Auditor: College wrongly admitted well-connected students

SAN FRANCISCO — The University of California “inappropriately admitted“at least 64 wealthy, mostly white students over the past six years as “favors to donors, family, and friends,“according to an audit released Tuesday that found hundreds more questionable cases of students accepted to the top UC schools.

Among them were a student whose family was friends with a member of the Board of Regents, the child of a major donor and an applicant who babysat for a colleague of a former admissions director, according to the report from the California State Auditor.

“This is a significant problem that the university needs to deal with,” State Auditor Elaine Howle said in a telephone interview. “Let’s hope this isn’t occurring across the country, or at other universities in California. But it is very concerning.“

The audit examined admissions policies and practices over the six academic years from 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 at four of the UC’s nine campuses — UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and UC Santa Barbara.

Auditors found that at least 22 applicants were falsely designated as student-athlete recruits “because of donations from or as favors to well-connected families.“These students “had little or no athletic skills,“Howle said.

The report did not name students, coaches or specific sports but the investigators looked at a mix of teams at each campus, including soccer, crew, golf, water polo, swimming, track and field, women’s basketball and men’s tennis, the report said.

It identified at least 13 applicants improperly admitted as student athletes to UC Berkeley, four each at UCLA and UC Santa Barbara and one at UC San Diego.

“UC Berkeley really had some significant weaknesses in their admissions process,“Howle said. The audit found the elite school admitted 42 applicants who were the children of staff and donors, while denying admission to others who were more qualified.

In one case, the child of a major donor applied to UC Berkeley and received the lowest possible score on their application, which was marked, “Do Not Recommend,“the report said. But the application was revived by an associate director of the donor relations department who contacted a coach to say the family had “a huge capacity and is already a big supporter of Cal.“The coach backed up the applicant as a prospective student athlete, “even though the applicant had played only a single year of the sport in high school and at a low level of competition.“After admission, the applicant’s family donated several thousand dollars to the team, the report said. “The applicant never competed with the team, and the coaches removed the applicant from the team after the season ended.“

A UCLA coach admitted a student as an athlete, as a favor to a donor — even after the student’s application had been marked, “Denied,“the report said.

Howle said she believes the findings have barely scratched the surface of problems in the UC admissions process. The majority of the 64 applicants were white and at least half had annual family incomes of $150,000 or more, the audit said.

Those 64 students were identified in the audit based on “definitive evidence,“such as emailed communications showing a student was denied admission but then reconsidered and accepted after an athletic coach or the development office got involved to suggest the student’s entry could lead to donations, Howle said.

“There’s at least another 400 or so students … that were really questionable,“Howle said, including some student athletes who didn’t appear to have any athletic ability.

UC President Michael V. Drake, who took over the job in July, said in a statement that he took the findings and recommendations “very seriously and will do all I can to prevent inappropriate admissions“in the 285,000-student system.

“The University will swiftly address the concerns the State Auditor raised. Furthermore, individuals involved in improper activities will be disciplined appropriately,“Drake said. “Unethical means to gain admission, as rare as they may be, run contrary to our longstanding values of equity and fairness.“