By Dawn Urbanek
UC Admissions Directors Panel for UCLA page 23
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
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.
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.
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"
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.
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".
"1.1 APPLICANTS, ADMITS AND ENROLLEES
UC continues to work toward achieving its goal of a 2:1 ratio of California resident freshmen to transfer students."
New Freshmen Enrollment: Source: Undergraduate Admissions Summary
New Freshmen Transfers: Undergraduate Admissions Summary Transfers
If you found this research valuable, please consider a donation to the "Equity Project"