For Immediate Release July 30, 2019
California Taxpayers demand a federal investigation of the University of California, Office of the President for discriminatory admissions policies.
The University of California sells a disproportionate number of seats to students from the People's Republic of China while denying access to California's highest achieving students, in violation of state and federal law, and the University of California's Master Plan for Higher Education.
As a taxpayer funded educational institution, diversity on California campuses is suppose to reflect the diversity of the State. It does not.
The University of California is a taxpayer funded educational institution that operates under a Master Plan mandate that requires California resident students to be given priority enrollment.
The Master Plan defines access and differentiation of admission pools based on merit not diversity.
UC was to select from among the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the high school graduating class.
CSU was to select from among the top one-third (33.3%) of the high school graduating class.
Calif. Community Colleges were to admit any student capable of benefiting from instruction.
California law also guarantees admission based on merit.
“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 within the system.The State of California likewise reaffirms its historic commitment to ensure that resources are provided to make this expansion possible, and shall commit resources to ensure that [eligible] students ….. are accommodated in a place within the system.” [CA Education Code 66202.5]
As a result of discriminatory admission policies, approximately 10,700 California resident students per year, are financially harmed. Qualified California resident students that are denied an appropriate seat are forced to spend an average of $40,000 per year in additional tuition and fees to attend an "appropriate" out-of-state, or private college or university. That is an additional college expense of $160,000 per student [$1.7 billion dollars per year out of the pockets of California taxpayers].
According to a 2015 State Audit the University of California denies California resident students equality of educational opportunity:
"...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."
[Note: UC Merced is not an "appropriate" placement for students in the Top 12.5% of their high school graduating class]
In 2019, the LAO confirmed that this practice continues.
"Eligible Students Have Access to UC System, Not First-Choice Campus. For both freshman and transfer applicants, eligibility guarantees admission to the UC system but not to a particular campus. When applicants are not admitted to their campus of choice, UC refers them to less-selective campuses. Currently, Merced serves as the referral campus for freshman applicants, whereas both Riverside and Merced serve as referral campuses for transfer applicants."
"High School Graduates Projected to Decline Slightly. The Department of Finance projects a 0.8 percent decline in the number of high school graduates in 2018-19 and a 0.4 percent decline in 2019-20. This means that, all other factors staying the same, enrollment demand for freshman slots in 2020-21 would decrease accordingly. This slight decline in high school graduates over the next two years also suggests that enrollment growth at UC could be a lower priority for the Legislature."
"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."
Campus of Choice
The UC has once again unilaterally changed admission policies for the class of 2020, it will now only guarantee qualified California residents a seat on a space available basis. That is no "guarantee" at all.
From the University of California Admissions: Freshman: California Residents
The University of California denies California residents students admission even though they are academically more qualified.
Supporting DocumentationFall 2019 Admissions tables
40,122 International students
88% from Asia and the Middle East
61% are from the People's Republic of China
12% from the rest of the world
This is not "Diversity". That is a National Security Risk.
- Hits: 161