UCLA leads in admissions requests

Friday, May 17, 1996

Regents say media attention has hurt UC’s reputationBy Michael
Howerton

Daily Bruin Staff

SAN FRANCISCO — After two months of suspicion, accusations and
intrigue, the University of California presented its report to the
regents detailing the influence that prominent individuals have
wielded in securing admission for their family and friends.

The number of applicants for whom recommendations and inquiries
are made is extremely small, said UC Provost Judson King, who
compiled the report. Less than a third of one percent of
undergraduate applicants for Fall 1995 received attention by an
influential individual, he said, adding that the percentage of
graduate students is even smaller.

Although the number is small, many regents expressed concern
that the existence and media attention to these few cases has hurt
the university’s reputation with the public.

"We’re dealing with perceptions here, not the volume," Regent
Chair Clair Burgener said. "One improper admittance is too
many."

UCLA leads all nine campuses with an average of 123 annual
requests from prominent individuals over the past four to five
years, which is more than half of all the requests UC-wide, the
report found. UC Berkeley is second with an average of 60 requests
annually.

Out of the 215 requests that are made each year system-wide,
only 12 students were found to have been admitted on the basis of
an influential recommendation. Out of these, six came from
UCLA.

King’s report made three proposals for addressing the issue of
admissions favoritism in the university. They will include
instituting additional guidelines to prevent undue influence in
admissions, clarifying procedures regarding letters of
recommendations for admission, and publishing all the admissions
guidelines.

Despite the negative attention this issue has received, some
maintained that it is the right and obligation of those in
influential positions to write recommendations.

"We can recommend anyone we think has merit," Lt. Gov. Gray
Davis said. "I wouldn’t be for the abolition of letters of
recommendation."

Davis said that the recommendation process should be more open,
so that all letters the university receives would be open to the
public. In addition, Davis said he sees nothing wrong in giving the
chancellors the right to admit a small percentage of students on
their discretion if they saw fit to do so, as long as the process
was "honest and straightforward."

UC President Richard Atkinson said he also saw the need for the
chancellor to have ability to affect a number of admissions.

"There needs to be a small amount of flexibility where the
chancellor can act on his or her own," he said. "I consider their
numbers (in the report) small. This is a somewhat subjective
process and the chancellor needs that flexibility."

Some, however, found the report only confirmed the true scale of
the problem, but that the university and the press are blowing the
issue out of proportion.

"This discussion for the past few weeks has been interesting,
educational and to a large extent unnecessary," Regent Roy Brophy
said. "I think my experiences enable me to write letters and I will
continue to write letters. Each one of us has to make a value
judgment when we ask ourselves why we write letters."

Regent Tirso del Junco agreed. "Regents have a public
responsibility to inform and make inquiries whenever they are
asked," he said. "I encourage regents to continue to write
letters."

After King presented his report, the regents approved a
resolution to not use any inappropriate influence in making
admission requests. The resolution, written by Regent Ward
Connerly, states, "The board recognizes that any correspondence or
inquiries received by individual regents and from elected officials
may be appropriate," but also noted that efforts to unduly
influence the outcome of individual admissions decisions are not
appropriate.

Student Regent Edward Gomez had initially proposed a vote to
prohibit the regents from making any kind of admission
recommendation. He removed that proposal from the agenda without
comment.