UC has a documented admission system that they are required to follow. It’s my understanding that UC permits up to 6% of students to not meet standard eligibility requirements – 4% SES “disadvantaged” students and up to 2% non-disadvantaged. One of the permitted admission by exception categories is, “They have demonstrated exceptional talent, accomplishments, or potential in athletics, performing arts, a specific academic area, leadership, or in contributing to the community.” So it would be acceptable for some athletes to be admitted who do not meet the standard UC eligibility requirements… One of the 14 holistic admission criteria for applicants is “Special talents, skills, or interests or other significant experiences or achievement.” Athletes could also be favored due to excelling in this criteria. The report mentions that athletes as a whole do tend to be weaker admits at both UCLA and Berkeley. 2/3 of Berkeley athletes received the lowest rating from both readers, indicating that the both readers recommended that the applicant be rejected. I suspect that most athletes were among the “admitted by exception” kids, which is allowed under the UC system.
In spite of the low ratings, most Berkeley athletes do seem to be academically successful, or at least successful enough to graduate. Berkeley athletes averaged a 75% graduation rate, compared to 94% for the full student body While receiving the low rating doesn’t necessarily destine the athletes for failing out of college, that doesn’t mean the rating system is meaningless. I’d expect there are still statistically significant differences in average measures of academic success during college between applicants who receive the lowest rating and highest rating, such as the graduation rate example.
I do not entirely agree with this system or the degree of athletic preference, but one could make a good argument that a strong preference for exceptional athletes is allowed under the existing UC admissions system. However, unlike most private colleges, the UC system does not permit a similarly strong preference for applicants who are related to faculty/staff or donors. Faculty/staff/donor kids should not be among the 2% of non-disadvantaged students who may be “admission by exception” admits unless they meet the “admission by exception” guidelines. It’s my understanding these guidelines are as follows. The report mentions that unlike the claimed athlete kids, no reason was listed for their admission, so I assume that the highlighted admits were not “admission by exception” kids.