UCs must better regulate comprehensive review process

UC San Diego recently decided to “check up” on the
integrity of its applicants. No doubt it was a long and troublesome
process.

However, even more troubling were the results, which ultimately
ferreted out 17 phonies. Out of more than 600 students whose
personal essays were investigated, 17 shameless applicants lied
about hardship as a method of getting accepted via comprehensive
review.

Comprehensive review, officially accepted by the UC Board of
Regents in November 2001, allows admissions to evaluate applicants
in light of personal circumstances, whether emotional or financial.
An applicant’s ability to overcome obstacles, endure, and
succeed in a disadvantaged atmosphere is considered through
admissions by means of a personal essay.

For instance, imagine pulling a 3.8 GPA while fighting a disease
or fending off an abusive parent. Such an achievement is a mark of
a strong, relentless spirit ““ one that perseveres and has the
potential to rise even further in a more stimulating
environment.

But now fakes callously mimic the suffering of others. Is there
anything more deplorable, dishonest and shocking than such a
blatant display of indifferent deceitfulness? It is a slap in the
face to any high school student who has beaten the odds.

And although the vast majority of the UCSD applicants were true
to their stories, it is still frightening to think of the injustice
that would have been done to 17 truthful applicants had it not been
for the withdrawal of the guilty impostors’ offers of
acceptance. Each year, at UCSD alone, at least 100 applicants are
wrongly admitted and, consequently, 100 applicants unfairly denied
admission.

Throughout the years and an ever-expanding UC system the numbers
of people getting an education on the basis of a lie will grow.

Fortunately, the UC regents have chosen to begin implementing
“background checks.” This certainly isn’t a
straightforward process ““ thoroughly researching every
applicant’s history is an impossible undertaking, and in many
cases the evidence of hardship is hard to find. Not everyone can
prove child abuse, victimization or even financial difficulty.

Nonetheless, the UC system does have the power to avert
potentially fraudulent essays by invoking harsh punishments for
those who do submit counterfeit tales. If the UC were to blacklist
liars, thus preventing their admittance into other UC schools,
applicants would think twice about lying.

The UC regents should make their plans known to applicants and
emphasize truthful essay writing. Our government doesn’t do
away with taxes purely because certain individuals falsify their
tax returns. Instead, an ominous threat, the IRS and its auditing
power, works to better the tax-collecting system as a whole.

Imagine life without auditing ““ the honest and
hard-working would be mere slaves to the frauds. The UC system must
not operate on the premise that rules are disregarded in the
absence of punitive consequences. The UC regents need to create an
IRS of their own, the Individual Review System perhaps.

We cannot allow comprehensive review to become as unattainable
and elusive as acquiring independent status. Although there are
those who will attempt to swindle an education, one must weigh two
injustices: all together ignoring the personal feats of individuals
in the admissions process or unknowingly allowing a handful of
frauds to enter UC schools.

Because the latter injustice can be diminished by a UC IRS of
sorts, repealing comprehensive review should not be considered. We
must search for creative and effective ways to fairly implement
comprehensive review, or else one of the foremost indicators of an
individual’s future success ““ one’s personal
fortitude and endurance ““ will be senselessly overlooked.

Jansen’s column usually runs every other Monday.