University Of California Audit Stirs Questions Of Transparency

By Julia Dunn on April 3, 2016

The state of California released an audit on the University of California system days ago, exposing the world-class public university on their recent practices involving financial spending and admissions practices.

The major concern that the audit report communicated to the public regarded a claim that UC relaxed its admissions standards for out-of-state students compared to in-state students (based on common application factors like grade point averages, SAT and ACT scores, and overall indicators of student success). This is based on the premise that the university might find students outside of California more financially lucrative due to the higher tuition rates that non-Californian students pay to attend the university.

Image via Wikipedia Commons

After dissatisfaction with UC’s claim of needing more state funding, Los Angeles County Assemblyman Mike Gipson initiated the $400,000 audit about a year ago.

SF Gate reports the following.

“In the last three years, nearly 16,000 nonresident undergraduates — about 29 percent of those admitted [to the University of California] — have won spots at the coveted public university with grade-point averages and scores below the median of admitted Californians, according to the 116-page audit. The report criticizes university practices it says undermine state residents’ access to UC in favor of nonresidents, who pay about three times the basic tuition and fees of in-state students: $38,108 versus $13,400.”

Representatives for UC have expressed that this information is false; spokesperson Dianne Klein explained the increase in out-of-state student enrollment was due to a 30 percent reduction in UC funding through the state, which was the most logical way to compensate for the loss.

The finding was most controversial due to the notion that UC is supposedly designed to serve primarily California students (accepting roughly the top one-eighth of California high school students). In response to the report, UC President Janet Napolitano published a counterargument through the 36-page document titled “Straight Talk on Hot-Button Issues: UC Admissions, Finances, and Transparency 2016.”

Legally, the state must share a draft of its audit with the party being audited prior to its official release. When Janet Napolitano received the report in its first stages, she responded saying “the draft report that has been shared with us makes inferences and draws conclusions that are supported neither by the data nor by sound analysis.”

This document asserted that the conclusions auditors articulated in their report were misleading and unsound, written without consulting solid facts.

The report was divided into five direct statements that overall comprised the UC response back to the state:

“Educating California’s Top Students Is Central to UC’s Mission; UC Policies Overwhelmingly Favor California Residents; UC Allocates State Funds Through a Transparent, Fair, and Effective Process; UC is an Effective, Responsible Steward of its Financial Resources; UC is Increasing Diversity and Enhancing Socioeconomic Mobility.”

Image via Wikipedia Commons

Solutions to the Problem

The UC audit made two explicit recommendations for how the university might remedy its flaws in operation. The suggestions are as follows (verbatim from the report):

  • Revise its admission standard for nonresidents to reflect the intent of the Master Plan. The admission standard should require campuses to admit only nonresidents with admissions credentials that place them in the upper half of the residents it admits.

  • Amend its referral process by taking steps to increase the likelihood that referred residents ultimately enroll.

State auditor Elaine Howle has also proposed that the California state legislature set a cap on the number of nonresident students UC can enroll (about 15 percent, the current proportion of out-of-state students). Howle told SF Gate that UC has not been following the California Master Plan for Higher Education, which essentially states that any hardworking California student will be worthy of UC admission when the time comes for them to attend college.

Howle said these students’ chances are harmed when UC admits nonresidents for their financial benefits.

“Enrollment of nonresidents more than quadrupled in the last decade, while that of California students rose by 10 percent — despite a 52 percent increase in applications,” as quoted by SF Gate.

Given UC’s reputation and the constant critical eye upheld by the public, many were disillusioned by the audit’s harsh report. Others blame the state for not allocating sufficient funds to UC to keep admissions under control. As UC becomes increasingly more popular (and thus more competitive), the admissions process is scrutinized more intensely. If UC is to maintain its world-class reputation, its leaders must review applications fairly, where both residents and nonresidents are evaluated at the same high standard of quality.

Regardless of what is true, the release of this audit has actively instilled doubt into the minds of applicants who wonder why they did or did not receive an admission offer; if they do receive an offer, it should be based on merit and not money.

Follow Uloop

Apply to Write for Uloop News

Join the Uloop News Team

Discuss This Article

Get Top Stories Delivered Weekly

Back to Top

Log In

Contact Us

Upload An Image

Please select an image to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format
OR
Provide URL where image can be downloaded
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format

By clicking this button,
you agree to the terms of use

By clicking "Create Alert" I agree to the Uloop Terms of Use.

Image not available.

Add a Photo

Please select a photo to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format