I’m not sure why the focus is on Blum, but it certainly appears that a small portion of applicants were admitted inappropriately. Skimming through the report, some of the more reliable criticisms are:
*A few athletes were admitted who did not compete on the team and were soon removed from the roster. After admission, the athlete applicant’s family donated several thousand dollars to the team. In one specific example that was highlighted is quoted below:
*A few friends and relatives of faculty/staff and donors were admitted in spite of receiving the lowest possible application rating by readers, which “under normal circumstances would have resulted in virtually no chance of admission,” without being identified as an athlete. The application readers both marked the applicant as not recommended, with the lowest possible ratings. Yet they were admitted, with no reason given for seemingly ignoring the readers’ evaluations and applicant ratings.
While this is only a few applicants out of tens of thousands, it is still troubling. If a public college says they have particular rules for admission, they should follow those rules. The report also list many other criticisms about the admission system and suggestions for improvement.