By Dawn Urbanek 

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

SOURCES: 

University of California 2018 Accountability Report

UCLA Enrollment Data

UCLA Academic Planning and Budget

UCLA Undergraduate Admission - Profile of Admitted Transfer Student

UCLA Undergraduate Admission - Profile of Admitted Freshmen Students

UCLA Registrar's Office Fees Archive

UC Admissions Directors Panel for UCLA page 23

UC Admission Directors Panel: UC High School Counselor Conference 2018

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Request Another Audit: In California only an elected Assembly Person can request an audit. Contact your Representative and ask that a new audit be conducted

UCLA is already being investigated by the FBI for Admissions scandal. Contact the FBI and ask them to look at this information. United States Attorneys Office District of Massachusetts 

John Joseph Moakley
United States Federal Courthouse

1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 748-3100 or
TTY (617) 748-3696

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Contact Local Press and ask them to cover this issue.

Share with friends.

 

Under longstanding state policy the top 12.5% of high school graduates are guaranteed a seat at a UC College [further reduced to 9% in 2009]. Those students that are not admitted to the UC campus of their choice become part of a referral pool and are offered UC Merced.  

The policy has changed again. Not every student in the top 9% of High School Graduates for the Class of 2019 will be guaranteed a seat at the UC like they have been in the past, not even to UC Merced. 

UC Admittance from the referral pool is now based on "if space is available".

Admittance on a "Space Available Basis" is not a "Guaranteed" seat.

The UC is operating outside of its mandate because it is denying access to  California's highest achieving students.

Source: University of California Admissions| Freshman| Statewide Path

 

To make matters worse for the Top 9% of Students, the University of California has created a new class of students called "FRESHMAN TRANSFERS". Freshman Transfer students are competing for the same seats as the Top 9% of California High School Graduates at the University of California. 

These "FRESHMAN TRANSFER" students are students that already graduated high school in previous years. They attended community college after finishing High School.  So, why are they entering as Freshman? And why are they competing for seats with the top 9% California High School Graduates in a class year? 

"Freshman Transfers" is a false and mis-leading term. They are not entering college for the first time. They have completed some college after high school.


For example the following data is from Undergraduate Admissions Summary

2018 Freshmen Enrollment at UCLA  California Resident Out of State International Total
Freshmen Graduating from High School in 2018  4,367  1,221 652 6,240
Freshmen Transfer from Community College  2,847  27 553 3,427
Total 7,214 (75%) 1,248 (13%) 1,205 (12%)

9,667

The total number of enrollments available for New California Freshman High School Graduates from the class of 2018 was 4,367. All the other seats 5,300 (2,847 + 1,248 + 1,205 = 5,300 = 55%) were taken by other groups. Entering Freshman from California High Schools Graduating Class of 2018 has been limited to 45% so that the UC could sell the non-resident seats to increase revenue and give seats to Freshmen Transfers. The UC reported 8,725 California Resident Admits but due to this scam only 4,367 of 2018 Freshman Graduates actually got offered a legitimate seat.

 

The 2,847 seats represent 40% of the seats that should have been available to all California residents at the UCLA campus for 2018. These seats were taken by a "FRESHMAN TRANSFER" student that transferred from a Community College. 

See: UCLA Newsroom UCLA offers freshman admission to 16,000, increases offers to transfer students 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Profile of Admitted Undergraduate (Offered a Spot) UCLA Fall 2018

113,761 Applicants

15,970 Incoming Freshman Applications

These are the spots for Graduating High School Seniors + Transfers from Community College coming in as a Freshmen due to a new policy change which requires 1/3 of all admits to include CA Community College students who needed remedial class work to complete high school graduation requirements.

California Residents

(55%) 8,725 California Residents (3,434 went to Freshman Transfers)

Non Residents (46%) 

(32%) 5,035 Out of State

(14%) 2,210 International 

Note: UC increased Revenue from Applications alone are $7.9 million less waivers for all those who could not afford to pay.

    5,575 Incoming Transfers   

(62%) 3,434 Incoming Freshman Transfers 

(38%) 2,141 Incoming Sophomore- Junior - Senior Transfers 

California Residents

(83%) 4,640 California Residents

Non Residents

(  1%) 60 Out of State

(16%) 875 International 

Note: Revenue from Transfer Applications alone are $240,380 million less waivers for all those who could not afford to pay.

The UC collected $8.14 million in UCLA application fees alone. 

Note: 4,360 students that received "admits" did not enroll. These students were probably offered UC Merced. A California Audit showed that only 2% of California students that were guaranteed a seat at UC Merced accepted. 98% went to other Colleges and Universities outside the UC System more comparable to flagship schools like UCLA/ UC Berkeley. They did so at great expense to their families. Families who now must spend a minimum of $28,992.42 in Tuition for their children to attend a comparable school to a UCLA/ UC Berkeley.

$28,992.42 X 4 years = $115,969.68 

4,360 students X $116,000.00 = $505,760,000.00

That is 1/2 Billion Dollars in Tax payer money. And the UC was unjustly enriched by the same amount by selling these students seats.

This has been going on since 2009 (How many billions have tax payers lost?)

Profile of Enrolled Freshmen (Accepted a Spot) UCLA Fall 2018

31,569 Undergraduate Enrollment (all grades)

Freshmen Enrollment 9,674 Students

6,240 New Freshmen 

California Residents

70% (4,365) California Residents

Non Residents (30%) 

20% (1,224) Out of State Students

10% (   651) International Students 

3,434 New Freshman Transfers (9 Students unaccounted for)

California Residents

83% (2,845) California Residents

Non Residents 

  1% (31) Out of State Residents

16% (549) International 

     Returning Freshmen (194 Unaccounted for) 

 

Besides Denying admission to more qualified students, the admission decisions unjustly enriched the UC at the finacial expense of California Families who were forced to spend almost a combined 1/2 billion in Tuition to get their children into a comparable school outside of the UC system. The data is below.

A Scathing 2015 Audit shows the profound long term damage that has been done to California students and taxpayers.

2015 Audit of the University of California entitled University of California: Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students the auditor concluded that: 

"As a public institution, the university should serve primarily those who provide for its financial and civic support—California residents. However, over the past several years, the university has failed to put the needs of residents first."

"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."

2018 Tuition for Residents is $15,940.42

2018 Tuition for Non- Residents (Out of State and International) is $44,932.42

The UC increases its revenue by $28,992.42 per student when it enrolls a non-resident student; and as such, has a strong financial incentive to "sell" seats to non-resident students.

In 2018-19 UCLA enrollment had 2,453 (25%) No-Resident students, at increased tuition of $28,992.42 per student, UCLA increased its revenues by $71 million dollars. Over four years that will add up to $284 million dollars.

"The decision to increase nonresident enrollment has had profound repercussions for residents who apply for admission. According to the Master Plan for Higher Education in California (Master Plan), which proposed the roles for each of the State’s institutions of higher education, the university should select for admission from the top 12.5 percent of the State’s high school graduating class." 

High School Graduates in the top 9% of their schools are suppose to be "GUARANTEED" a seat at a UC Campus (and with these qualifications should get a school of your choice). Unfortunately, what the UC appears to have been doing is denying these students the UC campus of their choice, and instead offering California's best and brightest students only UC Merced. 

Full Audit Report at page 34

"In addition to admitting nonresidents who are less academically qualified than the upper half of admitted residents, the university also admitted fewer residents to the campuses of their choice over the past several years. Specifically, the percentage of residents to whom the university denied admission to their campuses of choice increased from 23 percent in academic year 2005–06 to 38 percent in academic year 2014–15. If residents are eligible for admission to the university and the campuses of their choice do not offer them admission, the university offers them a spot at an alternative campus through what it calls a referral process. Under this process, eligible residents not admitted to any of the campuses to which they applied are placed into a referral pool. These residents can then accept admittance to an alternate campus, which is currently limited to Merced. According to the university, the referral process is critical to its meeting its Master Plan commitment to admit the top 12.5 percent of residents. However, very few residents actually enroll at the campus to which they are referred. Conversely, the university does not refer nonresidents to alternate campuses."

Summary of Audit 5th Paragraph

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

 

Only 2% of the 2014 High School Graduates named in the Audit accepted admission into UC Merced.

 

98% were forced to accept admission to colleges and universities comparable to UC's flagship schools outside of the UC system often at increased Tuition rates.

As a result of the 2015 Audit where it was recognized that only 2% of Californias best and brightest students accepted an offer to attend UC Merced that "admit" was not really a recognizable "admit". It was inferred that this was a process being used to deny seats to the 9% which the Master Plan mandates.

"only 2 percent of the 10,700 residents placed in the referral pool enrolled"

 

TURNING POINT

Provide more seats for the 9% that were suppose to be "GUARANTEED" a seat because of MERIT or Take more seats away from the 9% to give seats to Community College students entering a UC as a Freshman

From the Auditor: ..."few of the residents whom the university admits and refers to an alternate campus ultimately enroll. In academic year 2014–15 for example, 55 percent of residents to whom the university offered admission to one of the campuses to which they applied enrolled, while only 2 percent of the 10,700 residents placed in the referral pool enrolled." 

In 2015, in an effort to offer more seats residents the University announced plans to increase enrollment of California residents in the UC system by 10,000 over the next three years.

Unfortunately the UC used the 10,000 per year increase in enrollment for  "Freshman Transfer" students from Community College, and Non-resident students leaving and failed to ensure that the 9% of California students graduating from high school in a class year were guaranteed a seat.  

Summary of Audit 7th Paragraph

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

Since the Audit in 2015, it is now very clear that the UC has not met its Master Plan commitment to admit the top 12.5 percent of California student and to guarantee enrollment of the top 9% of California High School Graduates.

It also very clear that the UC is no longer guaranteeing a seat to California's top 9% of graduating high school seniors. The UC is now stating that a seat will only be granted on a "space available basis." which is no "guarantee at all.

9% of California High School Graduates (in a given year) are being denied a guaranteed a seat in the UC system as mandated by the UC Master Plan. 

This is a problem when the only "space" offered is UC Merced, and when policy changes force 55% of the seats to be filled by Non-residents and "Freshmen Community College Transfers" that only allows 45% of the seats to go to the top 9% California High School Graduating Seniors in a class year.

The students who graduated in the top 9% of their High School class are being denied educational opportunity that has always been guaranteed by the UC. In addition to being denied educational opportunity, the UC has unjustly enriched itself at the expense of these California families.

These families are now forced to attend Private and Out of State Colleges and Universities that are equivalent to UC Flagship schools at great personal expense.

 

"Unjust Enrichment"

 

UC increased it's Revenues by $8.14 million just in 2018 ULCA application fees:

Applications: $7.9 million.

Transfer Applications: $240,380 million

and did so at the expense of 3,365 California Families who now must spend a minimum of $28,992.42 in increased Tuition for their children to attend a comparable school to a UCLA/ UC Berkeley.

$28,992.42 X 4 years = $115,969.68 

 

$116,000.00 per family over 4 years.

 

Everyone understands the desire to have more opportunities for a greater number of students to attend the University of California, however it does not make sense to take seats away from California's top 9% of High School Graduates to provide an opportunity to Community College transfer students that graduated from high school in previous years. They are not Freshmen and should not take seats from recent high school graduates.

Take the seats that are currently being sold to non-residents for a profit instead of denying access to those students who have been guaranteed a seat.

What is going on? 

Who has ever heard of a "FRESHMEN" Transfer? 

Someone who has graduated high school and then goes to Community college should never be admitted as a "Freshman".  

See: 2018 Accountability Report 1.1.2

UC continues to work toward achieving its goal of a 2:1 ratio of California resident freshmen to transfer students."

Source: University of California Freshmen Admissions

After the 2014-15 audit the Top 9% of California Resident students were guaranteed a seat at a UC. For many students, the only offer was Merced. As such, many students would turn Merced down and take offers from better colleges and Universities outside the UC system.

UC forces California's best and brightest into Merced so that it can then "sell" seats to flagship schools like UCLA and Berkeley to Out of State and International students that pay higher tuition. 

As a result of changes in UC policy, California residents are no longer guaranteed a seat at all.

How can any educational institution that wants to provide education opportunity to all students offer a child that is qualified for a flagship school like UCLA/ UC Berkeley offer that student UC Merced?

SOURCE: UCLA Freshman Admission Profile

SOURCE: Merced Freshman Admission Profile

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATA  

New Freshmen Enrollment: Source: Undergraduate Admissions Summary

  California Resident Out of State International % by Race
African American 322  41   363 (6%)
American Indian  33  15      48 (<1%)
Chicano/Latino  1,130  57   1,187 (19%)
Asian  1,646  506   2,152 (34%)
White  1,049  547   1,596 (26%)
Unknown   187 55   242 (3%)
International       652 652 (10%)
Total 4,367 1,221 652  6,240

 

New Freshmen Transfers: Undergraduate Admissions Summary Transfers

  California Resident Out of State International % by Race
African American 183      183 (5%) 
American Indian  19    20 (<1%) 
Chicano/Latino  785    786 (23%) 
Asian   782 12    794 (23%) 
White  1,003  13     1,016 (30%)
Unknown  75      75 (2%) 
International       553 553 (16%) 
Total 2,847  27   553 3,427 

 

If you found this research valuable, please consider a donation to the "Equity Project"

 

Chapter One: The California Budget & Education Funding: California's Local Control Funding Formula

Chapter Two: Federal Funding for California Education: Federal Funds

Chapter Three: Funding from Local School Facility Bonds

Chapter Four: Funding from State School Facility Bonds Coming Soon!

The Equity Project

If you find this research valuable, please consider a donation to The Equity Project.