Rejection Has Bruin Wannabes Feeling Blue

Blunt, a bit brazen, the letter flat-out begged:

“There are really only two groups of people in the World--those who attend UCLA and those who can’t,” wrote the distraught Walnut Creek student with a 3.71 grade-point average, a passel of honors classes--and a rejection letter. “I will do anything in my power to prove that you made the right decision if you allow me to join the Group that Could.”

Joining the Group that Could. For thousands of smart, hard-working California students, it is a dream that verges on obsession.

Refusing to accept their rejections, these stubborn high school seniors clog the UCLA admissions office with earnest appeals--784 of them last year alone. In typed faxes and scrawled notes, they insist that they really, truly deserve to be Bruins.

“My SAT score may not have told you this, but I am a lovable, amiable and a friendly person,” one crushed reject wrote last spring. “I kneel down and beg of you, please please accept me.” Another hopeful went for all-out abasement: “When you read this, I hope you know my tone is somewhat beseeching, but not to the point where I want to look pathetic. However, if pathetic works, I will be pathetic.”

But even pathetic rarely works. Only 15% of those who appeal get a chance to wear the blue and gold.

Those who do join the Group that Could include students who submit new and better scores, provide fresh and compelling personal stories, or persuade admissions officers that they were unfairly overlooked the first time around.

They also include a few students with connections to the rich and powerful--students who, in some cases, win coveted invitations to the campus despite relatively skimpy academic qualifications.

Records reviewed by The Times show that UCLA has reversed rejections for more than 200 VIP students since 1980, in some cases accepting their appeals ahead of hundreds of others with better grades and test scores. The university also selected 75 well-connected students in first-round admissions even though their academic achievements appeared weaker than those of at least 1,500 ordinary applicants.

Academics alone, of course, rarely determine an applicant’s fate. The University of California considers supplemental factors including race, family background, special talents and athletic skills, and always admits dozens of students with poor scholastic records.

“It’s not like whoever’s daughter got in with an 850 SAT would be the only one in the school with that score,” said Thomas Lifka, assistant vice chancellor for student academic services.

On the flip side, even the most sparkling students sometimes get thumbs down. In 1993, the university turned away six students with better than 4.0 GPAs and Scholastic Assessment Test scores topping 1400 (out of a maximum 1600).

When she applied last year, Modesto native Sara Romano fell into the middle ground where so many UCLA applicants cluster: excellent grades, decent scores, lots of character. She offered a 4.08 grade-point average with a dozen honors courses, plus a 1080 on the SAT. Her peppy resume burst with extracurriculars: varsity water polo and swim teams, student council, yearbook and nine years of piano studies.

*

But Romano was rejected--twice. At the same time, UCLA accepted an appeal from another Central Valley student, a developer’s daughter who mustered SAT scores of 790 and a 3.45 GPA with no high school honors classes.

“To work really hard all through high school and then have them screw you over because they want to play favorites . . . it’s extremely frustrating,” Romano said.

The Central Valley applicant who did get in on appeal was considered by admissions officers to have a “poor” academic record. She had at least one advantage, however: the backing of UC Regent Leo S. Kolligian. Confidential records show he lobbied hard for her: “He says that the father is a prominent citizen in the Fresno Valley (developer) and this student should be considered on the basis of coming from an underrepresented area,” a UCLA official noted in an internal memo.

In selecting the developer’s daughter, the campus bypassed 400 appeals from students with better grades, higher test scores and more honors classes. Romano and several others came from the same agricultural region that Kolligian argued deserved to have more representation at UCLA.

*

Steve Giovannetti applied from Fresno’s Central High with a 4.0 grade-point average, a stack of honors classes, varsity letters in soccer and tennis, and experience helping local kids publish a newspaper. When he was rejected, he figured other applicants had bettered his middling SAT score. So he was irked when he found out Kolligian had championed a student with far lower marks on the grounds that Fresno needed more students at UCLA.

“They should still go by who’s the best and most qualified in the region,” said Giovannetti, now a premed major at UC Davis. “That should be what gets you into college.”

To qualify for the University of California, students must rank in the top 12.5% of their high school class, which usually means at least a 3.3 grade-point average. Once in the UC system, students vie for spots at its nine campuses. At the flagships, UCLA and Berkeley, admissions directors can be picky. Last year, UCLA accepted fewer than half its applicants. And the 3,702 freshmen who came to the Westwood campus last fall had impressive credentials, averaging a 3.92 GPA and SAT scores of 1136.

*

Given the competition, Romano knew she wasn’t a shoo-in. Still, she felt cheated when the rejection letter landed in her mailbox.

After all, she had studied hard. Sought challenges. Joined teams and clubs. Showed spirit and compassion. Earned kudos from her peers and teachers. In short, she had done everything she thought she had to do.

Before accepting an offer from UC San Diego, Romano expressed her bewilderment in an unsuccessful appeal to the UCLA admissions director: “I have discovered several students who had lower academic records and SAT scores than mine who have been admitted. Not to demean their qualifications in any way, [but] I was puzzled at their acceptance and my rejection. . . . In some instances, one’s effort just is not enough. In this case, however, I honestly felt it was.”

As Lifka, the UCLA assistant vice chancellor, said, effort is not always enough to ensure admission to the campus.

*

Applicants with weaker academic records sometimes get into UCLA ahead of stellar students because of personal qualities, Lifka said. Maybe they are the first in their family to attempt college, or maybe their brassy trumpet playing is just what the marching band needs. Maybe their application gets extra credit because they come from a region, or an ethnic group, that seldom succeeds in sending students to UCLA.

“We don’t want to give the impression we just list [applicants] from top to bottom [based on academics] and then draw a line someplace, because that’s just not the way it works,” Lifka said.

Realizing that grade-point average alone does not determine admissions, rejected students often load their appeals with every plus factor they can think of. They send art projects and high school essays (complete with glowing teacher comments). They mention every relative who ever attended UCLA. And they pile in recommendations from teachers, coaches, bosses--even parents.

Lifka said admissions officials review every appeal. Sometimes they urge students to shift their dreams to another UC campus.

But records show that students tagged as VIPs by UCLA get special consideration, including personal monitoring by the admissions director.

One math teacher tried to win a student a close second look by plugging his own UCLA ties in an appeals letter: “As a life member of the UCLA Alumni Assn., it is my pleasure to recommend . . . “

*

It didn’t work. The student had begged to attend UCLA so he could live at home and take care of his ailing grandma. But despite a heart-tugging letter, a 3.8 GPA, a 1030 SAT score and a top-notch golf game, he was rejected.

As UCLA Chancellor Charles E. Young acknowledged in a recent interview, VIP treatment usually goes to those with the most clout or the best connections. Run-of-the-mill alumni probably wouldn’t make the cut.

“You may wish the world were different, but I can’t take every telephone call that comes in,” Young said. “The selection process is going to benefit those who for one reason or another are likely to get their calls in.”

As Young also conceded, only the most politically savvy typically think to call in the first place.

Most rejected students just toss their form letters in despair, since UCLA does not have a formal appeals process. Those with the tenacity to fight often simply write to the admissions official who signed their rejection letter.

A few press their cases further. Emil and Mila Kalovsky of West Hills protested to the UC president when their daughter Julie was turned away last spring despite her 4.53 grade-point average at a math/science magnet school. Sobbing and moaning, ‘Why?” Julie felt betrayed as soon as she opened the slim rejection note.

“It seemed like whatever I did wasn’t good enough, but I couldn’t have done anything better,” Julie said. “I felt like my dreams were ruined. My belief in the system was shattered.”

She pulled herself together to appeal, gathering warm letters of recommendation and blaming poor SAT scores on medical problems after an accident. But admissions officers jotted in her file: “Scores not competitive, accident notwithstanding. No change in decision.”

Her parents’ letter hit a similar dead end. A UCLA vice president responded by politely recommending that Julie attend UC Santa Barbara or San Diego.

UCLA’s front door had slammed shut. And the Kalovskys had no access to the back-door channel that won extra attention for others with connections.

The Kalovskys still fume a year after the rejection--especially when they hear about the VIP treatment granted to applicants such as Young’s neighbor, a Westlake High School student with a 2.95 grade-point average and 860 SAT scores. Although admissions officers ruled that the student was ineligible for any of the nine UC campuses, Young championed his application. The student was admitted to UCLA in January.

As admissions officers were reviewing that application--newly adorned with the notation “CEY [Charles E. Young] request”--another Westlake Village student was fighting in vain to overturn her rejection. Julie Bistrow was among hundreds of students who beat out Young’s neighbor in the academic arena but failed to win appeals to UCLA last year.

Bistrow had no heavyweights in her corner, just an Agoura High School chemistry teacher who pleaded on her behalf: “I truly don’t know how to impress upon you that Julie is different. . . . I truly feel Julie is the type of student and person it is our duty to help.”

The teacher, Phil Patterson, said he was shocked when UCLA brushed aside Bistrow’s gushing recommendations and rejected her.

“And then to find out the [admissions] process has been manipulated,” he added. “Then you feel both rejected and cheated.”

For her part, Bistrow considered herself a “borderline” candidate, with a 3.67 grade-point average, an 1110 SAT and long list of activities including cheerleading, tutoring and volunteering at a hospital. She wasn’t stunned to get the rejection, but she was mad.

“There were a lot of times I had to say no [to friends] in high school, but I figured it was going to be worth it because I was going to get into a great school,” she said.

As it turned out, she did--Bistrow is now an ecstatic freshman at UC Berkeley. Still, UCLA was her first choice, and the rejection stings.

“To know people are getting into the school when it’s not even a goal they’re working toward . . . “ she said, trailing off in dismay. “It’s really frustrating.”

Her father, Lyle, picked stronger words. “The kids who are borderline, well, if they’re boosted over the edge because they’re given a letter of recommendation from a legislator or someone else, more power to them,” he said. “But those who are clearly not [academically] qualified, that’s offensive. Especially in a state school.”

Lifka pointed out that the university always accepts several hundred students with grade-point averages below 3.6 and SAT scores under 1000--and the huge majority have no connections whatsoever.

“It might well be,” Lifka said, that some students sneak in due to improper manipulation of the admissions process, “but my guess is, it’s not a hell of a lot.”

Still, the thought that even a few competitors won special treatment because of well-placed friends outrages many students who failed to make it to Westwood.

“I studied really hard, I got really good grades, I did every extracurricular activity I could,” Julie Kalovsky said. “I did everything right. It didn’t matter to them.”