Board OKs letter of rec. regulations

Monday, May 20, 1996

Regents can write on students’ behalf, not meddle in
admissionsBy Michael Howerton

Daily Bruin Staff

SAN FRANCISCO — While the Board of Regents resolved that they
would no longer seek to use their influence to change the outcome
of admissions in the university, they reaffirmed their right to
write letters of recommendation on behalf of applicants.

In a vote on Friday that passed 24-2, board members decided that
their influence should not be used to manipulate admissions. The
two objectors argued that the resolution did not go far enough to
curtail the regents from influencing university admissions ­ a
practice for which many of the members have come under fire in
recent weeks.

Student Regent Edward Gomez had proposed a bill that would have
prevented the regents from writing letters of recommendation or
making informal inquires into applications, but the item was
dropped when it was apparent there was no support among the board
for such an action.

Many regents said they resented attempts to take away their
ability to write recommendations for students. Regent Roy Brophy
said he would continue to write letters of recommendation until a
law was passed against it and Regent Tirso del Junco encouraged his
colleagues not to be intimidated by criticism and to write
letters.

However, in response to the regents and other prominent
individuals defense of their right to write recommendations,
critics charged that recommendations are not supposed to be a
component of the UC admissions process.

There is a dichotomy in the recommendation process, UC Provost
Judson King admitted. Letters of recommendations are discouraged
with applications and prospective applicants are told that any
letter with the application will be thrown away, but added that
submitted letters have traditionally been accepted.

University officials will change the process to eliminate this
dichotomy, but were unsure if it would be changed to accommodate
recommendations or to eliminate them. King speculated the change
would be in favor of allowing applications but not requiring
them.

The UC Office of the President presented the findings of their
two-month investigation into admissions procedures on the UC
campuses to the regents on Thursday. The report concluded that,
while there had been undue influence used in some cases, the
numbers were small.

The report found that 0.03 percent of undergraduate applications
for Fall 1995 received inquiries from prominent individuals. On the
average, about 12 applications each year "received positive
consideration as a result of inquires and letters from prominent
individuals," the report found. UCLA led the campuses with an
average of 123 inquires a year from such individuals and six
"positive considerations" annually from those requests.

Holding up the findings as proof of the generally unbiased
nature of UC admissions practices, UC President Richard Atkinson
praised the university for resisting pressure, to the extent it
does, from influential individuals.

"I have been in higher education for most of my life and I know
how the admissions process works," Atkinson said. "We are just
about the purest admissions process in this country. These are a
trivial number of cases."

Atkinson further said that students recommended by a donor,
legislator, or high university official are desired components of
the admissions process, since they give chancellors flexibility to
act in the best interest of the institution.

"We need to operate in the most effective way for the state,"
Atkinson said. "On rare occasions, special admissions can add to
the quality of the university. On occasion, one wants that
flexibility. That’s difficult for some people, but that’s the
reality of the world."

UCLA Chancellor Charles Young told the regents that a commission
at the Los Angeles campus had looked into the matter and concluded
that a few admissions should be left up to the chancellor.

"The UCLA commission believes that it is important for
admissions to take into consideration cases for the interest of the
institution," Young said, "As long as it doesn’t displace someone,
influence is not bad."

However, Atkinson said he would not support Lt. Gov. Gray Davis’
suggestion of allocating 0.50 percent of admissions each year to
the chancellors for institutional need. Atkinson said he wouldn’t
want to fix a percentage like that on special admissions since they
should be considered extremely rare and out of the scope of normal
admissions procedures.

Likewise, Atkinson had reservations about the "Fairness in
Admissions" proposal that would require the university to explain
their reasons for rejecting a particular applicant. Not only would
that be too cumbersome of a requirement on the admissions office,
but sometimes, he said, there is no real reason why someone was
rejected.

"Of thousands and thousands of applications, there aren’t
explanations in many of these cases," Atkinson said. "A big part of
it is luck of the draw. There is error involved, but it’s not
important."