There needs to be a Federal Criminal Investigation into the Admissions Policies and Finances of the Office of the President of the University of California

Capistrano Unified School District Resolution No. 1920-27, RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIORITIZATION OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENT STUDENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA  CUSD BOT Meeting September 18, 2019 Agenda Item #53 at page 897 

The Resolution passed unanimously except for Trustee Gila Jones who left the meeting early

The People should ask all our elected leaders to join together and strengthen CUSD’s Resolution by calling for a Federal Investigation into the University of California Office of the President for discriminatory admissions practices that deny California resident students who graduate in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class admission to an appropriate campus within the UC system. The University of California denies 10,700 California resident students a year admission to a campus of their choice; and instead, offers them admission to UC Merced. These are California’s best and brightest students who deserve admission to flagship schools like a UC Berkeley and UCLA and are in fact guaranteed a seat at an appropriate campus under State law based solely on merit. According to the California Auditor and the LAO Report on Higher Education 99.1% of the students offer UC Merced decline to enroll. This allows the UC to have 10,700 seats on all campuses to sell to out of state and International students. 

The UC’s manipulation of the referral pool to UC Merced is a fraud upon the public. 

The Auditor felt the conduct of the University of California was so egregious that the California taxpayers deserved recompense,

Do not allow this to continue- demand an end to this abuse of California’s best and brightest students and the theft of billions in California taxpayer dollars.

The data shows that 206 Capistrano Unified school district students were effected by this last year. Instead of spending $15,000 per year on tuition at a UC, these families are now forced to go out-of-state or to private colleges and Universities in order to enroll in an appropriate school. They face an additional $160,000 in tuition over 4 years. That is money that leaves our local economy and places a great financial burden on California families.

The following are additional allegations:

Invidious Discrimination: UC admissions policies and fInancial decisions discriminate against California resident students.

Violation of the California Constitution Article 9 Sections 5, 6,,and 14 and Ed Code 66202.5: The State of California has broken it's Constitutionally mandated promise to fund an appropriate seat in the UC System for every qualified California high school graduate.

California State Auditor: The University of California Office of the President failed to disclose $175 million in surplus funds.

Misuse of Taxpayer Funds: The University of California Office of the President used taxpayer dollars to engage in political advocacy.

Material Mis-statements of Fact: Janet Napolitano, as President of the University of California made material mis-statements of fact regarding the the Universities mission and priorities.

Abuse of Power: As President of the University of California, Janet Napolitano interfered with the State Auditor's audit and was rebuked by the State Legislature and Board of regents for her actions

Diversity: University of California campuses lack diversity 61% of international students are from a single country - The Peoples Republic of China. 

Criminal Fraud: The University of California's manipulation of the referral pool to UC Merced constitutes a fraud upon the public.

Unjust Enrichment: The University of California denies admission to approximately 10,700 California resident students who are guaranteed a seat based on merit under California Law in order to profit from the sale of those seats to out-of-state and international students for a profit.

Unjust Enrichment: The State of California has been able to increase revenues by $66 billion dollars since 2007-08 by intentionally underfunding low poverty K-12 public school districts

Recompense: California Students that were wrongfully denied admission and their families deserve recompense.

Civil Rights Violations: The University of California admissions policies deny equality of educational opportunity to qualified California students which is a violation of their individual civil rights. 

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

Affirmative Action: The University of California's use of taxpayer funds and student data to help implement the College Boards Adversity Score.

 

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  

UC ADMISSIONS POLICIES AND FINANCIAL DECISIONS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CALIFORNIA RESIDENT STUDENTS

1. The University of California is a taxpayer funded public land grant institution, and as such, California residents are to be given priority enrollment

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. The President of the University of California is not empowered to unilaterally set policies that discriminate against California resident students and violate state and federal law. California Constitution Article 9 Section 9.

3. The UC Master Plan for Higher Education has an "Access Guarantee" that guarantees all First-Time Freshman admission to the University of California based solely on merit, as a matter of law.  

A "First-Time Freshman" is a California resident student who graduated in the top 12.5% or (1/8th) of their high school graduating class, and is entering the UC directly from high school as a freshman in college.

From the original UC Master Plan for Higher Education page 4 and 73.

Screen_Shot_2019-09-24_at_5.23.44_AM.png

 

4. The "Access Guarantee" of the UC Master Plan is for first-time freshmen who are California residents.  It is not for community college transfer students, out-of-state, or international students.

5. UC enrollment data shows that First-Time Freshmen are being denied seats so that the University of California can "sell" seats to out-of state and international students to increase revenues.  California State Auditor Report #2015-107: The University of California: Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students

6. Since 2009 total undergraduate enrollment has increased by 18,317 seats.

 

University of California Undergraduate Admissions Summary
Freshmen Transfer Total  Undergraduate Enrollment
2009 34,242 15,133 49,375
2018

46,677

+136%

21,015

+139%

67,692

 

18,317

+ 137% 

 

7. Since 2009, the University of California has intentionally supressed offers of admission to California resident students who are First-Time Freshmen, while increasing enrollment of community college transfer students and out-of-state and international students, in violation of the UC Master Plan for Higher Education and California Education Code 66202.5.

8. 73% of the 18,317 new seats went to community college transfer students and out-of-state and international students.


University of California Undergratuate Enrollment  

Freshman Student Enrollment    2009 2018 # Students % Change
      CA Private High School 3,607 3,591 (16) - < 1%
CA Public High School  28,784 33,802 5,018 + 17%

5,002 (27%) of the 18,317 seats went to CA resident students graduating from CA high schools.

The UC engaged in invidious discrimination against CA resident students that it identified as "privileged" (able to attend private high school). 

5,002

27%

Non-CA Domestic (Out-of-state) 1,285 4,298 3,013 + 234%
Foreign Institutions 566 4,986 4,420 + 781%

7,433 (41%) of the 18,317 seats went to out-of-state and international students 

7,433

40.5%

 Transfer Student Enrollment    
      CA Community College 13,717 19,738

6,021

+ 44%
6,021 (33%) of the 18,317 seats went to CA community college transfer students

6,021

32.5%

 
Other USA/Unavailable 1.393 1,240 (153) - 11%
Foreign Institutions 23 37 14 + 61%

 

9.  Despite a 17% increase in applications from First-Time-Freshmen from CA Private High Schools, the University of California reduced offers of admission to CA Private School students by 22%. 

Undergraduate New Students

From CA Private High School

Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
12,678 14,815 11,151 8,677 3,607 3,591

Increase 2,137

+ 17%

Decrease 2,474

- 22%

Decrease 16

<1%

Prior to 2011, Admits of First-Time-Freshmen from Private High Schools was in the 90%- 95%.

As of 2018 it has declined to 60%. 

The University of California is intentionally limiting offers of admission to students applying from California Private High Schools.

Data shows that the UC intentionally limited offers of admission to students preceived to be "privileged", especially students who graduated from private high schools that were "White" and "American Indian". 

  

10. The data shows that the University of California engaged in race based admissions and discriminatory practices by intentionally denying offers of admission to White students and American Indian students from California Private High Schools while offers of admissions to students of all other ethnicities increased substantially.

 

Undergraduate Admissions Summary:  White CA Resident

Freshmen  Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018

CA Public High Schools  

The decline in enrollment of public school students was due to an increase in the number of referrals to UC Merced. 99.1% of students denied admission to a campus of their choice and referred to UC Merced do not enroll,

20,513 21,497 18,389  21,627 7,988  6,324

984

+ 5%

3,238 

+ 18%

(1,664)

- 21%

CA Private High Schools 

The UC cut admissions of private school students by 48%

 5,525  4,699  5,003 2,621 1,464 957

(826)

- 15%

(2,382)

- 48%

(507)

- 35%

   

Undergraduate Admissions Summary:  American Indian CA Resident 

Freshman 

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

78

+ 17%

(76)

+ 19%

(3)

+ 2%

CA Private High School  

Students in Private Schools are no longer applying to UC's because they know they will not be accepted.

Operation Varsity Blue?

 98  100  85 49 31 20

2

 + 2%

(35)

- 71%

(11)

- 35%

 

Undergraduate Admissions Summary:  California Resident Students

Freshman 

Applicants Admits Enrollees
2009 2018 2009 2018 2009 2018
African American 4,352 7,408 2,837 3,422 1,220  1,781

3,056

+70%

585

+ 21%

561

+46%

Chicano/Latino 19,335  44,697  15,088 23,352 6,590 11,460

25,362

+131%

8,264

+55%

4,870

+74% 

Asian 26,142 36,882 23,314 25,545 13,276 14,789

10,740

41%

2,231

10%

1,513

+11%

Unknown 4,054 3,678 3,546 2,355 1,588 1,151

 (367)

- 9%

(1,191)

- 34%

(437)

- 28%

All other ethnicities except WHITE and AMERICAN INDIAN saw substantial increases in offers of admission.

Offers of Admission to WHITE students from PRIVATE High Schools were cut by 48%.

Offers of Admission to AMERICAN INDIAN students from PRIVATE High Schools were cut by 35%.

 

 

11. The University of California is engaged in Invidious Discrimination.

Invidious Discrimination is treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging. 

The class: First-Time Freshmen (California resident students who are in the top 12.5% (1/8th) of their high school graduating class). Especially those students that the UC considered to be "Privileged" (could afford to attend private school) and/or are White and/or American Indian.

Treated Unequally: These students were denied equality of educational opportunity in the admissions process. In fact California taxpayers have been defrauded as a result of the UC's intentional manipulation and use of the referral pool to UC Merced.

Only First-time Freshmen were denied a guaranteed admission to a campus of their choice, while community college transfer stduents, out-of-state and international stduents were guaranteed admission to at least one campus of their choice. California State Auditor Report #2015-107 at pages 33 - 36

Community college transfer stduents, out-of-state and international stduents were admitted with much lower test scores and GPA's. California State Auditor Report #2015-107 at pages 28- 30.

Damages: As a result of the UC's unfair admissions policies, these students have suffered financial damages. At a minimum, these students were forced to attend out of state and/or private colleges and universities at a substantial increase in the cost of college tuition in order to be admitted to an "appropriate" school. Tuition at flagship schools equivalent to UCLA and UC Berkeley is $55,000 per year while instate tuition at a UC is $15,000 per year.

That is an unexpected, additional tuition expense of $40,000 per year ($160,000 over four years).

12. Since 2009, The University of California has intentionally denied approximately 10,700 California residents students per year an "appropriate" admission to the UC. 99.1% of the First-Time Freshmen who were not admitted to a campus of their choice and were placed in a referral pool and offered UC Merced as their only option, choose not to enroll at a UC. Instead they enroll at an out-of-state and/or private college or university. LAO: 2019-20 Budget: February 19, 2019 Higher Education Analysis page 39

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

This creates a huge financial drain on the State of California while the University of California unjustly enriches itself at the expense of California taxpayers.

10,700 X $160,000 (increased tuition) = $1.7 billion dollars per year since 2009 out of taxpayers pockets- and much of it out of the California economy.

Ten years: 107,000 California Resident students have been discriminated against.

$17 billion out of the California taxpayers pocket.

No wonder California is the hotbed of the Operation Varsity Blues college admissions scandal. 10,700 California First-Time-Freshmen are not being denied admission to California public colleges and universities.

13. Janet Napolitano, President of the UC system defended the changes in admissions policies stating the need for additional revenues and the need to increase diversity at UC campuses.

 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S NEED FOR INCREASED REVENUES

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS BROKEN ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED PROMISE TO FUND AN APPROPRIATE SEAT IN THE UC SYSTEM FOR EVERY QUALIFIED CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE

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

15. 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.

16. The state of California is currently enjoying record high revenues of $222 billion dollars, an increase of $77 billion since 2007-08. California Budget: 2007-08 and 2019-20

$55 billion of the $66 billion is currently budgeted for the High Speed Rail project. 

 Year In Billion's Total State Revenue
2020-21 $222

STATE REVENUE IS UP 

Screen_Shot_2020-01-13_at_5.17.42_AM.png

 

$ 77 BILLION DOLLARS

SINCE 2007-08

2019-20 $215
2018-19 $201
2017-18 $183
2016-17 $171
2015-16 $168
2014-15 $156
2013-14  $145 
2012-13  $142 
2011-12  $129 
2010-11  $122 
2009-10  $119 
2008-09  $144
2007-08   $146

 

California 5-year Infrastructure Plan 

 

17. The State has sufficient revenues to fund a seat for every first-time freshman who graduated in the top 12.5% (1/8th) of their high school graduating class. According to the University of California, the State has "chosen" not too provide adequate funding to the UC to guarantee admission to all qualified California resident students. Instead the State is "choosing" to spend taxpayer dollars on new programs and entitlements that are not Constitutionally mandated such as the High Speed Rail project and new programs and entitlements for people who are not legally entitled to be in this country.

18. The 2020-21 California State Budget allocated $18.1 billion in state funds for higher education.

$4.2 billion went to the University of California an increase of $0.4 billion since 2007-08.

California Budget (in billions) State Funds Only
2007-08 2019-20

  2020-21   Proposed

% Change
Total State Budget  $145,543,075 $214,777,961 $222,192,733 up 53%
Higher Education Budget  $14,987,543 $18,479,257 $18,121,938 up 20%
University of California  $3,762,414 $4,085,677 $4,180,134 up 10%
California State University $3,507,971 $4,307,146 $4,232,892 up 20%
Board of Governors of Community Colleges  $5,356,933 $6,769,589 $6,551,280 up 25%
Student Aid Commission $872,963 $1,763,127 $1,661,363 up 102.2%

 

19. "The university is subject to legislative oversight only in limited circumstances. California courts have stated that the broad powers the state constitution confers upon the university provide it general immunity from legislative regulation. However, the Legislature can specify provisions that the university must meet before it can spend state appropriations."  California State Audit Report 2016-30 page 8 

20. Current Governor Newsom sat on the Board of Regents from 2011 until he was elected Governor in 2018. The California Governor, the California Legislature and the Board of Regents have the same progressive agenda as Board President Janet Napolitano and as, such no desire to correct the unilateral changes in admission policies and/or financial decisions of the UC despite a scathing 2015 Audit.

21. The State of California is no longer upholding its Constitutionally mandated financial commitment to ensure that resources will be made available to accommodate all eligible students an appropriate place within the UC system.  

22. The State of California has broken it's promise to California resident students. As a result California taxpayers have been financially damaged. California resident students who were defrauded by the intentional manipulation of the referral pool to UC Merced and denied admission to an appropriate UC campus have been financially damaged and should be entitled to reparations from the State of California. 

 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT FAILED TO DISCLOSE TENS OF MILLIONS IN SURPLUS FUNDS 

Source: California State Auditor: Report 2016-130

23. From the April 25, 2017 Letter from State Auditor Elain M. Howle to the Governor of the State of California

    • The Office of the President has accumulated more than $175 million in undisclosed restricted and discretionary reserves; as of fiscal year 2015–16, it had $83 million in its restricted reserve and $92 million in its discretionary reserve.
    • More than one-third of its discretionary reserve, or $32 million, came from unspent funds from the campus assessment—an annual charge that the Office of the President levies on campuses to fund the majority of its discretionary operations.
    • In certain years, the Office of the President requested and received approval from the Board of Regents (regents) to increase the campus assessment even though it had not spent all of the funds it received from campuses in prior years.
    • The Office of the President did not disclose the reserves it had accumulated, nor did it inform the regents of the annual undisclosed budget that it created to spend some of those funds. The undisclosed budget ranged from $77 million to $114 million during the four years we reviewed.
    • The Office of the President was unable to provide a complete listing of the systemwide initiatives, their costs, or an assessment of their continued benefit to the university.
    • While it appears that the Office of the President’s administrative spending increased by 28 percent, or $80 million, from fiscal years 2012–13 through 2015–16, the Office of the President continues to lack consistent definitions of and methods for tracking the university’s administrative expenses.

 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT USED TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ADVOCACY 

24. Janet Napolitano, as President of the University of California used taxpayer dollars to engage in political advocacy of far left progressive ideals with the intent to use her office as President to punish California taxpayers by denying educational opportunity only to American citizens. 

25. While denying admissions to California residents (First-Time Freshmen) citing a lack of adequate funding, Janet Napolitano spent millions of California taxpayer dollars on the following Presidential Initiatives.

University of California Office of the President at page 41

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_10.42.03_AM.png

Carbon Neutrality Initiative 

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_10.52.00_AM.png


2. Global Food Initiative

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_10.54.22_AM.png

Student Public Service Fellowships 
Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_10.56.55_AM.png

Public Service Law Fellowships 

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_10.58.44_AM.png

UC- Mexico Initiative

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_11.02.26_AM.png

UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement 

Screen_Shot_2019-08-27_at_11.03.13_AM.png

Undocumented Students Initiative 

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

 

These 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 

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

 

JANET NAPOLITANO MADE MATERIAL MIS-REPRESENTATIONS OF FACT TO THE PUBLIC

26. "The university’s mission is to serve society as a center for higher learning through teaching, research, and public service; and the university states in its accountability reports that access and affordability for California undergraduate students is among its highest priorities". State Audit page 7 

27. According to Audit Report 2016-30 at page 14, 90% of Janet Napolitano's discretionary funding for Presidential Initiatives came directly from campus assessments which means that Janet Napolitano, while President of the UC made material mis-representations of fact to the Public and to the State Legislature regarding the UC's spending priorities. 

 

ABUSE OF POWER 

28. As President of the University of California, Janet Napolitano interfered with the State Auditor's audit and was rebuked by the State Legislature and Board of Regents for her actions.

2015 Audit Released The University of California Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students

4-25-2017 Audit Released: The University of California Office of the President: It Failed to Disclose Tens of Millions in Surplus Funds, and Its Budget Practices Are Misleading

05-02-2017 Hearing of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee questioned Napolitano about $175 million in hidden funds while the University System was raising tuition

09-08-2017 The University of California sues Trump administration for wrongly and unconstitutionally violating the rights of the University and its students by rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on “nothing more than unreasoned executive whim.”

The University of California interferred with the Audits

10-02-2017 AB 562 Muraysuchi Califoria State Auditor: Interference is signed into law which prohibits any person, with an intent to deceive or defraud, from obstructing the California State Auditor in the performance of his or her duties.

11-04-2017 Chair Kieffer releases a statement regarding Janet Napolitino 

11-20-2017 Statement by Muratsuchi Chairmen, Joint Audit Committee: UCOP's Interference with State Audit 'Disappointing"

Response by UC President Janet Napolitano to the Board of Regents on the finding of Interference In a State Audit

Independent Fact-Finding Review for Board of Regents of the University of California: Summary of Findings

Why wasn't she fired?

02-28-2018 Janet Napolitano, President UC's letter to Senator Mitchell re: Annual Report on Student Transfers 2015-17. 

The UC continued to deny admission to high school graduates but substantially increased and guaranteed admission to California community college transfer students. In a Settlement with UC Regents, the State agreed to take over funding of Janet Napolitano's Undocumented Students Initiative 

29. Janet Napolitano is a single appointed bureaucrat that has acted unilaterally to change admissions policies and spending priorities without compentent oversight from the California Board of Regents and the State Legislature. Despite several scathing State audits no one has fired or disciplined her. That is because all of the appointed bureaucrats sitting on the Board of Regents have the same political ideology. The Board lacks political diversity. 

30. Governor Newsom, as Lieutenant Governor sat on the Board of Regents from 2011 until he was elected Governor in 2018.  Since becoming governor, he has focused all of his energy on providing new programs and entitlements for illegal immigrants while ignoring the needs of rank and file citizens. Governor Newsom, as Governor continues to deny basic civil rigts to the legal citizens of the State of California.

The Message to California Taxpayers and California Resident Students:

We want your money- but we don't want you.

  

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA INCREASED INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT CLAIMING IT WAS NECESSARY TO INCREASE DIVERSITY ON UC CAMPUSES

31. It was the intent of the California Legislature that diversity on UC campuses must reflect the diversity of the State of California. 

32. The diversity of students on UC campuses no longer reflects the diversity of the State of California. Almost 1/2 of the student population on every campus is now Asian. According to the latest census data, Asian's make up 15% of California's population. 

Census Data 

Asian 15%

Berkeley  Davis  Irvine  LA  Merced  Riverside  San Diego  Santa Barbara Santa Cruz
Undergraduate 39.3%  31.1%  38.7%  31.5% 21.6%  37.2%   37.3%  24.3% 28.3% 
Graduate 17.6% 17.6%   19.6% 20.3%   10.6% 12.9%  16.2%   10.3%  11.3%

 

33. Chicano/Latino make up 39.3% of California's population and are under represented on all campuses except UC Merced which is 52.7% Chicano/Latino. 

Census Data 

Chicano/ Latino 39.3%

Berkeley  Davis  Irvine  LA Merced  Riverside  San Diego  Santa Barbara Santa Cruz
Undergraduate 14.7%   21.9% 25.2%  21.2% 52.7%  39.8%  19.6%  25.2%  26.7%
Graduate 7.7%  10.9%  9.6%  10.6%  17.3%  15.4%   7.5% 8.9%  10.4% 

 

34. Whites; now an ethnic minority in the State of California, make up 36.8% of California's population. White students are underrepresented on every UC Campus.

Source: Fall Enrollment at a Glance: Ethnicity

Census Data 

White 36.8%

Berkeley  Davis  Irvine  LA  Merced  Riverside  San Diego  Santa Barbara Santa Cruz
Undergraduate 24.8% 23.4% 13.4% 26% 9.6% 11.5% 19.2% 30.6% 30.3%
Graduate 34.4% 39.6% 26.6% 32.5% 27.6% 29.3% 27.1% 43.4% 41.3%

 

35. International Enrollment at the University of California is up 780% since 2009.

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

19,763 

392%

14,190

+ 700%  

4,420

+ 780%  

 

36. The 2018 (latest data) showed that non-resident international enrollment totaled 40,122 students:

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. 

This is not "Diversity" this is a national security risk.

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%

  

CRIMINAL FRAUD

37. By design; every year, the University of California denies approximately 10,700 California resident students (first-time freshman) 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 (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

38. UC Merced is a "FALSE CHOICE" for California residents students (first-time freshman) 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

 

39. 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_2019-04-15_at_93931_AM.png

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN UNJUSTLY ENRICHED

40. The University of California's failure to fully comply with its Master Plan Mandate (providing California students with "appropriate" placement) unjustly enriched the University of California at the expense of California taxpayers. California's top 12.5% of high school graduates who were denied access to an "appropriate" UC were denied educational opportunity so that the UC could profit at their expense.

41. California families who's children were wrongly denied a seat at an "appropriate" UC have paid substantial taxes to support the University of California and it's very highly paid staff and were suppose to receive PRIORITY ENROLLMENT. These same families have been defrauded and were then forced to pay an additional $40,000 per year in tuition at another 4-year highly selective college or university.

This is a violation of State Law, and the University of California's Master Plan Mandate.

University of California Master Plan

Access Guarantee

"The University of California and the California State University are expected to plan that adequate spaces are available to accommodate all California resident students who are eligible and likely to apply to attend an appropriate place [not UC Merced] within the system"

42. When the University of California denies a seat to a California resident student and sells that seat to an out-of-state and/or international student, the UC keeps the taxpayer money that subsidized the cost of that seat for a California resident student $29,754. Then the UC sells that seat for an additional $44,000. That is $73,754 benefit to the UC per seat and serves no benefit to the displaced California resident student who must not only pay the $160,000 in additional tuition over four years, but the State subsidized portion because they are no longer in-state students at a California public university. Their total tuition cost at an out-of-state or private university is closer to $55,000 per year rather than the $15,000 they would have paid in state at a UC.

Unjust Enrichment for the University of California:

10,700 seats X $73,754 = $789 million in additional revenues for the UC

Damage to California Resident:

10,700 students X $55,000 X 4 years = $2.4 billion per year

Source: University of California Office of the President Budget Analysis and Planning

   2019-20 Tuition and Fees
  CA resident Non-resident 
  Tuition & Fees

Supplemental Tuition

Total
Berkeley  $14,254 $29,754 $44,000
Davis $12,570 $29,754 $42,324
Irvine   $15,621 $29,754 $45,375
Los Angeles $16,245 $29,754 $45,999
Merced   $  6,796 $14,496 $21,265

For out-of-state students 

WUE School

$17,163

 
Riverside

$3,814

$5,208

$9,0002

$ 9,918

$15,126

$25,004

$25,004
San Diego   $11,442 $29,754 $41,196
Santa Barbara    $14,390 $29,754  $44,144
Santa Cruz   $17,009.46  $29,754  $46,763

 

Out-of-State and Private Colleges and Universities   

 2019-20 Tuition and Fees
Harvard $55,879
Stanford University $54,762
University of California $58,645
University of San Diego $51,186
University of Arizona  $41,100

 

43. The University of California unjustly enriched itself at the expense of 10,700 California resident students who are now forced to pay out-of-state and/ or private school tuition at an average cost of $55,000 per year, $40,000 more than a seat at the UC would have cost them.

 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS UNJUSTLY ENRICHED ITSELF BY INTENTIONALLY UNDERFUNDING LOW POVERTY K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS

44. The State of California has been able to increase state revenues by $66 billion dollars since 2007-08 by intentionally underfunding low poverty K-12 public school districts through the State's unconstitutional funding formual. 

45. The funding formula limits K-12 per pupil funding to 2007-08 levels + inflation not to be reached until 2021. 

46. California's new education funding law: AB- 97 School Finance - Local Control Funding Formula aka "LCFF" distributes K- 12 per pupil funding using the following formula.

The "Base Grant" is universal for all students. 

The "Supplemental Grant" provides additional funding to districts based on the percentage of students in the district that are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care. 

The "Concentration Grant" provides even more funding for districts that have large concentrations of students that are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care.

Districts with a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care, are funded primarily by the Base Grant. 

The State set the base funding grant at $6,500. That is $2,500 per pupil below the cost to educate any student in California based on a study commissioned in 2006. 

47.  In December 2006, the State of California Commissioned a study to determine the cost to "adequately" educate a student in California with special needs weightings. The 2007-08 Calculated per pupil costs with special needs weightings determined that no child in the state of California could be educated for less than $8,932 per pupil. The study determined that suburban school districts should receive $10,726 - $12,077 per pupil to be adequately funded.

Source: Efficiency and Adequacy in California School Finance: A Professional Judgment Approach

https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/19-AIR-PJP-Report(3-07).pdf at page Xiii

 

48. By setting the base grant so low, the State by design, intentionally underfunded any District that had a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care.  This enabled the State to siphon $2,500 per pupil from every child in its 34 wealthiest school districts. 

49. Basing per pupil funding on the wealth, race, and ethnicity of a district is a violation of the equal protection laws of the State of California and the US Constitution.

50. Denying any student sufficient funding to achieve a equality of educational opportunity simply because of where they happen to live, and irrespective of their individual wealth, race or ethnicity constitutes invidious discrimination

51. The State is using California's public education system to continually raise new revenues. But, rather than use new revenues to adequately fund a basic education for every student, the State chose instead, to create new programs and entitlements that are not constitutionally mandated while denying California's legal residents their basic civil rights. 

52. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973) the US Supreme Court defined when it would be appropriate for a Federal Court to review an individual State's education funding system to determine the constitutionality of that system. The Court also defined how an individual State's education funding system should be reviewed to determine the Constitutionality of that system.

A Federal Court has proper jurisdiction to review an individual State’s education funding laws under standards of strict judicial scrutiny, in cases involving laws that operate to the disadvantage of a suspect class or interferes with the exercise of fundamental rights and liberties explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution. Ibid. [18-44]

If a State's system of financing public education:

1. Operates to the disadvantage of some suspect class, or

2. Impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution,

that system must be reviewed under standards of strict judicial scrutiny. 

If a suspect classification is not found, the system must still be examined to:

"... determine whether the law rationally furthers some legitimate, articulated state purpose, and therefore does not constitute an invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. " Ibid. [17]

Matters of Fiscal Policy: 

Ibid. [40].  "[San Antonio v Rodriguez] represents far more than a challenge to the manner in which Texas provides for the education of its children. We have here nothing less than a direct attack on the way in which Texas has chosen to raise and disburse state and local tax revenues." (Emphasis Added) "The broad discretion as to classification possessed by a legislature in the field of taxation has long been recognized. . . . [T]he passage of time has only served to underscore the wisdom of that recognition of the large area of discretion which is needed by a legislature in formulating sound tax policies. . . . "

Ibid. [41]   "It has . . . been pointed out that in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification. Since the members of a legislature necessarily enjoy a familiarity with local conditions which this Court cannot have, the presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the most explicit demonstration that a classification is a hostile and oppressive discrimination against particular persons and classes. . . ."  Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 87-88 (1940). See also Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356 (1973); Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 445 (1940). (emphasis added). 

California's education funding law AB- 97 School Finance - Local Control Funding Formula Operates to the disadvantage of a suspect class and therefore, must be reviewed under standards of strict judicial scrutiny.

 Even if a suspect classification is not found, the system must still be examined to:  

"... determine whether the law rationally furthers some legitimate, articulated state purpose, and therefore does not constitute an invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. " San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973) at [17]

The stated goal of the Local Control Funding Formula is to provide a base level of funding for every student (Base Grant), and then to provide additional funding for students who "high needs", identified as students who are "English Language Learners", "Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch", or are in "Foster Care" (Supplemental Grant and Concentration Grant).

The LCFF does not provide high needs students in districts with a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch and/or are in Foster Care with sufficient funding to meet their needs and therefore does not meet the State's articulated purpose for the law. Every student, including English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced lunch and/or Foster kids are being deprived of there fundamental Right to Equality of Educational Opportunity simply because of where they happen to live, and irrespective of their individual wealth, race or ethnicity. That constitutes invidious discrimination and is a violation of the Equal Protection laws of both the State of California and the Federal Constitution. 

To meet it's constitutional mandate to students the State of California must increase the Base Funding amount to a level that provides every student with sufficient funding to achieve equality of educational opportunity, which as a matter of law is not less than $8,932 + infantion since 2007-08. 

 

CALIFORNIA STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES DESERVE RECOMPENSE

53. Both the State of California and the University of California have been unjustly enriched by allowing the unfair practices to continue. These families have been fiscally injured, and these students have been denied the "appropriate" educational opportunity that was guaranteed to them by both the State of California and the University of California. 

54. California families that have been financially damaged should be given a financial remedy as recommended by the Auditor.

"The university’s decision to increase nonresident enrollment at the expense of residents will have a long-lasting impact unless the Legislature and the university take steps to restore the university’s historic commitment to residents. These steps must not only ensure that the university prioritizes residents’ interests in the future but also repairs the damage that its past decisions have caused. In November 2015—during the course of our audit— the university committed to enrolling an additional 10,000 more residents over the next three fiscal years. However, the enrollment of 10,000 additional residents will not fully rectify the ramifications of its decision to admit nonresidents while referring or denying admission to more qualified resident applicants." 

 

Number of Students in the Referral Pool

Number of Students in the Referral Pool that Enrolled at UC Merced
2005-06  5,981  357
2006-07 5,784   391
2007-08 6,606  434 
2008-09 9,012   579
2009-10  11,348  706
2010-11 10,545 355 
2011-12  11,940 159 
2012-13  8,360 134 
2013-14 9,411 131
2014-15 10,688 195
2015-16 10,000 90
2016-17 10,000 90
2017-18 10,000 90
2019-20 10,000 90
  129,675 3,801

125,874 California resident students have been financially damaged 

126,000 X $160,000 = $20,160,000,000

$21 billion stolen from California Taxpayers since UC Merced opened in 2005

These students and their families are identifiable and need to be reimbursed.

 

55. As a result of the abusive, unconscionable and malicious conduct of the University of California, the Board of Regents and California legislators, taxpayers deserve a criminal investigation into the admission practices and financial decisions made by both the University of California and the State of California.

56.  The State of California has failed to meet its Constitutional obligation to provide an "appropriate" seat for ALL top 12.5% of California High School Graduates. In 2015, the Auditor made recommendations that the Legislature and the Board of Regents had an obligation to take seriously and to implement. Both the California Legislature and the UC Board of Regents failed to implement the Auditors recommendations for UC Admissions and have now allowed 10,700

 

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION

57. Further, this denies equality of educational opportunity to qualified California students which is a violation of their individual civil rights. It now seems obvious that referring these students to UC Merced was not an "appropriate" placement for 99.1% of the referrals.

California LAO The 2019-20 Budget: Higher Education Analysis page 43

"Many Students Not Getting Into Campus of Choice. Although UC is admitting all eligible freshman applicants, some of these applications are redirected to Merced. In fall 2017, 10,700 eligible freshman applicants (14 percent) were referred to Merced. Very few of these students (119 or 1.1 percent) elected to enroll at that campus. Students who do not accept admission at UC may end up attending CSU, a private school, or a community college (then transferring to a four-year school, including UC, upon completing their lower-division coursework). Supporting more enrollment growth could enable UC to accommodate more applicants at their campus of choice. The Legislature could weigh this benefit against its other budget priorities." 

The California LAO misunderstands that the "Referral Pool" is not made up of students who need to complete their lower-division coursework, these are students who are California's top 9%... the best and brightest who deserve a seat at the UC of their Choice, not to be referred to UC Merced. That is why 98.9% of the students rejected the offer to attend UC Merced. Many are qualified to attend flagship schools like UCLA and Berkeley so they of course attend similar schools (ie USC) outside the University system.

 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

58. 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

59. California resident students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class are to be guaranteed a seat by the State of California and the University of California based solely 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.

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

61. Affirmative Action is illegal in the state of California.

62. Under the recent Supreme Court Case Fisher v University of Texas at Austin the UC system must first, provide an appropriate seat for all California resident students in the top 12.5% of the state based solely on merit in order to comply with State law and the University's Master Plan mandate.  The university is then allowed to use a "holistic review" of students for admission for all remaining seats. 

"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." 

Public educational institutions cannot engage in affirmative action [California Prop 2019].

University of California: Guidelines for Enhancing Diversity at UC in Context of Proposition 209, page 3

 

COLLEGE BOARD'S DIVERSITY COLLABORATIVE

63. 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 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."

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

EducationCouncil LLC

EducationCounsel LLC (an affiliate of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP) is the College Board’s principal partner in providing strategic counsel and substantive content regarding the relevant legal, policy, and practice issues central to the ADC’s mission. EducationCounsel is a mission-based education consulting firm that combines experience in policy, strategy, law, and advocacy to drive significant improvements in the U.S. education system from pre-K through college and career. EducationCounsel’s work in higher education focuses on issues ranging from access and opportunity to those associated with quality and completion. For more information, please visit http://educationcounsel.com/.

64. The University of California, Office of the President should be rebuked for thier use of taxpayer dollars to implement a pilot to add "adversity scores" to SAT testing.

65. The University of California, Office of the President should be rebuked for thier mis-use of California students personally identifiable data to implement a pilot to add "adversity scores" to SAT testing. 

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

Note: Enrollmet Data shows that changes to the UC Admission Policies and Financial Decisions put CA Resident Students at a disadvantage for enrollment. 

See: July 18, 2019 Letter to California High School Students and Recent Grads


SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 

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+% 

 

 

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%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School Source 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%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School Source 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

 

Califonria 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%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School Source 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%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School Source 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

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% 


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