The CardBoard
Outside Topic UC admissions - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic UC admissions (/thread-20493.html)


UC admissions - 82lsju - 09-22-2020

Quote:A year after a college scandal rattled the nation’s confidence in the fairness of admissions, the state auditor has found that the University of California improperly admitted dozens of wealthy students based on their connections over six years, with hundreds of other admissions raising questions about their legitimacy.


https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/Admissions-audit-finds-UC-improperly-admitted-15587005.php?fbclid=IwAR2lUEW_tnUQEoByBnX3ilniktnAH-liu6_9ZFMdNQQSZ4AHzLmQ0fSEiqU

some details

on the 22 non-athlete athletes....

Quote:It is unlikely that the 22 applicants we found represent the true number of applicants whom coaches falsely identified as prospective student athletes to gain the applicant’s admission because of their connections to donors or influential individuals. First, we reviewed athletes for only a fraction of the athletic teams at each of the campuses. Further, even among those teams, we identified more than 400 athletes who did not appear on their teams’ rosters for more than their first year at that campus—indicating they stopped participating in that sport.  Among that group were several athletes who had questionable circumstances surrounding their admission whom we did not count in our total of inappropriate admissions. Some of these athletes had limited or nonexistent athletic qualifications, while others were related to campus staff or a prominent donor. Others were immediately made into a team manager, indicating that the coaches never intended for the applicant to compete on the team.


and

Quote:UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted 42 other applicants who were connected to campus staff and donors. These applicants were less qualified than many others for whom the campuses denied admission. In fact, some of these applicants received the lowest possible scores on their applications. The involvement of multiple members of management at UC Berkeley in these inappropriate admissions demonstrates that campus leadership failed to foster a culture committed to the university’s principles of fairness in admissions decisions.


I find it hard to believe that UCB was the only UC to give this sort of admission preference and suspect the number is much higher than 42, note the 42 was over a 6 year period so probably ~80,000 UCB admits during that time

https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-113/sections.html#section1

RE: UC admissions - BostonCard - 09-22-2020

Unfortunately, the incentives in higher education are all screwed up, which is how you get circumstances like this and the college admissions scandal, one that one Stanford coach fell prey to.

BC

RE: UC admissions - Softball Fan - 09-22-2020

How many staff/former staff at UCB go to jail as a result of this audit?  I predict zero.

RE: UC admissions - fullmetal - 09-22-2020

From this small sample size:

Quote:We reviewed prospective student‑athlete admissions for at least six of the following teams at each campus:

• Men’s soccer
• Women’s soccer
• Men’s crew
• Women’s crew
• Men’s track and field
• Women’s track and field
• Men’s golf
• Women’s golf
• Men’s water polo
• Women’s water polo
• Men’s swimming
• Women’s swimming
• Women’s basketball
• Men’s tennis

We found that each campus inappropriately admitted the following number of applicants as student athletes:
• UC Berkeley: 13
• UCLA: 4
• UC San Diego: 1
• UC Santa Barbara: 4

Quote:UC Berkeley Admitted Applicants Because They Were Connected to:
• Donors and potential donors
• Campus staff
• Campus managers
• Managers at other university campuses
• A manager from a local education program
• A colleague from a small private college
• A counselor from a local high school


Only some schools sponsor some of those sports at the varsity level.  And it looks like there's all kinds of ways to get "connections."

RE: UC admissions - TinderForMidgets - 09-23-2020

Props to the UC folks for conducting a self-audit. Not sure most universities would even do that and would rather not take the fall for it. However, I do wonder if you really need to cheat to get into a UC (whose standards aren't borderline impossible) then how do you expect to succeed?

RE: UC admissions - oldalum - 09-23-2020

~15% admission rate to Cal. As with other highly selective schools, many times more qualified applicants apply than can be admitted. Getting an inside boost would up the odds considerably--like to 100%.

RE: UC admissions - Softball Fan - 09-23-2020

A little off-topic:   Does anyone remember Azia Kim?  Accepted by Cal but that wasn't good enough for her parents.  So she pretended to be a Stanford student by talking her way into a dorm room. Bought books for classes and took notes. Even her dorm roommate believed her. Showed fake grade reports to her parents.

RE: UC admissions - Phogge - 09-24-2020

Sorry Mom, the dog ate my report card.

RE: UC admissions - Mick - 09-24-2020

(09-23-2020, 09:20 PM)paloalto Wrote:  A little off-topic:   Does anyone remember Azia Kim?  Accepted by Cal but that wasn't good enough for her parents.  So she pretended to be a Stanford student by talking her way into a dorm room.  Bought books for classes and took notes.  Even her dorm roommate believed her.  Showed fake grade reports to her parents.

I remember her.  She also fooled SCU ROTC, participating with other Stanford students.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/05/30/stanford-impostor-fools-rotc-too/

Story was pretty strange:
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2007/05/24/imposter-caught/
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2007/05/25/fake-student-spends-eight-months-at-stanford

She wasn't the only one.  A woman named Elizabeth Okazaki pretended to be a Stanford grad student for four years...
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/after-long-stays-two-squatters-are-apprehended

...And Okazaki pretended to be a UCLA student as well...
https://dailybruin.com/2007/10/01/increasingly_erratic_behavior_gives_away_impostor_

Who was the better hoaxer, Adam Wheeler or Azia Kim?
https://www.sfweekly.com/news/elite-college-hoaxer-showdown-stanford-vs-harvard/

RE: UC admissions - Treebound - 09-24-2020

Thanks for bringing back those strange but true stories.  Perhaps one of those women was actually Manti Te'o's "fake, dead Stanford girlfriend."  Or not!

As for UC Admissions, the audit was likely a direct result of the Rick Singer mess.   I know Stanford made some changes in their processes and rightfully so.  Good for UC.  I find it interesting that cal is the outlier vs UCLA.

RE: UC admissions - TinderForMidgets - 09-24-2020

(09-23-2020, 08:14 PM)oldalum Wrote:  ~15% admission rate to Cal. As with other highly selective schools, many times more qualified applicants apply than can be admitted. Getting an inside boost would up the odds considerably--like to 100%.

I know but they aren't borderline impossible. Have great grades, test scores, and some extracurriculars and you have a strong shot at Berkeley or UCLA. Hell even if you ***** up high school, there's the transfer route. With Stanford, you need to do something special and it's very hard to figure out what.

RE: UC admissions - BostonCard - 09-25-2020

Although this risks broaching the no-politics rule, there are now reports that Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband, UC Regent Richard Blum wrote inappropriate letters for years on behalf of friends and family.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/UC-Regent-Richard-Blum-named-in-admissions-15594754.php

BC

RE: UC admissions - cardcrimson - 09-25-2020

(09-24-2020, 08:04 AM)Mick Wrote:  Who was the better hoaxer, 

How about 1982 Stanford Grad Adam Schiff? 

Oh, never mind. . . .
(09-25-2020, 01:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Although this risks broaching the no-politics rule, there are now reports that Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband, UC Regent Richard Blum wrote inappropriate letters for years on behalf of friends and family.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/UC-Regent-Richard-Blum-named-in-admissions-15594754.php

BC

Shocked. Just shocked.

RE: UC admissions - oldalum - 09-25-2020

I enjoyed Blum's explanation that he didn't think his letters really had any effect.

RE: UC admissions - gailtate - 09-25-2020

(09-25-2020, 02:28 PM)oldalum Wrote:  I enjoyed Blum's explanation that he didn't think his letters really had any effect.


Di Fi's hubby. What a cringe-worthy moment for the old girl. And what a tone-deaf, horse's rear-end this guy turned out to be. Jeezus!

RE: UC admissions - Mick - 09-26-2020

(09-25-2020, 05:54 PM)gailtate Wrote:  
(09-25-2020, 02:28 PM)oldalum Wrote:  I enjoyed Blum's explanation that he didn't think his letters really had any effect.
Di Fi's hubby. What a cringe-worthy moment for the old girl. And what a tone-deaf, horse's rear-end this guy turned out to be. Jeezus!

Blum isn't the only one.  There's a lot of wealthy a*holes in the SF Bay Area.  Here's an article on Silicon Valley's portion:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/26/why-silicon-valley-ceos-are-such-raging-psychopaths/

I've worked with accountants, consultants and lawyers all my life, and there's definitely a cross-section of objectionable personalities, but they can't hold a candle to what I'd seen in tech.  I remember leaving Arthur Andersen for a startup and I resigned to my boss.  He said, "Mick, you're a good guy and an honest guy, and I'm telling you, those qualities don't mix with tech."  I responded, "Oh come on, I know these guys."  Well, I didn't...not really.  And you wouldn't believe the amazing variety of psychopaths I worked for, starting with the CEO who on day two demanded that I lie to the board about the progress of the main invention, continuing with the vicious VCs, and the various large semiconductor company jerks (too long to get into), culminating with the billionaire who hit on my wife at a charitable function -- in front of his wife.

Blum's shenanigans don't surprise me, not in the tiniest little way.  Rich people do what they do for the same reason a dog licks his privates constantly -- because they can.