CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1383

Author:(McCarty)

As Amended Ver:September 6, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Establishes a process in statute for the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) to use in granting admissions by exception by prohibiting a UC or CSU campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student's admission has been approved by a minimum of three senior campus administrators, as specified.

The Senate Amendments:

1. Require the provisions become operative commencing with admissions for the 2020-21 academic year.
2. Require a campus that admits a student by admission by exception to document its employees who were involved in evaluating the student's application and require that the campus establish a policy requiring an acceptable rationale for every admission by exception at the campus, as specified.
3. Require a campus that admits a student by admission by exception into a special talent program to establish a policy requiring the student participate in the program for a minimum of one academic year.
4. Require reporting of information relative to the bill's provisions to the Legislature upon request, as specified.
5. Add "special talent program," to the types of programs a student may demonstrate high potential for success in the admission by exception definition.
6. Define "special talent program," to mean a campus' athletic or fine arts program.
7. Make technical and clarifying changes.

COMMENTS:

Admissions by exception are extended to certain UC and CSU applicants that do not meet the respective segments established eligibility requirements that are applied to all applicants.

UC Admissions by Exception. Under the UC Regents' Policy 2105 (July 1996), the proportion of students admitted by exception is limited to 6% of newly-enrolled freshman and 6% of newly-enrolled transfer students. Within the 6% limits, up to 4% may be drawn from disadvantaged students (low socio-economic backgrounds or having experienced limited educational opportunities) and up to 2% from students with special talent in the arts or athletics.

UC indicates that the pool of applicants receiving admission by exception over the last several years has constituted less than 2% of all newly enrolled students systemwide, and thus has been far below the limits described above. In 2017-18, UC enrolled 519 total California residents (254 freshmen) and 456 total nonresidents (367 freshman) under admission by exception, which was 1.5% of the total enrollment of 65,646 (1.3% of 46,004 enrolled freshmen).

CSU Admissions by Exception. CSU policy provides for admission by exception for a "disadvantage applicant," as defined, and for other applicants who do not meet CSU admission requirements but are not disadvantaged, such as athletes. The number of such admissions for each of these two categories of applicants cannot exceed a level equal to 4% of CSU's total first-time undergraduate enrollment during the previous academic year. Each CSU campus is provided an allotment of exceptions by the Chancellor's office, and the final decision to admit students by exception is made at the individual campus level.

In 2018-19, CSU enrolled 1,410 students who were admitted by exception, or just over 1% of new undergraduate enrollment in the prior year, and far below the allowable limit under CSU's policy. The total included 486 disadvantaged applicants and 924 non-disadvantaged applicants.

According to the Author:

The author refers to the recent college admissions scandal – stemming from a federal criminal investigation known as "Operation Varsity Blues" – which has resulted in numerous bribery and fraud charges against wealthy parents seeking to get their children into elite universities. According to the author, "This scandal not only undermines the public's trust in the college admissions process, but it further perpetuates the opportunity gap in our college system. Equally disturbing is the fact that qualified California students were undoubtedly squeezed out and denied admission. For every student admitted through bribery, there was an honest and talented student that was rejected."

"Legislation is necessary to resolve this problem as there is currently not enough oversight in the college admissions process as it relates to special admissions, also known as 'admission by exception'. Currently, a student can be admitted through the special admissions process with only one college or university administrator approving the admission. There needs to be greater checks and balances if we are keep this type of fraud from happening again in the future."

Arguments in Support:

There is no support on file.

Arguments in Opposition:

There is no opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

VOTES:

ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 11-0-1

YES: Medina, Choi, Quirk, Bloom, Gabriel, Irwin, Kiley, Levine, Low, Santiago, Weber

ABS, ABST OR NV: Patterson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 18-0-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Diep, Eggman, Fong, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0-2

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Obernolte, Patterson, Petrie‑Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Cooley, Eduardo Garcia

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Lena Gonzalez, Grove, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Jones, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

UPDATED:

VERSION: September 6, 2019

CONSULTANT: Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0002256

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1383

Author: McCarty (D)

Amended: 9/6/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/19/19

AYES: Leyva, Wilk, Chang, Glazer, McGuire, Pan

NO VOTE RECORDED: Durazo

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/29/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: admission by exception

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill establishes a process in statute for the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) to use in granting admissions by exception by prohibiting a UC or CSU campus from admitting a student by admissions by exception unless the student’s admission has been approved by a minimum of three senior campus administrators, as specified.

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/6/19 (1) make this bill operative commencing with the 2020-21 academic year; (2) broaden the definition of the special talent program; (3) make the one-year requirement applicable solely to an athletics program; and (4) clarify that the admissions by exception policy requirement is for each campus, rather than per admitted student, of which must include articulated standards and procedural requirements.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/28/19 (1) require a campus that admits a student by admission by exception to document its employees who were involved in evaluating the student’s application and require that the campus establish a policy requiring an acceptable rationale for every admission by exception at the campus, as specified; (2) require a campus that admits a student by admission by exception into a special talent program to establish a policy requiring the student participate for minimum of one academic year; (3) require reporting of information relative to the bill’s provisions to the Legislature upon request, as specified; (4) add “special talent program,” to the types of programs a student may demonstrate high potential for success in the admission by exception definition; and (5) define “special talent program,” to mean a campus’ athletic or fine arts program.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1) Establishes the UC, to be administered by the Board of Regents, with full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure the security of its funds and compliance with the terms of the endowments of the university and such competitive bidding procedures as may be made applicable to the university by statute for the letting of construction contracts, sales of real property, and purchasing of materials, goods, and services. (California Constitution Article IX, § 9)

2) Establishes the CSU, governed by the Board of Trustees with respect to educational policy, finance, employee relations, campus planning, and facilities, among other areas. (Education Code § 89500, et seq.)

This bill establishes, commencing with admissions for the 2020-21 academic year, a process in statute for the UC and the CSU to use in granting admissions by exception by prohibiting a UC or CSU campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student’s admission has been approved by a minimum of three senior campus administrators. Specifically, it:

1. Prohibits a campus from admitting a student by admissions by exception unless the student’s admission by exception has been approved, before the student’s enrollment, by a minimum of three senior campus administrators.
2. Allows a campus to admit, by admissions by exception, a California resident who is receiving an institution-based scholarship to attend the campus or an applicant who is accepted by an educational opportunity program for admission to the campus.
3. Requires a campus that admits a student by admissions by exception comply with both of the following:
   1. Document its employees who were involved in evaluating the student’s application.
   2. Establish a policy that applies articulated standards to the campus’ admissions by exception decisions that include minimum procedural requirements and an explanation for choosing the standards that supports their application as fair and appropriate.
4. Requires a campus that admits a student by admissions by exception into an athletics program to establish a policy requiring the student participate for minimum of one academic year.
5. Requires reporting of information relative to this bill’s provisions to the Legislature upon request, as specified.
6. Defines “admission by exception” to mean the process by which a campus admits applicants who do not meet the eligibility requirements for admission to the segment, or guaranteed admission to a campus of the segment, but who demonstrate high potential for success and leadership in an academic or special talent program.
7. Defines a “campus,” to mean a campus of the CSU or the UC.
8. Specifies that “special talent program,” refers to a campus’ program that requires additional admissions review to determine that qualification of an applicant for admission into that program. The special talent program includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a campus’ athletic or fine arts program.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “The recent college admissions scandal involving some of the top universities in the United States, and California in particular, has brought to light merely a small portion of the many malpractices that have been taking place in the college admissions world due to a lack of oversight on this industry. Over 40 individuals are currently being charged in this recent college admissions scandal involving various university faculty, test proctors, college firms and consultants, and wealthy parents.

“California seems to be the epicenter of the national scandal, with 25 of the 33 families in the initial indictment from California, and 10 of the 17 corrupt coaches and university officials originally based at California colleges and universities. This scandal not only undermines the public’s trust in the college admissions process, but it further perpetuates the opportunity gap in our college system....

“The man in the middle of this most recent college admissions scandal provided private ‘college counseling’ and has now been indicted for taking bribes from wealthy parents (who have also been indicted) for funneling tens of thousands of dollars into a non-profit foundation. The money then went into the pockets of the private counselor and the college faculty who were falsifying the athletic abilities of prospective students and gaining them entrance through special admissions to elite universities…”

This bill requires approval of three campus administrators prior to admitting a student through admissions by exception.

1. Gaming admissions. The Department of Justice charged several dozen individuals accused of cheating and accepting bribes to gain student’s unlawful admission to top universities, including the UC. Athletic coaches from Yale, Stanford, University of Southern California, Wake Forest and Georgetown, among others, are implicated, as well as parents and exam administrators. Although, the CSU had no part in the scandal, the CSU is subject to the bill’s provisions. Presumably, having multiple approvers for special admits situation could decrease the likelihood of instances of unlawful practices from occurring.
2. UC admissions by exception. At the UC, admissions by exception is a process whereby a campus has the flexibility to admit a small proportion of students by exception to the traditional eligibility requirements. Students admitted by exception to the eligibility requirements must demonstrate a reasonable potential for success at the UC. The proportion of students admitted by exception is capped at six percent of newly enrolled freshman and up to six percent of newly enrolled advanced standing students at each campus. Within the six percent designations, up to four percent may be drawn from disadvantaged students and up to two percent from other students. This bill impacts admission procedures used to enroll students through this process as well as that of those students admitted to CSU. This bill provides that three administrators must sign-off on that student’s admittance to the university prior to being enrolled.

UC indicates that the pool of applicants receiving admissions by exception over the last several years has constituted less than two percent of all newly enrolled students systemwide, and thus has been far below the limits described above. In 2017-18, UC enrolled 519 total California residents (254 freshmen) and 456 total nonresidents (367 freshmen) under admissions by exception, which was 1.5 percent of the total enrollment of 65,646 (1.3 percent of 46,004 enrolled freshmen).

1. UC’s internal audit. In light of the recent events regarding college admissions, the UC’s office of Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services has initiated a systemwide internal audit of the UC’s admissions practices. The objective of the audit is to evaluate the process and controls over undergraduate admissions throughout the system, including admission of student athletes and other non-standard admissions, to ensure compliance with relevant policies and regulations and reduce the risk of fraudulent admissions. This bill as recently amended seeks to incorporate certain recommendations from the audit into the provisions of this bill.
2. CSU admissions by exception. CSU policy provides for admissions by exception for a “disadvantaged applicant,” defined as someone who comes from a low-income family and who has the potential to perform satisfactorily on the college level but who has been and appears to be unable to realize that potential without special assistance because of economic or educational background. In addition, other applicants who are not disadvantaged and do not meet CSU’s admissions requirements may be admitted by exception. (This could include athletes, for example.) The number of such admissions for each of these two categories of applicants cannot exceed a level equal to four percent of CSU’s total first-time undergraduate enrollment during the previous academic year. Each CSU campus is provided an allotment of exceptions by the Chancellor’s Office, and the final decision to admit students by exception is made at the individual campus level.

In 2018-19, CSU enrolled 1,410 students who were admitted by exception, or just over one percent of new undergraduate enrollment in the prior year, and far below the allowable limit under CSU’s policy. The total included 486 disadvantaged applicants and 924 non-disadvantaged applicants.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/6/19)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/6/19)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/29/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooley, Eduardo Garcia

Prepared by: Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. /

9/9/19 18:28:12

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1383

Author: McCarty (D)

Amended: 8/28/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/19/19

AYES: Leyva, Wilk, Chang, Glazer, McGuire, Pan

NO VOTE RECORDED: Durazo

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/29/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: admission by exception

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill establishes a process in statute for the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) to use in granting admissions by exception by prohibiting a UC or CSU campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student’s admission has been approved by a minimum of three senior campus administrators, as specified.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/28/19 (1) require a campus that admits a student by admission by exception to document its employees who were involved in evaluating the student’s application and require that the campus establish a policy requiring an acceptable rationale for every admission by exception at the campus, as specified; (2) require a campus that admits a student by admission by exception into a special talent program to establish a policy requiring the student participate for minimum of one academic year; (3) require reporting of information relative to the bill’s provisions to the Legislature upon request, as specified; (4) add “special talent program,” to the types of programs a student may demonstrate high potential for success in the admission by exception definition; and (5) define “special talent program,” to mean a campus’ athletic or fine arts program.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1) Establishes the UC, to be administered by the Board of Regents, with full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure the security of its funds and compliance with the terms of the endowments of the university and such competitive bidding procedures as may be made applicable to the university by statute for the letting of construction contracts, sales of real property, and purchasing of materials, goods, and services. (California Constitution Article IX, § 9)

2) Establishes the CSU, governed by the Board of Trustees with respect to educational policy, finance, employee relations, campus planning, and facilities, among other areas. (Education Code § 89500, et seq.)

This bill establishes a process in statute for the UC and the CSU to use in granting admissions by exception by prohibiting a UC or CSU campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student’s admission has been approved by a minimum of three senior campus administrators. Specifically, it:

1. Prohibits a campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student’s admission by exception has been approved, before the student’s enrollment, by a minimum of three senior campus administrators.
2. Allows a campus to admit, by admission by exception, a California resident who is receiving an institution-based scholarship to attend the campus or an applicant who is accepted by an educational opportunity program for admission to the campus.
3. Requires a campus that admits a student by admission by exception to document its employees who were involved in evaluating the student’s application and requires that the campus establish a policy requiring an acceptable rationale for every admission by exception at the campus, as specified.
4. Requires a campus that admits a student by admission by exception into a special talent program to establish a policy requiring the student participate for minimum of one academic year.
5. Requires reporting of information relative to this bill’s provisions to the Legislature upon request, as specified.
6. Defines “admission by exception” to mean the process by which a campus admits applicants who do not meet the eligibility requirements for admission to the segment, or guaranteed admission to a campus of the segment, but who demonstrate high potential for success and leadership in an academic or special talent program.
7. Defines a “campus,” to mean a campus of the CSU or the UC.
8. Defines “special talent program,” to mean a campus’ athletic or fine arts program.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “The recent college admissions scandal involving some of the top universities in the United States, and California in particular, has brought to light merely a small portion of the many malpractices that have been taking place in the college admissions world due to a lack of oversight on this industry. Over 40 individuals are currently being charged in this recent college admissions scandal involving various university faculty, test proctors, college firms and consultants, and wealthy parents.

“California seems to be the epicenter of the national scandal, with 25 of the 33 families in the initial indictment from California, and 10 of the 17 corrupt coaches and university officials originally based at California colleges and universities. This scandal not only undermines the public’s trust in the college admissions process, but it further perpetuates the opportunity gap in our college system....

“The man in the middle of this most recent college admissions scandal provided private ‘college counseling’ and has now been indicted for taking bribes from wealthy parents (who have also been indicted) for funneling tens of thousands of dollars into a non-profit foundation. The money then went into the pockets of the private counselor and the college faculty who were falsifying the athletic abilities of prospective students and gaining them entrance through special admissions to elite universities…”

This bill requires approval of three campus administrators prior to admittance of a student through admission by exception.

1. Gaming admissions. The Department of Justice charged several dozen individuals accused of cheating and accepting bribes to gain student’s unlawful admission to top universities, including the UC. Athletic coaches from Yale, Stanford, University of Southern California, Wake Forest and Georgetown, among others, are implicated, as well as parents and exam administrators. Although, the CSU had no part in the scandal, the CSU is subject to the bill’s provisions. Presumably, having multiple approvers for special admits situation could decrease the likelihood of instances of unlawful practices from occurring.
2. UC admission by exception. At the UC, admission by exception is a process whereby a campus has the flexibility to admit a small proportion of students by exception to the traditional eligibility requirements. Students admitted by exception to the eligibility requirements must demonstrate a reasonable potential for success at the UC. The proportion of students admitted by exception is capped at six percent of newly enrolled freshman and up to six percent of newly enrolled advanced standing students at each campus. Within the six percent designations, up to four percent may be drawn from disadvantaged students and up to two percent from other students. This bill impacts admission procedures used to enroll students through this process as well as that of those students admitted to CSU. This bill provides that three administrators must sign-off on that student’s admittance to the university prior to being enrolled.

UC indicates that the pool of applicants receiving admission by exception over the last several years has constituted less than two percent of all newly enrolled students systemwide, and thus has been far below the limits described above. In 2017-18, UC enrolled 519 total California residents (254 freshmen) and 456 total nonresidents (367 freshmen) under admission by exception, which was 1.5 percent of the total enrollment of 65,646 (1.3 percent of 46,004 enrolled freshmen).

1. UC’s Internal Audit. In light of the recent events regarding college admissions, the UC’s office of Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services has initiated a systemwide internal audit of the UC’s admissions practices. The objective of the audit is to evaluate the process and controls over undergraduate admissions throughout the system, including admission of student athletes and other non-standard admissions, to ensure compliance with relevant policies and regulations and reduce the risk of fraudulent admissions. This bill as recently amended seeks to incorporate certain recommendations from the audit into the provisions of this bill.
2. CSU Admissions by Exception. CSU policy provides for admission by exception for a “disadvantaged applicant,” defined as someone who comes from a low-income family and who has the potential to perform satisfactorily on the college level but who has been and appears to be unable to realize that potential without special assistance because of economic or educational background. In addition, other applicants who are not disadvantaged and do not meet CSU’s admission requirements may be admitted by exception. (This could include athletes, for example.) The number of such admissions for each of these two categories of applicants cannot exceed a level equal to four percent of CSU’s total first-time undergraduate enrollment during the previous academic year. Each CSU campus is provided an allotment of exceptions by the Chancellor’s Office, and the final decision to admit students by exception is made at the individual campus level.

In 2018-19, CSU enrolled 1,410 students who were admitted by exception, or just over one percent of new undergraduate enrollment in the prior year, and far below the allowable limit under CSU’s policy. The total included 486 disadvantaged applicants and 924 non-disadvantaged applicants.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/27/19)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/27/19)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/29/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooley, Eduardo Garcia

Prepared by: Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. /

8/29/19 11:26:55

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1383

Author: McCarty (D)

Amended: 6/26/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/19/19

AYES: Leyva, Wilk, Chang, Glazer, McGuire, Pan

NO VOTE RECORDED: Durazo

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/29/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: admission by exception

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill establishes a process in statute for the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) to use in granting admissions by exception by prohibiting a UC or CSU campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student’s admission has been approved by a minimum of three senior campus administrators, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1) Establishes the UC, to be administered by the Board of Regents, with full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure the security of its funds and compliance with the terms of the endowments of the university and such competitive bidding procedures as may be made applicable to the university by statute for the letting of construction contracts, sales of real property, and purchasing of materials, goods, and services. (California Constitution Article IX, § 9)

2) Establishes the CSU, governed by the Board of Trustees with respect to educational policy, finance, employee relations, campus planning, and facilities, among other areas. (Education Code § 89500, et seq.)

This bill establishes a process in statute for the UC and the CSU to use in granting admissions by exception by prohibiting a UC or CSU campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student’s admission has been approved by a minimum of three senior campus administrators. Specifically, it:

1. Prohibits a campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student’s admission by exception has been approved, before the student’s enrollment, by a minimum of three senior campus administrators.
2. Allows a campus to admit, by admission by exception, a California resident who is receiving an institution-based scholarship to attend the campus or an applicant who is accepted by an educational opportunity program for admission to the campus.
3. Defines “admission by exception” to mean the process by which a campus admits applicants who do not meet the eligibility requirements for admission to the segment, or guaranteed admission to a campus of the segment, but who demonstrate high potential for academic success and leadership.
4. Defines a “campus,” to mean a campus of the CSU or the UC.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “The recent college admissions scandal involving some of the top universities in the United States, and California in particular, has brought to light merely a small portion of the many malpractices that have been taking place in the college admissions world due to a lack of oversight on this industry. Over 40 individuals are currently being charged in this recent college admissions scandal involving various university faculty, test proctors, college firms and consultants, and wealthy parents.

“California seems to be the epicenter of the national scandal, with 25 of the 33 families in the initial indictment from California, and 10 of the 17 corrupt coaches and university officials originally based at California colleges and universities. This scandal not only undermines the public’s trust in the college admissions process, but it further perpetuates the opportunity gap in our college system....

“The man in the middle of this most recent college admissions scandal provided private ‘college counseling’ and has now been indicted for taking bribes from wealthy parents (who have also been indicted) for funneling tens of thousands of dollars into a non-profit foundation. The money then went into the pockets of the private counselor and the college faculty who were falsifying the athletic abilities of prospective students and gaining them entrance through special admissions to elite universities…”

This bill requires approval of three campus administrators prior to admittance of a student through admission by exception.

1. Gaming admissions. The Department of Justice charged several dozen individuals accused of cheating and accepting bribes to gain student’s unlawful admission to top universities, including the UC. Athletic coaches from Yale, Stanford, University of Southern California, Wake Forest and Georgetown, among others, are implicated, as well as parents and exam administrators. Although, the CSU had no part in the scandal, the CSU is subject to the bill’s provisions. Presumably, having multiple approvers for special admits situation could decrease the likelihood of instances of unlawful practices from occurring.
2. UC admission by exception. At the UC, admission by exception is a process whereby a campus has the flexibility to admit a small proportion of students by exception to the traditional eligibility requirements. Students admitted by exception to the eligibility requirements must demonstrate a reasonable potential for success at the UC. The proportion of students admitted by exception is capped at six percent of newly enrolled freshman and up to six percent of newly enrolled advanced standing students at each campus. Within the six percent designations, up to four percent may be drawn from disadvantaged students and up to two percent from other students. This bill impacts admission procedures used to enroll students through this process as well as that of those students admitted to CSU. This bill provides that three administrators must sign-off on that student’s admittance to the university prior to being enrolled.

UC indicates that the pool of applicants receiving admission by exception over the last several years has constituted less than two percent of all newly enrolled students systemwide, and thus has been far below the limits described above. In 2017-18, UC enrolled 519 total California residents (254 freshmen) and 456 total nonresidents (367 freshmen) under admission by exception, which was 1.5 percent of the total enrollment of 65,646 (1.3 percent of 46,004 enrolled freshmen).

1. UC’s Internal Audit. In light of the recent events regarding college admissions, the UC’s office of Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services has initiated a systemwide internal audit of the UC’s admissions practices. The objective of the audit is to evaluate the process and controls over undergraduate admissions throughout the system, including admission of student athletes and other non-standard admissions, to ensure compliance with relevant policies and regulations and reduce the risk of fraudulent admissions. The results of the audit are expected to be released this year.
2. CSU Admissions by Exception. CSU policy provides for admission by exception for a “disadvantaged applicant,” defined as someone who comes from a low-income family and who has the potential to perform satisfactorily on the college level but who has been and appears to be unable to realize that potential without special assistance because of economic or educational background. In addition, other applicants who are not disadvantaged and do not meet CSU’s admission requirements may be admitted by exception. (This could include athletes, for example.) The number of such admissions for each of these two categories of applicants cannot exceed a level equal to four percent of CSU’s total first-time undergraduate enrollment during the previous academic year. Each CSU campus is provided an allotment of exceptions by the Chancellor’s Office, and the final decision to admit students by exception is made at the individual campus level.

In 2018-19, CSU enrolled 1,410 students who were admitted by exception, or just over one percent of new undergraduate enrollment in the prior year, and far below the allowable limit under CSU’s policy. The total included 486 disadvantaged applicants and 924 non-disadvantaged applicants.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/9/19)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/9/19)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/29/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooley, Eduardo Garcia

Prepared by: Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. /

7/10/19 14:29:37

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Connie Leyva, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 1383 Hearing Date: June 19 2019

Subject: Public postsecondary education: admission by exception.

SUMMARY

This bill establishes a process in statute for the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) to use in granting admissions by exception by prohibiting a UC or CSU campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student’s admission has been approved by a minimum of three campus administrators, as specified.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1) Establishes the UC, to be administered by the Board of Regents, with full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure the security of its funds and compliance with the terms of the endowments of the university and such competitive bidding procedures as may be made applicable to the university by statute for the letting of construction contracts, sales of real property, and purchasing of materials, goods, and services. (California Constitution Article IX, § 9)

2) Establishes the CSU, governed by the Board of Trustees with respect to educational policy, finance, employee relations, campus planning, and facilities, among other areas. (Education Code § 89500, et seq.).

ANALYSIS

This bill establishes a process in statute for the UC and the CSU to use in granting admissions by exception by prohibiting a UC or CSU campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student’s admission has been approved by a minimum of three campus administrators. Specifically, it:

1. Prohibits a campus from admitting a student by admission by exception unless the student’s admission by exception has been approved, before the student’s admission, by a minimum of three campus administrators, which may include, but not necessarily be limited to, as applicable, the chancellor, president, vice president, vice chancellor, provost, or director of admissions of the campus, and the faculty member of the campus recommending the student for admission by exception.
2. Allows a campus to admit, by admission by exception, a California resident who is receiving an institution-based scholarship to attend the campus.
3. Defines “admission by exception” to mean the process by which a campus admits applicants who do not meet the eligibility requirements for admission to the segment, or guaranteed admission to a campus of the segment, but who demonstrate high potential for academic success and leadership.
4. Defines a “campus,” to mean a campus of the California State University (CSU) or the University of California (UC).

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “The recent college admissions scandal involving some of the top universities in the United States, and California in particular, has brought to light merely a small portion of the many malpractices that have been taking place in the college admissions world due to a lack of oversight on this industry. Over 40 individuals are currently being charged in this recent college admissions scandal involving various university faculty, test proctors, college firms and consultants, and wealthy parents.

California seems to be the epicenter of the national scandal, with 25 of the 33 families in the initial indictment from California, and 10 of the 17 corrupt coaches and university officials originally based at California colleges and universities.

This scandal not only undermines the public’s trust in the college admissions process, but it further perpetuates the opportunity gap in our college system....

The man in the middle of this most recent college admissions scandal provided private “college counseling” and has now been indicted for taking bribes from wealthy parents (who have also been indicted) for funneling tens of thousands of dollars into a non-profit foundation. The money then went into the pockets of the private counselor and the college faculty who were falsifying the athletic abilities of prospective students and gaining them entrance through special admissions to elite universities…”

This bill requires approval of three campus administrators prior to admittance of a student through admission by exception.

1. Admission fraud. The Department of Justice charged several dozen individuals accused of cheating and accepting bribes to gain student’s unlawful admission to top universities, including the University of California. Athletic coaches from Yale, Stanford, University of Southern California, Wake Forest and Georgetown, among others, are implicated, as well as parents and exam administrators. Although, the CSU had no part in the scandal, the CSU is subject to the bill’s provisions. Presumably, having multiple approvers for special admits situation could decrease the likelihood of instances of unlawful practices from occurring.
2. University of California admission by exception. At the University of California, admission by exception is a process whereby a campus has the flexibility to admit a small proportion of students by exception to the traditional eligibility requirements. Students admitted by exception to the eligibility requirements must demonstrate a reasonable potential for success at the University. The proportion of students admitted by exception is capped at 6 percent of newly enrolled freshman and up to 6 percent of newly enrolled advanced standing students at each campus. Within the 6 percent designations, up to 4 percent may be drawn from disadvantaged students and up to 2 percent from other students. This bill impacts admission procedures used to enroll students through this process as well as that of those students admitted to California State University. The bill provides that three administrators must sign-off on that student’s admittance to the university prior to being enrolled.

UC indicates that the pool of applicants receiving admission by exception over the last several years has constituted less than 2 percent of all newly enrolled students systemwide, and thus has been far below the limits described above. In 2017-18, UC enrolled 519 total California residents (254 freshmen) and 456 total nonresidents (367 freshmen) under admission by exception, which was 1.5 percent of the total enrollment of 65,646 (1.3 percent of 46,004 enrolled freshmen

1. UC’s Internal Audit. In light of the recent events regarding college admissions, the UC’s office of Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services has initiated a systemwide internal audit of the University’s admissions practices. The objective of the audit is to evaluate the process and controls over undergraduate admissions throughout the system, including admission of student athletes and other non-standard admissions, to ensure compliance with relevant policies and regulations and reduce the risk of fraudulent admissions. The results of the audit are expected to be released this year.
2. CSU Admissions by Exception. CSU policy provides for admission by exception for a “disadvantage applicant,” defined as someone who comes from a low-income family and who has the potential to perform satisfactorily on the college level but who has been and appears to be unable to realize that potential without special assistance because of economic or educational background. In addition, other applicants who are not disadvantaged and do not meet CSU’s admission requirements may be admitted by exception. (This could include athletes, for example.) The number of such admissions for each of these two categories of applicants cannot exceed a level equal to 4 percent of CSU’s total first-time undergraduate enrollment during the previous academic year. Each CSU campus is provided an allotment of exceptions by the Chancellor’s office, and the final decision to admit students by exception is made at the individual campus level.

In 2018-19, CSU enrolled 1,410 students who were admitted by exception, or just over 1 percent of new undergraduate enrollment in the prior year, and far below the allowable limit under CSU’s policy. The total included 486 disadvantaged applicants and 924 non-disadvantaged applicants.

1. Amendments: In order to ensure that admission procedures for Educational Opportunity Program participants are not impacted by the bill’s provisions and to clarify that admission by exception be approved by three senior campus administrator before enrollment rather than prior to admission, the author wishes to amend the bill and committee staff agrees, as follows:

66022.5.(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Admission by exception” means the process by which a campus admits applicants who do not meet the eligibility requirements for admission to the segment, or guaranteed admission to a campus of the segment, but who demonstrate high potential for academic success and leadership.

(2) “Campus” means a campus of the California State University or the University of California.

(b) Except as specified in subdivision (c), a A campus shall not admit a student by admission by exception unless the student’s admission by exception has been approved, before the student’s enrollment admission, by a minimum of three senior campus administrators., which may include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, as applicable, the chancellor, president, vice president, vice chancellor, provost, or director of admissions of the campus, and the faculty member of the campus recommending the student for admission by exception.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a campus may admit, by admission by exception, a California resident who is receiving an institution-based scholarship to attend the campus or applicants who are accepted by the Educational Opportunity Programs for admission to the campus.

(c) A Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a campus may admit, by admission by exception, a California resident who is receiving an institution-based scholarship to attend the campus.

SUPPORT

None received

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1383

Author:(McCarty)

As Amended Ver:April 25, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Establishes a process for the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) to use in granting admissions by exception.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits a UC or CSU campus from admitting any student by admission by exception unless approved, prior to the student's admission, by at least three campus administrators - which may include, but is not limited to, the chancellor, president, vice-president, vice chancellor, provost, or director of admissions for the campus – and the faculty member recommending the student for admission by exception.
2. Provides that, notwithstanding (1), a campus may admit by exception, without the approval process specified above, a California resident who is receiving an institution-based scholarship to attend the campus.

COMMENTS:

Admissions by exception are extended to certain UC and CSU applicants that do not meet the respective segments established eligibility requirements that are applied to all applicants.

UC Admissions by Exception. Under the UC Regents' Policy 2105 (July 1996), the proportion of students admitted by exception is limited to 6% of newly-enrolled freshman and 6% of newly-enrolled transfer students. Within the 6% limits, up to 4% may be drawn from disadvantaged students (low socio-economic backgrounds or having experienced limited educational opportunities) and up to 2% from students with special talent in the arts or athletics.

UC indicates that the pool of applicants receiving admission by exception over the last several years has constituted less than 2% of all newly enrolled students systemwide, and thus has been far below the limits described above. In 2017-18, UC enrolled 519 total California residents (254 freshmen) and 456 total nonresidents (367 freshman) under admission by exception, which was 1.5% of the total enrollment of 65,646 (1.3% of 46,004 enrolled freshmen).

CSU Admissions by Exception. CSU policy provides for admission by exception for a "disadvantage applicant," as defined, and for other applicants who do not meet CSU admission requirements but are not disadvantaged, such as athletes. The number of such admissions for each of these two categories of applicants cannot exceed a level equal to 4% of CSU's total first-time undergraduate enrollment during the previous academic year. Each CSU campus is provided an allotment of exceptions by the Chancellor's office, and the final decision to admit students by exception is made at the individual campus level.

In 2018-19, CSU enrolled 1,410 students who were admitted by exception, or just over 1% of new undergraduate enrollment in the prior year, and far below the allowable limit under CSU's policy. The total included 486 disadvantaged applicants and 924 non-disadvantaged applicants.

According to the Author:

The author refers to the recent college admissions scandal – stemming from a federal criminal investigation known as "Operation Varsity Blues" – which has resulted in numerous bribery and fraud charges against wealthy parents seeking to get their children into elite universities. According to the author, "This scandal not only undermines the public's trust in the college admissions process, but it further perpetuates the opportunity gap in our college system. Equally disturbing is the fact that qualified California students were undoubtedly squeezed out and denied admission. For every student admitted through bribery, there was an honest and talented student that was rejected."

"Legislation is necessary to resolve this problem as there is currently not enough oversight in the college admissions process as it relates to special admissions, also known as 'admission by exception'. Currently, a student can be admitted through the special admissions process with only one college or university administrator approving the admission. There needs to be greater checks and balances if we are keep this type of fraud from happening again in the future."

Arguments in Support:

There is no support on file.

Arguments in Opposition:

There is no opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. General Fund cost pressures of about $160,000 per year to CSU campuses.
2. Minor one-time and ongoing General Fund costs to UC campuses.

VOTES:

ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 11-0-1

YES: Medina, Choi, Quirk, Bloom, Gabriel, Irwin, Kiley, Levine, Low, Santiago, Weber

ABS, ABST OR NV: Patterson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 18-0-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Diep, Eggman, Fong, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

UPDATED:

VERSION: April 25, 2019

CONSULTANT: Chuck Nicol / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0000780

Date of Hearing: May 8, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1383

Author:(McCarty) – As Amended Ver:April 25, 2019

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits the California State University (CSU) and, if adopted by a resolution, the University of California (UC), from admitting an applicant by “admission by exception” unless the admission has been approved by a minimum of three campus administrators, except in cases where a California resident is receiving an institution-based scholarship, such as an athletic scholarship.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. General Fund cost pressures of about $160,000 per year to CSU campuses. By including faculty in the admissions process, the bill would likely result in ongoing costs of $5,000 per faculty member per campus, for an approximate total systemwide cost of $115,000.
2. Minor one-time and ongoing General Fund costs to UC campuses. Costs would be associated with changes in systemwide admissions processes and some increased workload at campuses.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author references the recent federal criminal investigation into college admissions bribery and fraud as the impetus for this bill. Some students implicated in the investigation were admitted though the admission by exception process, typically as athletes. The author believes that more review of applications will help prevent these crimes from occurring in the future.
2. Background. Admission by exception refers to a process by which a campus admits applicants who do not meet eligibility requirement for admission to the university but who demonstrate high potential for success at the campus. These admits typically are athletes. Some receive athletic scholarships from intuitions while others do not.
3. Related Legislation. AB 697 (Ting), of this session, prohibits a postsecondary educational institution from participating in the Cal Grant program if the institution provides preferential treatment in admissions to an applicant with a relationship to a donor or alumni of the institution. The bill is pending this committee.

ACR 64 (McCarty), of this session, requires that the CSU Trustees and the UC Regents conduct a study on the usefulness, effectiveness and need for the SAT and ACT to determine student admissions. The bill is pending this committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Jose Medina, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1383 (

Author:McCarty) – As Amended Ver:April 1, 2019

SUBJECT: Public postsecondary education: admission by exception

SUMMARY: Establishes a process for the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) to use in granting admissions by exception. Specifically, this bill, as proposed to be amended:

1. Defines “admissions by exception” as a process whereby a UC or CSU campus admits applicants who do not meet the eligibility requirements for admission to the UC or CSU system, or guaranteed admission to a UC or CSU campus, but who demonstrate high potential for academic success and leadership.
2. Prohibits a UC or CSU campus from admitting any student by admission by exception unless approved, prior to the student’s admission, by at least three campus administrators - which may include, but is not limited to, the chancellor, president, vice-president, vice chancellor, provost, or director of admissions for the campus – and the faculty member recommending the student for admission by exception.
3. Provides that, notwithstanding (2), a campus may admit by exception, without the approval process specified above, a California resident who is receiving an institution-based scholarship to attend the campus.
4. As the bill amends the Donahoe Higher Education Act, its provisions will apply to UC only to the extent that the UC Regents adopt a resolution making the provisions applicable.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the UC, to be administered by the Board of Regents, with full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure the security of its funds and compliance with the terms of the endowments of the university and such competitive bidding procedures as may be made applicable to the university by statute for the letting of construction contracts, sales of real property, and purchasing of materials, goods, and services. (California Constitution Article IX, Section 9)
2. Establishes the CSU, governed by the Board of Trustees with respect to educational policy, finance, employee relations, campus planning, and facilities, among other areas. (Education Code Section 89500, et seq.).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Purpose. The author refers to the recent college admissions scandal – stemming from a federal criminal investigation known as “Operation Varsity Blues” – which has resulted in numerous bribery and fraud charges against wealthy parents seeking to get their children into elite universities. According to the author, “This scandal not only undermines the public’s trust in the college admissions process, but it further perpetuates the opportunity gap in our college system. Equally disturbing is the fact that qualified California students were undoubtedly squeezed out and denied admission. For every student admitted through bribery, there was an honest and talented student that was rejected.”

“Legislation is necessary to resolve this problem as there is currently not enough oversight in the college admissions process as it relates to special admissions, also known as ‘admission by exception’. Currently, a student can be admitted through the special admissions process with only one college or university administrator approving the admission. There needs to be greater checks and balances if we are keep this type of fraud from happening again in the future.”

AB 1383 would require every admission by exception at UC or CSU to be pre-approved by at least campus administrators. The only exception to this requirement would be when a California resident is being admitted by exception and receiving an institution-based scholarship, such as an athletic scholarship.

UC Admissions Eligibility. UC is expected to draw from the top 12.5 percent of California high school graduates for freshman admission. Historically, UC has set its admission criteria to align with this freshman eligibility pool. Specifically, UC traditionally has required completion of a set of college preparatory work, certain grades in those courses, and certain scores on standardized tests. UC typically has adjusted its admission criteria in response to freshman eligibility studies, with UC tightening its criteria if found to be drawing from a pool larger than 12.5 percent of high school graduates and loosening its criteria if drawing from a smaller pool. For both freshman and transfer applicants, eligibility guarantees admission to the UC system but not to a particular campus, thus many applicants who are eligible under the systemwide criteria are not necessarily offered admission to the campus or campuses of their choice.

According to UC, each campus is granted the flexibility to develop admission policies and practices designed to meet local priorities and needs based on their applicant pool and level of selectivity, so long as such campus policies and practices align with Regents’ policy and Academic Senate regulations. The campus admission policies are approved by the campus Academic Senate, and local admissions practices come under their purview.

UC Admissions by Exception. According to UC, admission by exception is used sparingly and typically reserved for students with non-traditional educational backgrounds such as homeschooled students, students from rural locations, extraordinarily disadvantaged circumstances (e.g., foster care, chronic homelessness), or students with special talent in the arts or athletics who narrowly miss UC’s admission requirements. When applicants demonstrate exceptional talent, potential or accomplishments in specific areas, including athletics and the arts, but appear ineligible for admission, they are identified for further review.

Under the UC Regents’ Policy 2105 (July 1996), the proportion of students admitted by exception is limited to 6 percent of newly-enrolled freshman and 6 percent of newly-enrolled transfer students. Within the 6 percent limits, up to 4 percent may be drawn from disadvantaged students (low socio-economic backgrounds or having experienced limited educational opportunities) and up to 2 percent from other students (such as athletes).

UC indicates that the pool of applicants receiving admission by exception over the last several years has constituted less than 2 percent of all newly enrolled students systemwide, and thus has been far below the limits described above. In 2017-18, UC enrolled 519 total California residents (254 freshmen) and 456 total nonresidents (367 freshman) under admission by exception, which was 1.5 percent of the total enrollment of 65,646 (1.3 percent of 46,004 enrolled freshmen).

As a result of the recent admissions scandal, UC’s Office of Ethics, Compliance, and Audit Services is overseeing an internal review of the admissions policies and processes, including admissions by exception, at every UC campus. The initial phase of that review is expected to be completed in May or June of this year.

CSU Admissions Eligibility. The CSU defines its eligibility pool by an “eligibility index” that combines grade point average (GPA) and standardized test scores from the SAT or ACT. In general, a student with a lower GPA needs a higher standardized test score. In addition, students must obtain a grade of “C” or higher in certain college preparatory coursework. CSU periodically adjusts this index to capture the top one–third of high school graduates.)

Although the Master Plan’s eligibility policy promises access to every eligible applicant who applies, CSU’s budgetary resources in any given year are finite. The General Fund appropriation for CSU in the annual budget act typically is based on a target enrollment level that the university is expected to serve. The statewide Chancellor’s office must work with campuses to manage enrollment demand to achieve enrollment totals close to their targeted levels, while still ensuring that all eligible applicants are offered an enrollment slot.

One enrollment management tool is “impaction,” whereby the systemwide admissions criteria can be raised above the systemwide requirements for certain programs or groups of students. In contrast to most other enrollment management techniques (which still guarantee a spot for all eligible applicants to a campus), impaction allows campuses or programs to deny admission to applicants who do not meet enhanced requirements beyond statewide eligibility.

CSU Admissions by Exception. CSU policy provides for admission by exception for a “disadvantage applicant,” defined as someone who comes from a low-income family and who has the potential to perform satisfactorily on the college level but who has been and appears to be unable to realize that potential without special assistance because of economic or educational background. In addition, other applicants who are not disadvantaged and do not meet CSU’s admission requirements may be admitted by exception. (This could include athletes, for example.) The number of such admissions for each of these two categories of applicants cannot exceed a level equal to 4 percent of CSU’s total first-time undergraduate enrollment during the previous academic year. Each CSU campus is provided an allotment of exceptions by the Chancellor’s office, and the final decision to admit students by exception is made at the individual campus level.

In 2018-19, CSU enrolled 1,410 students who were admitted by exception, or just over 1 percent of new undergraduate enrollment in the prior year, and far below the allowable limit under CSU’s policy. The total included 486 disadvantaged applicants and 924 non-disadvantaged applicants.

Background on Admissions. In 1960, California adopted the Master Plan for Higher Education - a unique framework document intended to guide the state through the ensuing decades of intense demand for college education. The original 1960 Master Plan report and subsequent reviews are not themselves in state law. Instead, they are reports that were commissioned by the Legislature.

Many significant principles expressed by the Master Plan, however, have been adopted in statute. The Donahoe Higher Education Act (1960) codified many Master Plan recommendations, such as defining the distinct missions of the three public segments, establishing a Board of Trustees for CSU, and creating a coordinating council for higher education. Significant principles from the original Master Plan remain uncodified, however, including the eligibility targets for admission to UC and CSU. These eligibility policies require UC and CSU to admit freshmen students from among the top 12.5 percent and 33 percent, respectively, of the state’s high school graduates.

Comment. Time did not permit an opportunity to review existing campus-by-campus procedures for approving admissions by exception or to evaluate the extent to which they vary from the approval requirements of this bill. Such procedures are in place, however, and at least in the case of UC, will be reviewed in the forthcoming audit. UC does take issue with the assertion that only one administrator approves these admissions currently, noting that such applications pass through several hands before a final determination is made. UC also notes that, in the case of student athletes, the overwhelming majority are highly qualified applicants admitted through the normal admissions process.

Whether the approval process required by this bill is the “right one,” can be considered as this bill moves forward. For example, it might not be preferable for a campus president or chancellor, or other top-tier campus officials, to be involved in any way in any individual admissions decision. Another option could be establishing a review committee, appointed by campus leaders, specifically for admissions by exception.

Amendments. The amendments, which are reflected in this analysis, are clarifying and reflect the author’s intent. The author concurs with the amendments, but for timing purposes, they will be taken in the Appropriations Committee.

Related Legislation.

AB 697 (Ting), also on today’s committee agenda, prohibits a postsecondary educational institution from participating in the Cal Grant program if the institution provides preferential treatment in admissions to an applicant with a relationship to a donor or alumni of the institution.

ACR 64 (McCarty), also on today’s committee agenda, requires that the CSU Trustees and the UC Regents conduct a study on the usefulness, effectiveness, and need for the SAT and ACT to determine student admissions.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file.

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960