • The Office of the President’s executive and administrative salaries are significantly higher than comparable state employee salaries.
  • During a five-year period, the Office of the President spent at least $21.6 million on employee benefits some of which are atypical to the public sector, such as supplemental retirement contributions.
  • The Office of the President has failed to satisfactorily justify its spending on systemwide initiatives, and it does not evaluate these programs’ continued priority or cost.
  • Both Office of the President and campus administrative spending increased and annual budget and staffing levels for the Office of the President are higher than administrations at other comparable public universities.
  • Auditing standards prohibited us from drawing conclusions from some of our work because the Office of the President intentionally interfered with our audit process.
    • It inappropriately screened the campuses’ survey responses before campuses submitted the surveys to us.
    • Campus statements that were initially critical of the Office of the President had been revised and quality ratings shifted to be more positive.
  • Significant reforms are necessary to strengthen the public’s trust in the Office of the President.

Results in Brief

The rising cost of higher education in the State and nationwide places an important responsibility on public universities to make fiscally prudent decisions that best serve the financially burdened students and families who help to provide for their support. Nonetheless, over the past five years, the University of California (university) Office of the President has made decisions that redirected funds away from the university’s fulfillment of its role as the State’s primary academic research institution and toward other priorities. Although the University of California Board of Regents (regents) delegated authority and responsibility over the administration of the university’s affairs and operations to the Office of the President, it has not managed its own budget—which amounted to $747 million in fiscal year 2015–16—in a fiscally prudent or transparent way. Further, it has not ensured that its spending decisions consistently align with the needs of the university’s 10 campuses, students, and other stakeholders.

Specifically, the Office of the President did not disclose to the regents that it had amassed more than $175 million in reserve funds as of fiscal year 2015–16. In each of the four years we reviewed, the Office of the President spent significantly less than it budgeted for and it asked the regents for increases in future funding based on its previous years’ over-estimated budgets rather than its actual expenditures. Consequently, it accumulated significant annual budget surpluses, which it maintains in two reserves: restricted and discretionary. Furthermore, it not only failed to disclose the existence of these reserves to the regents, but it also failed to inform them of the annual undisclosed budget it created to spend the reserves. This undisclosed budget ranged from $77 million to $114 million in the four years we reviewed.

In effect, the Office of the President received more funds than it needed each year, and it amassed millions of dollars in reserves that it spent with little or no oversight from the regents or the public. According to the Office of the President, disclosing its reserves was unnecessary because the regents had approved the spending in previous years’ budgets. Further, its budget director stated that the Office of the President can use the discretionary reserve to fund any program or project at the Office of the President or the campuses. However, this practice contradicts the intent of a regents’ 2006 policy prohibiting the Office of the President from spending any funds until the regents approve its annual budget each year. Had the regents known about the Office of the President’s reserves, they could have potentially requested that the Office of the President use at least some of the funds to better meet the campuses’ and students’ needs. Further, even though the Office of the President stated that expenditures from its undisclosed budget went through a rigorous approval process, it could not demonstrate adequate approval for 82 percent, or $34 million, of the planned expenditures we reviewed from its undisclosed budget in fiscal year 2015–16. With no evidence of proper approval, the majority of the undisclosed budget was unnecessarily at risk for misuse.

The Office of the President’s budgeting practices are also of concern because its disclosed discretionary budget is almost entirely funded by an annual charge, called the campus assessment, that it levies on the campuses. The Office of the President allows campuses to pay this assessment using any funding source, and campuses paid about a third of the $288 million fiscal year 2015–16 assessment—up to $106 million—using their portion of the money from the State’s General Fund. Over the past five years, the Office of the President has underspent the revenue it received from the campus assessment by $32 million, and as a result, a significant portion of the Office of the President’s discretionary reserve consists of funds the campuses could have retained and spent for other purposes. Moreover, the Office of the President increased the campus assessment in two of the four years we reviewed, a decision we find problematic given that it consistently failed to spend all of the revenue it received from the campuses. We believe the Office of the President might be able to refund at least $38 million of its uncommitted reserve funds to campuses.

Furthermore, because the Office of the President provides so little information about its budget—and the information it does provide is sometimes misleading—the regents and Legislature are likely to find it difficult, if not impossible to understand its operations. In fact, we found the Office of the President made inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims about its budget during regents meetings, such as claiming the Office of the President is not funded using state money even though campuses use money from the State’s General Fund to pay for the campus assessment. The Office of the President’s inability to substantiate its public claims is due to its lack of strong, consistent budgeting processes, which would help to provide transparency and accountability. For example, since 2013 its annual budget process has not included a formal avenue for soliciting input from the campuses regarding its planned spending decisions. We identified a number of best practices that the Office of the President should immediately implement, including eliminating its undisclosed budget and using its actual expenditures as a basis to establish its future budgets. Implementing these practices would not only increase transparency but would also shed light on opportunities that the Office of the President has to reevaluate its financial decisions and reduce its spending.

The Office of the President might also be able to realize significant savings by adjusting the generous compensation it pays its staff. For example, the 10 executives in the Office of the President whose compensation we analyzed were paid a total of $3.7 million in fiscal year 2014–15—over $700,000 more than the combined salaries of their highest paid state employee counterparts. In one example, the Office of the President paid the senior vice president for government relations a salary that was $130,000 greater than the salaries of the top three highest‑paid state employees in comparable positions. In defense of its salaries, the Office of the President asserted that the higher education environment necessitates higher pay for its staff. Although this argument may have merit for certain executive employees, it has little merit for administrative staff such as financial analysts who perform similar duties irrespective of the entities for which they work. Nonetheless, we found that the Office of the President paid individuals annual salary rates for the 10 administrative positions we reviewed that were $2.5 million more than the maximum annual salary ranges for comparable state employees. The Office of the President uses salary survey data that come almost entirely from private sector companies and higher education institutions to determine its base salary levels, which typically pay their staff more than public entities.

Further, the Office of the President spent at least $21.6 million from fiscal years 2011–12 through 2015–16 on generous employee benefits, many of which are atypical of those public sector employees receive. For example, in addition to its regular retirement plan, the Office of the President also offers its executives a retirement savings account, into which the Office of the President contributes up to 5 percent of the executives’ salaries. These contributions totaled $2.5 million over the past five years. The Office of the President also spent more than $2 million for its staff’s business meetings and entertainment expenses over the past five years—a benefit that the State does not offer to its employees except in limited circumstances. Moreover, the Office of the President lacks sufficient policies to ensure that the cost of certain employee benefits is contained. For example, when its employees travel, the Office of the President recommends but does not require that its staff book hotels that do not exceed 200 percent of the federal per diem rate.

The Office of the President’s spending decisions are not limited to its internal operations; rather, it is also responsible for deciding how to spend funds on behalf of the university as a whole. Specifically, half of its budget presented to the regents is related to systemwide initiatives—a term that the Office of the President uses to describe programs that benefit the entire university system. Examples of these initiatives include academic and research programs such as the University of California Observatories, the University of California Washington Center, and the Breast Cancer Research Program. Although many systemwide initiatives undoubtedly provide a benefit to the public and to students, the choice to fund them may come at the expense of the university’s priority of access and affordability for California undergraduates. Moreover, when we attempted to quantify the costs of its systemwide initiatives, we found that the Office of the President was unable to provide a complete listing of the systemwide initiatives it administers or their cost. Additionally, it has budgeted funds for systemwide initiatives that it did not include as part of the systemwide initiatives section of the budget it presented to the regents, such as $910,000 in fiscal year 2015–16 designated for three separate initiatives: advocacy communication, sustainability, and administrative funds that it uses to reimburse campus officials for purchases they make on the university’s behalf. Even though some of the programs that the Office of the President has designated as systemwide initiatives benefit the university as a whole, the Office of the President does not regularly evaluate these initiatives’ continued priority, benefit, cost, or intent.

The importance of justifying its spending decisions is amplified by the fact that the Office of the President’s administrative costs increased from fiscal years 2012–13 through 2015–16. Specifically, the Office of the President’s administrative spending increased by 28 percent, or $80 million, while campus administrative costs increased by 26 percent over the same time period. Furthermore, the Office of the President’s budget and staffing levels exceed those of the central administration at comparable university systems, such as the University of Texas. The Office of the President explained that this may be because it provides services to its campuses and employees that other universities do not, such as the management costs associated with the university’s retirement program. To support that assertion, we expected that the Office of the President would have established a consistent definition for and method of tracking its and the university’s administrative costs; however, it has not done so. Lacking these, we question whether the Office of the President can adequately justify either its or the university system’s administrative expenses.

Finally, the Office of the President’s actions during this audit have caused us to question whether it will make a genuine effort to change. This conclusion is based on the fact that it intentionally interfered with our audit process, which hindered our ability in addressing certain aspects of our audit objectives. Specifically, we administered two surveys to the campuses seeking their perspectives on issues such as the quality of the Office of the President’s services and programs. However, correspondence between the Office of the President and the campuses shows that the Office of the President inappropriately reviewed the campuses’ survey responses and that campuses subsequently made changes before submitting them to us. Specifically, when we compared the campuses’ original survey responses sent to the Office of the President to the later versions of their responses that they eventually sent us, we found that the campus statements that were initially critical of the Office of the President had been removed or significantly revised and that the surveys’ quality ratings had been shifted to be more positive. Because the Office of the President inappropriately inserted itself into the survey process, auditing standards prohibit us from drawing conclusions based on the survey results. As a result, the Office of the President missed an opportunity to receive feedback from its key stakeholders, and it demonstrated an unwillingness to receive constructive feedback.

As a result of the nature and number of the concerns we identified in the course of this audit, we believe that significant reforms are necessary to ensure that the Office of the President makes prudent decisions that reflect the interests of those that it serves. Specifically, the Legislature should directly appropriate funds to the Office of the President that eliminates the need for levying an assessment on campuses. This change would increase the Office of the President’s accountability by requiring it to justify both its budget levels and fiscal decisions, such as the level of compensation it provides for its staff. Additionally, we believe that the Legislature should, from the funds appropriated, require the regents to contract with an independent third party that can assist the regents in monitoring a three-year corrective action plan focused on addressing the many issues we identify in this report. This plan, which we summarize in Figure 19 of this report, would help to ensure the Office of the President’s accountability and transparency and give campuses a better ability to plan for expenses that should benefit them.

Selected Recommendations

To determine the amount of money that it can reallocate to campuses and to ensure that it publicly presents comprehensive and accurate budget information, the Office of the President should do the following:

  • Implement best practices for budgeting, including using its actual expenditures to inform its future budgets rather than using the budget amounts from its previous year and eliminating the use of an undisclosed budget.
  • Develop a reserve policy that governs how large its reserves should be and the purposes for which those reserves can be used.
  • Implement policies to ensure that it approves and justifies all its budget expenditures.
  • Reallocate to the campuses any identified savings or excess revenues.

To ensure that its staffing costs align with the needs of campuses and other stakeholders, the Office of the President should do the following:

  • Develop and implement a method for weighing comparable public and private sector pay data when establishing salaries for all positions.
  • Set targets for any needed reductions to salary amounts using the results from its public and private sector pay comparisons and adjust its salaries accordingly.

To ensure that its expenditures for systemwide initiatives represent the university’s priorities, the Office of the President should do the following:

  • Develop and use a clear definition of systemwide initiatives to ensure consistency in future budgets.
  • Develop a comprehensive list of systemwide initiatives and presidential initiatives, including their purpose and actual cost, and present this list to the regents for review.

To ensure the Office of the President’s ongoing accountability, the Legislature should directly appropriate funds for the Office of the President’s operations.

Agency Comments

The Office of the President disagreed with a key conclusion of our report—that it has failed to disclose millions in surplus funds. However, in its response the Office of the President did not provide evidence that refuted our conclusion. The Office of the President also stated that it intends to implement many of our recommendations; however, its conduct during this audit—namely interfering with our audit process—casts doubt on whether it will follow through on its intentions.

Due to the nature and number of concerns we identified in the course of this audit, we concluded that significant reforms are necessary to ensure the Office of the President makes prudent decisions that reflect the interests of those it serves. We provide our perspective on the Office of the President’s response to our report.

 

Source: From the Introduction

To Pay for Its Discretionary Activities, the Office of the President Levies an Annual Financial Assessment on All University Campuses

To support its operations, the Office of the President requires campuses to pay an annual assessment that constitutes the majority of the Office of the President’s discretionary revenue

Screen_Shot_2019-09-15_at_7.20.01_AM.png

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of financial information provided by campuses for fiscal year 2015–16.

* The Berkeley campus pays its assessment from a fund that the university’s account manager guidelines define as State General Funds. However, the Berkeley campus confirmed that although this fund contains mostly State General Funds, it also contains amounts from other sources, amounts which the Berkeley campus did not specify. Thus, the Berkeley campus paid up to $28 million of its fiscal year 2015–16 campus assessment with State General Funds.

 

The University of California office of the President: It failed to Disclose Tens of Miilions in Surplus Funds and its Budget Practices are Misleading

Chapter 1 THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT DID NOT DISCLOSE $175 MILLION IN BUDGET SURPLUSES, AND IT LACKS SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY OVER ITS SPENDING

Chapter 2 THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY JUSTIFIED THE SIZE AND COST OF ITS STAFF

The Office of the President Pays Its Executives and Administrative Staff Significantly More Than Their Public Sector Counterparts Receive

The Office of the President Could Save at Least $700,000 Annually by Aligning Its Executive Salaries to Those of Comparable Public Sector Executives

The Office of the President Offers a Generous Retirement Benefit That the State Does Not Offer

The Amount the Office of the President Has Spent on Stipends and Performance Bonuses Has Increased Since Fiscal Year 2011–12

Chapter 3 SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS ALIGN WITH THE MISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The Office of the President’s Poor Tracking and Monitoring of Its Systemwide Initiatives Convolutes Its Administrative Cost Totals

Spending on Presidential Initiatives Shifts Funding Away From Campus Priorities

The University’s Administrative Spending Has Increased and the Office of the President’s Budget and Staff Exceeds Those of Similar Institutions

The Office of the President Cannot Accurately Determine Its or the Campuses’ Administrative Costs

The Office of the President’s Budget and Staffing Levels Exceed Those of the Central Administrations at Comparable Institutions

The Office of the President Has at Times Made Inaccurate and Misleading Claims About Its Budget to the Regents, the Legislature, and the Public

The Office of the President Inappropriately Interfered With Our Audit and Limited Our Ability to Provide Complete Information to the Legislature and the Public

The Office of the President Delayed Our Access to Expenditure Approval Documents Related to Its Undisclosed Budget, and It Failed to Provide Us All of the Information We Requested.

Legislative Oversight Is Necessary to Ensure That the Office of the President Implements Crucial Reforms

Screen_Shot_2019-09-16_at_4.38.27_AM.png