CRIMINAL FRAUD

  1. By design; every year, the University of California denies approximately 10,000 California resident students (first-time freshmen) 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 offered 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 Analysis Office, 99.1% of the California resident students (first-time freshman) offered UC Merced as their only option declined to enroll. LAO: 2019-20 Budget: February 19, 2019 Higher Education Analysis page 39
  2. UC Merced is a "FALSE CHOICE" for California residents students (first-time freshmen 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. 

 

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

 

  1. The University of California has broken its promise to California taxpayers and California resident students (first-time freshmen) in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class. California State Auditor Report #2015-107 at page 35 

Screen_Shot_2020-02-25_at_11.06.11_AM.png

UC Undergraduate Enrollment Headcount by Enrollment Status and Entry Level

NEW STUDENTS

 

Freshmen

2009

2018

Change

%

First Time Freshmen

37,393

CA Private High School 

3,607

3,591

(16)

(4%)

CA Public High School

28,784

33,802

5,018

17%

Selling Seats

9,284

Non- CA Domestic (Out-of -State students)

1,285

4,298

3,013

234%

Foreign Institution (International students)

566

4,986

4,420

781%

   

Total First-time Freshmen

34,242

46,677

12,435

36%

 
 

Community College Transfers

2009

2018

Change

 

New Transfer 19,738

California Community Colleges

13,717

19,738

6,021

44%

Selling Seats

1,277

Other USA/Unavailable

1,393

1,240

(153)

(11%)

Foreign Institutions (International students)

23

37

14

61%

 

?

154

     
   

Total Community College Transfer Students

15,133

21,015

5,882

39%

Total New Students

49,529

67,854

18,325

37%

CONTINUING STUDENTS

   

Sophomores Juniors Seniors

127,533

Continuing Freshmen 

105,034

127,553

22,519

21%

Transfer Students

27,086

Community College Transfers

19,793

24,403

4,610

23%

Other Transfers

3,097

2,683

(414)

(13%

   

Total Continuing Students

127,924

154,639

26,715

21%

Total Undergraduate Enrollment 2018

177,453

222,493

45,040

25%

 

  1. In 2018 total undergraduate enrollment was 222,493. 

First-time freshmen: 46,677 (21%)

  • California Resident: 37,393 (17%)
  • Out-of-state: 4,298 (2%) Selling Seats
  • International: 4,986 (2%) Selling Seats

New Community College Transfer students: 21,015 (9%)

  • California Community College: 19,738 (9%)
  • Out-of State: 1,240 (1%) Selling Seats
  • International: 37 <1% Selling Seats

Continuing Students: 154,639 (69%) 

  • Freshmen (continuing as Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors): 127,553 (57%)
  • Transfer Students: 27,086 (12%).

Summary:

California First Time Freshmen: 74%

Freshmen: 17%

Continuing (Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors) 57%

Transfer Students: 21%

New Transfer students (9%)

Continuing Transfer students (12%)

Out of State/International: 6%

 

 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

 Community College Transfer Students are Displacing First-time Freshmen 

87. The Access Guarantee of the University of California Master Plan for Higher Education was specifically meant to benefit California residents who were first-time freshmen graduating from California high schools.

88. The University of California is engaging in affirmative action by decreasing seats for first-time freshmen, while increasing seats for community college transfer students who are accepted with much lower test scores and GPA's.

89. Admissions data shows that the University of California is engaged in affirmative action with the implementation of the University of California’s new Community College Admissions Guarantee and the Office of the President’s Undocumented Students Initiative; which promote the admission of community college transfer students and undocumented students at the expense of seats for California resident students that are first-time freshmen in the top 1/8th (12.5%) of their high-school graduating class, and should be guaranteed seats as a matter of law, based on merit.

NEW STUDENTS: TRANSFER STUDENTS

Transfer Students by Source School

2009

2018 

Change

%

Applicants

29,551

41,349

11,798

39.9%

Admits

21,765

28,533

6,768 

31.10%

Enrollees

15,133

21,015

(5,882)

(38.87%)

Offers of Admission

Admits CA Community Colleges

19,339

26,319

6,980 

36.09%

Admits Other USA Colleges

2,392

2,156

(236) 

(9.87%)

Admits International Institutions

34

58

24 

70.59%

 

"The Master Plan specifies that the University maintain a 60:40 ratio of upper-division to lower-division students, which corresponds to a 2:1 ratio of new California resident freshmen to new California resident transfers. UC has moved closer to that ratio, from 2.3:1 in recent years to an estimated 2.1:1 in 2017–18 (universitywide). The universitywide ratio (excluding UC Merced) is estimated to be 2.0:1 for 2017-18, achieving the systemwide goal for this metric (1.1.3)" Admissions and Enrollment Trends University of California Accountability Report 2018

Excluding Merced?

2:1 Ratio CA resident first-time freshmen student to CA transfer students.

UC Undergraduate

Undergraduate Admissions Summary [Freshmen] [Enrollees]

2009

2018

Change

%

First- time Freshmen

34,242

46,677

12,435

36.32%

 

UC Undergraduate

Undergraduate Admissions Summary [Transfers] [School Source] [Enrollees]

2009

2018

Change

%

Transfer Students

15,133

21,015

5,882

39%

CA Community College Transfer

13,717

19,738

6,021

44%

Other Transfer

1,393

1,240

(153)

(10%)

Foreign Institution

23

37

14

60.87%


90. In April 2018 Janet Napolitano, President of the University of California and Eloy Ortiz Oakely, UC Regent and Chancelor of the California Community Colleges entered into an MOU to guarantee admission to community college transfer students to the University of California. Enhancing Student Transfer- A Memorandum of Understanding Between the California Community Colleges and the University of California.

Page 1:

“This Agreement has historical precedent and is designed to build on concurrent collaborative efforts. In 1996, UC and the CCC Chancellor’s Office entered into an MOU to increase the enrollment of CCC students at UC. During the period of this agreement (1997-2004), UC increased its enrollment of CCC students by over 50% (exceeding the initial goal by 15 percentage points). The proportion of students from underrepresented groups who enrolled as transfers at UC exceeded that of freshman applicants for the first time in the institution’s history.” [emphasis added]

Moreover, from Fall 2013 to Fall 2017, UC has increased its enrollment of transfer students by 20% with an all-time high transfer enrollment of 20,000 in Fall 2017.”

Page 2:

“The goal of this Agreement is two-fold: increasing inclusive access to a four-year college degree at UC for CCC students and ensuring their academic preparation and support to succeed and earn their degrees in a timely manner. First, it provides a clear pathway for CCC students who wish to transfer to UC, guaranteeing these students an opportunity to obtain a baccalaureate degree if they meet clearly articulated requirements. Second, it aims to ensure that once at UC, these students have taken courses and met the requirements deemed by the faculty to best prepare them to succeed and earn their four-year degree.”

Increasing the number and diversity of students attending a CCC who prepare for and transfer to a UC campus is a strategic priority for the state and the University. For a transfer-affirming culture to flourish, the response of both segments must be a strategic, long-term initiative that will achieve what has always been the goal of California’s investment in public higher education: a high-quality, low cost, postsecondary system that provides access that is inclusive of all Californians who wish to pursue a four-year degree and the associated academic challenges- and discover the educationally transformative qualities of - a four-year college degree.” [emphasis added]

Page 3:

UC President’s Request to UC Academic Senate for a Guarantee of Admission to UC for all Qualified CCC Students

“The President of the University of California shall request of the Academic Senate their recommendations for extending a guarantee of admission to all qualified California Community College transfer students with such guarantee to be in place for students entering the CCCs in Fall 2019. This guarantee does not displace or supplant any existing campus- based admissions guarantees (such as the existing Transfer Admission Guarantees, or TAGSs) but is intended to be additive”. [Emphasis added- this is a false statement].

91. This new class of community college transfer student is transferring prior to Junior year, and will enter at the UC designated as a first-time freshmen.

The data clearly shows that this admissions guarantee will displace first-time freshmen with students that have lower test scores and GPA’s. While there should be a path for California Community College transfer students to enroll at a UC, the “Access Guarantee” of the University of California Master Plan for Higher Education was to ensure that California’s top high school graduates (first-time freshmen) would receive a high-quality, low cost, postsecondary education. First-time freshmen graduating in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class are now being denied access to the University of California despite being guaranteed a seat as a matter of law, based solely on merit. As of 2019, California first-time freshmen are being admitted on a “space-available basis”; while 10,000 their seats are sold to international and out-of state students for a profit so that the University of California can engage in affirmative action and provide subsidized tuition, housing and jobs to transfer students with much lower GPAs and test scores through the Office of the Presidents Undocumented Student Initiate.

92. The displacement of first-time freshmen entering a UC from California public high schools has been happening since 2009. This is affirmative action.   

… strategic, long-term initiative that will achieve what has always been the goal of California’s investment in public higher education: a high-quality, low cost, postsecondary system that provides access that is inclusive of all Californians.  

The University of California’s admission policies and financial decisions are not inclusive of all Californians, and in fact are discriminatory as evidenced by the data presented in this complaint.

93. Further- the MOU goes on to state that “should the guarantee of admission result in increased transfer enrollment at UC, the UC and CCC leadership will together seek additional enrollment funding from the State- a prerequisite for transfer students’ success at the University.

Why should California taxpayers be asked to pay more to subsidize a public university system that denies access to California’s top students to subsidize out-of-state, international and community college transfer students that are admitted with much lower test scores and GPAs?

Screen_Shot_2020-02-24_at_7.57.15_AM.pngScreen_Shot_2020-02-24_at_7.58.15_AM.png

 Screen_Shot_2020-02-24_at_8.17.42_AM.png

 Screen_Shot_2020-02-24_at_8.18.21_AM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-24_at_8.18.46_AM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_3.29.54_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_3.30.13_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_3.30.29_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.13.23_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.13.50_PM.png

 

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.14.09_PM.png

 

Board of Regents Bylaws-

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.15.05_PM.png

 

MR and MRS CHINA- Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard Blum

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.15.43_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.18.24_PM.png

 

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.18.53_PM.png

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/11/28/itt-tech-students-score-victory-bankruptcy-settlement/

twitter.com/RepJimBanks/status/1029406666087952384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1029406666087952384&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2018%2F08%2F27%2Fthe-silence-over-a-potential-chinese-spy-in-feinsteins-office-is-deafening%2F

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/08/sen-dianne-feinsteins-ties-china-go-way-deeper-alleged-office-spy/

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.19.40_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.20.15_PM.png

https://postsecondary.gatesfoundation.org/what-were-learning/institutional-snap-shots/the-minerva-project/

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.20.34_PM.png

 

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.21.06_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.21.56_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.22.31_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.23.04_PM.png

  Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.23.36_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.24.01_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.24.22_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.24.47_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.25.06_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.25.32_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.25.59_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.26.24_PM.pngScreen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.26.40_PM.png

 

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.27.05_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.27.43_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.27.59_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.28.17_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.28.34_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.29.11_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.29.42_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2020-02-23_at_7.30.25_PM.png

 

http://ucsdguardian.org/2017/05/29/uc-regents-held-17600-party-the-night-before-raising-tuition-have-spent-225000-on-parties-since-2012/

UC Regents Held $17,600 Party the Night Before Raising Tuition, Have Spent $225,000 on Parties Since 2012

http://ucsdguardian.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regents-Meeting-Protest-300x225.jpg 300w, http://ucsdguardian.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regents-Meeting-Protest-80x60.jpg 80w, http://ucsdguardian.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regents-Meeting-Protest-265x198.jpg 265w, http://ucsdguardian.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regents-Meeting-Protest-696x522.jpg 696w, http://ucsdguardian.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regents-Meeting-Protest-560x420.jpg 560w" sizes="(max-width: 587px) 100vw, 587px" style="box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%; border: 0px; vertical-align: middle;">

The night before the UC Board of Regents voted on Jan. 26 to raise tuition by $282 for the 2017–18 academic year, the university officials hosted a $17,600 dinner party for themselves in San Francisco attended by 65 people, placing the cost at $270 per attendee, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on May 28. According to the Chronicle, the UC Office of the President has reimbursed the regents for $225,000 in dinner parties, which have occurred four to six times annually, since 2012.

More recently, the regents spent $15,199 on a dinner party at the San Francisco Palace Hotel at the university’s expense on May 17. At $258 a head, the event came just hours after students from around the UC system protested for free tuition and liveable wages outside the regents’ meeting held that day at UC San Francisco.  

A.S. President Lesly Figueroa, who attended the May 17 demonstration, told the UCSD Guardian that the regents’ spending is unfortunate, especially in light of the tuition hike.

“I think the regents spending thousands of dollars of university funding on extravagant parties that obviously do not benefit students is a shame,” Figueroa said. “Raising an already unaffordable tuition, making higher education more inaccesible is outrageous but, of course, not shocking because we’ve known the regents do not always have the best interest of students or workers in mind. We have students that are food and housing insecure, not being retained at their institutions or being supported to get their basic needs met and yet are still paying outrageous amounts of money to a system that does not support them. [That] is not only unjust but unacceptable.”

UC spokesperson Dianne Klein defended the dinner parties to the Chronicle, stating that they are a longstanding tradition financed by private funding given to the university.

However, several regents spoke out against the dinners, with some saying that the attendees should be responsible for the cost of the events themselves as opposed to placing the burden on the university.

Regent John Perez, who believes that the guests should finance the parties, told the Chronicle that spending should prioritize students over dinners.

“We shouldn’t use money (for dinners) that could be used for students,” Perez said. “Lavish meals are not the ‘highest, best’ use.”

Regents Dick Blum, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and community college Chancellor Eloy Ortiz Oakley also expressed their dissatisfaction with the price of the dinners, using words like “inappropriate” and “high” to describe it.   

Eleanor Roosevelt College sophomore Yasmine Saraf explained her discontentment that the regents are spending students’ money on themselves.

“I feel that as a student for the greater part of my life, we’re taught the appropriate values of justice and authenticity,” Saraf told the Guardian. “However, knowing that the UC regents are using our tuition money for their own purposes instead of bettering the school, leaves me confused and outraged. I propose that the dining halls should be enhanced to accommodate for our own dinner parties as well.”

Figueroa added that in light of the Chronicle’s findings, students should mobilize against the regents and UC President Janet Napolitano.

“Moving forward, this creates a pivotal moment for students at their institutions and here at UCSD to push against these reckless decisions of university spending and urge the regents and Napolitano to commit to supporting student and workers needs because without students and workers then the institution does not function,” Figueroa said. “These are times when we have to push collectively in order to shift the current system into a student and worker serving institution.”

According to the Chronicle’s report, the parties cast doubt on the the integrity of the regents’ spending policy because UC rules restrict dinners to $81 and prevent “lavish or extravagant” entertainment expenses. The events also create the impression that “Napolitano’s office reimburses the regents’ expenses, and the regents approve the budget for Napolitano’s office.”

The Chronicle learned of the regents’ dinner parties from documents produced by the California State Auditor’s Office after State Auditor Elaine Howle released a report criticizing UCOP for overpaying its executives and hiding $175 million in discretionary reserves.

Other parties thrown by the regents include a $15,600 party in March 2013 while the university was “working to weather the financial crisis,” an $8,800 dinner party in November 2014 when the regents were deciding whether to raise tuition by 28 percent over the next five years and a retirement party for two regents in January 2016 that cost $227 a head and $13,600 overall.

 

http://triton.news/2020/01/uc-board-of-regents-delay-vote-on-tuition-overhaul/

UC BOARD OF REGENTS DELAY VOTE ON TUITION OVERHAUL

NEWS • UC SYSTEM

Photo of students on Library Walk at UC San Diego.https://i1.wp.com/triton.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ARL7607-scaled.jpg?zoom=2&resize=861%2C560 1722w" data-sizes="(max-width: 861px) 100vw, 861px" data-attachment-id="31691" data-permalink="http://triton.news/2020/01/uc-board-of-regents-delay-vote-on-tuition-overhaul/_arl7607/" data-orig-file="https://i1.wp.com/triton.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ARL7607-scaled.jpg?fit=2560%2C1547" data-orig-size="2560,1547" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"4.8","credit":"","camera":"NIKON D3400","caption":"","created_timestamp":"1542370247","copyright":"","focal_length":"122","iso":"400","shutter_speed":"0.0008","title":"","orientation":"1"}" data-image-title="_ARL7607" data-image-description data-medium-file="https://i1.wp.com/triton.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ARL7607-scaled.jpg?fit=300%2C181" data-large-file="https://i1.wp.com/triton.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ARL7607-scaled.jpg?fit=854%2C516" sizes="(max-width: 861px) 100vw, 861px" srcset="https://i1.wp.com/triton.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ARL7607-scaled.jpg?resize=861%2C560 861w, /https://i1.wp.com/triton.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ARL7607-scaled.jpg?zoom=2&resize=861%2C560 1722w" data-was-processed="true" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; max-width: 100%; position: relative; overflow: hidden; height: auto; display: block; min-height: 1px;">
Arlene Banuelos / The Triton

WRITTEN BY: 

The UC Board of Regents postponed a vote on Tuesday for two proposals that would overhaul tuition; both proposals would increase tuition annually for the next five years. Instead of voting, the Regents discussed them during their meeting on Wednesday.

The UC Regents delayed the vote after the UC Student Association (UCSA) voiced concerns that the vote could be in violation of a state law requiring that UCSA be given at least 30 days’ notice before providing public notice of a cost increase proposal. UCSA President Varsha Sarveshwar said at Tuesday’s Board meeting that they were only given advance notice for a single tuition increase and not the originally proposed five.

The UC administration released a statement addressing the delay, acknowledging the concerns of students. UC Regents Chairman John Perez determined that the student notice requirement would not have been met if the vote proceeded on Wednesday and it had been decided that a delay would be the best course of action.

The first proposal increases undergraduate tuition annually for all students based on inflation through the 2024–25 school year. Under this proposal, the UC system projects that tuition and fees will reach $14,670 and $49,452 for in-state and out-of-state students respectively by 2024-25.

The second proposal would freeze costs for current students and only apply increases to incoming classes of students. This would be a shift from previous increases that were uniformly applied to all students.

According to the UC Office of the President (UCOP), both plans would ensure the university can sustain research and education operations and invest in student success programs. UCOP also says that the plans are expected to increase the financial aid funds for UC undergraduates with the “greatest financial need.”

As per the UCOP’s report, without an increase in available funds, the UC system would need to shift current aid away from some students to fund aid for students with “very low” household incomes. The UCOP’s report also states that without an increase in available funds, the university could face a $700 million-plus budget shortfall by 2025. Last June, UC San Diego Chancellor Pradeep Khosla presented to the campus Academic Senate that UCSD could incur a $24.2 million deficit in the 2020–21 budget.

Graph of projected change in financial aid for undergraduates from the tuition increase
Source: DISCUSSION OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA TUITION AND FEE PLAN

Although the tuition increases would increase financial aid funds, UCSA sponsored a petition in opposition to both proposals advocating for no increase this year. 

In the petition, UCSA argues that coupling tuition increases with increases to financial aid will exclude middle income and out-of-state students in need of financial assistance without clearly helping low-income students. The petition also says that the higher tuition price may deter students from applying, regardless of whether that number reflected their actual out of pocket costs or if they qualified for aid.

On Tuesday, Governor Gavin Newsom voiced his opposition to the tuition increases, saying that “the proposed tuition increase is unwarranted, bad for students and inconsistent with our college affordability goals.”  The Governor’s Office released their budget proposal earlier this month, including $217.7 million in new permanent funds and $55.3 million in one-time funds to the UC system.

An exact date for the vote on tuition has not been announced, but UCSA leaders anticipate the vote on tuition to occur at the March or May Regents meeting.

Sahana Narayan is a Staff Writer for The Triton. You can follow her @saharadesert00.