University of Texas at Austin – Investigation of Admissions Practices and Allegations of Undue Influence Summary of Key Findings Final Report to the Office of the Chancellor of The University of Texas System February 6, 2015 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 A. UT-Austin Admissions Inquiry ........................................................................................................... 2 B. New Information / Allegations ........................................................................................................... 4 C. Cooperation of Participants ............................................................................................................... 4 2. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 5 A. Scope of Investigation ....................................................................................................................... 5 B. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 6 C. Report Contents .............................................................................................................................. 10 3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 11 4. APPLICABLE LAW AND POLICY .......................................................................................................... 19 A. Background and Recent History ..................................................................................................... 19 B. Texas Statutes ................................................................................................................................ 22 1. Undergraduate Admissions ......................................................................................................... 22 2. Graduate and Professional Admissions ...................................................................................... 24 C. Administrative Rules ....................................................................................................................... 25 1. Undergraduate Admissions ......................................................................................................... 25 2. Graduate and Professional Admissions ...................................................................................... 25 D. Regents Rules ................................................................................................................................. 25 5. REVIEW OF UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS .................................................................................. 27 A. The Holistic Review Process as Designed ..................................................................................... 30 B. Public Representations of Undergraduate Admissions Process .................................................... 33 C. Review of Undergraduate Applications ........................................................................................... 35 D. Undergraduate Admissions Process as Practiced .......................................................................... 36 1. Complexity of Admissions Process ............................................................................................. 37 2. Philosophical Differences ............................................................................................................ 38 3. Presidential Pressure on Admissions Office ............................................................................... 39 4. Application Holds and “Watch Lists” ........................................................................................... 40 5. Legislative Influence .................................................................................................................... 46 6. Board of Regents Influence ......................................................................................................... 48 7. Other External Influences ............................................................................................................ 50 8. Failure to Disclose During Sharphorn Inquiry ............................................................................. 50 9. A Note on Graduate School Admissions ..................................................................................... 52 10. Email Review ............................................................................................................................. 52 11. Analysis of Admissions Data ..................................................................................................... 54 12. Review of Selected Application Files ......................................................................................... 60 6. REVIEW OF LAW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS ........................................................................................... 64 A. The Holistic Review Process as Designed ..................................................................................... 66 B. Public Representations of Law School Admissions Process .......................................................... 67 C. Law School Admissions Process as Practiced ............................................................................... 70 1. Letters of Recommendation and Other External Influences ....................................................... 70 2. Input from President’s Office ....................................................................................................... 72 3. Analysis of Admissions Data ....................................................................................................... 75 4. Review of Selected Application Files .......................................................................................... 78 7. REVIEW OF BUSINESS SCHOOL ADMISSIONS ................................................................................. 81 A. MBA Admissions Process as Designed and Publicized ................................................................. 83 B. MBA Admissions Process as Practiced .......................................................................................... 85 1. External Influences ...................................................................................................................... 85 2. Analysis of Admissions Data ....................................................................................................... 86 3. Review of Outlier Candidates ...................................................................................................... 87 4. Specific Allegations of Undue Influence ...................................................................................... 89 8. RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES .................................................................................. 93 APPENDIX A - ATTACHED 1 INTRODUCTION Founded in 1883, The University of Texas at Austin (“UT-Austin”) has served for the past 131 years as the flagship public university for the state of Texas. During that time, UT-Austin has grown into one of the largest and most elite public universities in the United States. Set on a 350-acre campus in the capital city of Austin, the university encompasses 18 colleges and schools, over 51,000 students, and nearly 24,000 faculty and staff.1 One of nine universities and six health centers under the governance of The University of Texas System (“UT-System”), the declared mission of UT-Austin is to provide “superior and comprehensive educational opportunities” and to “contribute to the advancement of society.”2 It is a highly selective institution, receiving 38,785 applications for 7,287 places in the entering freshman undergraduate class (as of November 2014).3 Nearly 60% of applicants to the undergraduate programs are denied admission.4 The University of Texas School of Law (“UT Law School” or “law school”) and the McCombs Graduate School of Business (“McCombs” or “graduate business school”) are likewise highly competitive and selective institutions. UT Law School is nationally ranked, generally considered one of the top fifteen law schools in the United States. Over three-fourths of the law school’s applicants are denied admission. Likewise, McCombs’ full-time MBA program is typically ranked as one of the nation’s top 20 graduate business programs, with nearly two-thirds of its applicants denied admission. Collectively, the law and business schools produce many state and national leaders in the fields of law, business, government, and philanthropy. The process of selecting students for admission is a critical component of how UT-Austin fulfills its mission. In its annual admissions decisions, UT-Austin seeks to admit an exceptionally talented and diverse group of students who are well-prepared for and positioned to succeed in a challenging academic environment. Ensuring that the admissions process is administered with integrity and fairness, and considers each applicant solely on his or her individual merit apart from outside pressure exerted by “persons of influence” (defined for the purposes of this report as donors, alumni, members of the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government, the Board of Regents, UT-System officials, UT- Austin officials and faculty, or other persons of importance) is an important component of public university 1 “Campuses with the Largest Enrollments, Fall 2009,” Chronicle of Higher Education, August 26, 2011, p. 33; http://www.utexas.edu/academics/colleges-schools; http://www.utexas.edu/about-ut 2 http://www.utexas.edu/about-ut/mission-core-purpose-honor-code, as quoted in Brief for Respondents, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 11-345 (filed with the United States Supreme Court, August 2012), p. 5. 3 http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/whyut/profile/app-to-enroll 4 Id. 1 admissions. So, too, is securing a diverse student body that is well-equipped for dealing with the world as it exists and that extends the benefits of an elite education to those most capable and deserving regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or religion; and irrespective of economic, political or other external influences.5 It is in light of these considerations that Kroll was tasked with this investigation. Because an important backdrop to this report is the UT-System internal admissions inquiry, which concluded approximately three months before Kroll’s selection to conduct the present investigation, the findings of that inquiry are summarized below. A. UT-Austin Admissions Inquiry On August 1, 2013, in response to questions raised in the media and by a member of the Board of Regents about possible undue influence by state legislators on the UT-Austin admissions process, the Chancellor and Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at UT-System requested that Dan Sharphorn, Vice Chancellor and General Counsel, and Wanda Mercer, Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, investigate whether there existed undue influence or outside pressure in the admissions process at UT-Austin. The inquiry focused initially on the Law School admissions process, but was later expanded to include undergraduate admissions. In conducting the inquiry, Sharphorn and Mercer interviewed UT-Austin President Bill Powers and his Chief of Staff, Nancy Brazzil; law school Dean Ward Farnsworth and former Dean Larry Sager; former Interim Chancellor Kenneth Shine; UT-System Vice Chancellor and Chief Government Relations Officer Barry McBee; law school Assistant Dean for Admission and Financial Aid Monica Ingram; and three other persons affiliated with the law school. They also reviewed undergraduate and law school admissions data; written statements submitted by Dean Farnsworth and a former Director of Admissions, and 77 letters of recommendation from members of the state legislature that had been sent to President Powers from 2009 to 2013, as well as his responses to those letters. The University of Texas System – U.T. Austin Admissions Inquiry Report was finalized and issued in May 2014 (“Admissions Inquiry Report”). The report noted that for many years it has been common practice at UT-Austin for legislators and other persons of influence to make admissions recommendations to the President of UT-Austin. “When any of these letters are submitted as part of the prescribed admissions process, there is no appearance of undue influence, so long as the letters are properly evaluated and weighted using the same criteria along with other letters of recommendation.”6 However, the letters of concern for purposes of the inquiry were “those that are sent directly to the president or a dean and are outside the prescribed application and recommendation process.”7 5 U.T. System White Paper: Best Practices in Admissions Processes for Undergraduate and Professional Programs, July 2014, pp. 4-5. 6 Admissions Inquiry Report, p. 6. 7 Id. 2 According to the report, “Officials at all levels find it reasonable to recommend a student for admission to undergraduate, graduate, or professional school, including the School of Law, by appealing outside the prescribed admissions process directly to the president of the institution, or through the relevant dean or director of admissions.”8 Although President Powers’ responses to these letters were uniform and standard9 and revealed no impropriety, the report acknowledged that it was not known “what these influential people expect in response to their recommendations and what, in fact, actually happens in response.”10 The inquiry found no evidence of a quid pro quo in exchange for admissions decisions; no evidence “of a systematic, structured, or centralized process of reviewing and admitting applicants recommended by influential individuals;”11 and no evidence of overt pressure on Admissions Office staff to admit applicants based on the recommendations of persons of influence.12 However, based on a review of the 77 letters of recommendation (pertaining to 16 law school applicants and 61 undergraduate applicants) that were sent directly to or that copied President Powers outside the standard process, the report concluded that admissions decisions were likely impacted in some cases by the letters of recommendation. In particular, the admission rates for applicants to whom the letters applied were significantly higher than for the rest of the applicant populations. The report found that the disparities in admission rates could not reasonably be explained by factors of individual merit, such as grades, test scores, and other holistic considerations. Although further investigation was deemed unwarranted, the report recommended a review and revision of admissions practices. In conclusion, the report noted that “sending recommendation letters directly to the U.T. president has been a widespread and longstanding practice by a host of distinguished individuals, [and thus] any problems with this practice would seem to be much more a matter of culture than individual misconduct.”13 It deferred to the Board of Regents as to whether a full investigation was needed to answer the questions left unanswered by the report. On May 1, 2014, the report findings were shared with President Powers, Provost Greg Fenves, and Dean Farnsworth. President Powers accepted the report’s findings and recommendations and committed UT- Austin to work with UT-System in developing and identifying best practices in admissions, particularly in administering recommendations that are sent outside of the formal admissions process. 8 Admissions Inquiry Report, p. 2. 9 Id. at p. 6. The standard response reads: “Thank you for writing to me about XXX. I appreciate your views on his abilities and his potential. I’ll keep an eye on his application. Thanks again for letting me know about XXX – and thank you for all you do for our state, and for higher education in Texas.” Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. at 12. 13 Id. at 14. 3 B. New Information / Allegations In June 2014, several weeks after the Admissions Inquiry Report was finalized and issued, new information was presented to the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor and General Counsel by a former Admissions official alleging that the Office of the President (“President’s Office”) had at times exerted pressure on the Office of Admissions (“Admissions Office”) to admit some applicants of lesser qualifications in response to external influences. This allegation was not made by anyone prior to the issuance of the Admissions Inquiry Report and appeared to potentially contradict certain findings of the report. Additionally, in late June 2014, President Powers informed the Chancellor that as the President of UT- Austin he faced “a lot of pressure” over the admissions process from donors, alumni, and legislators. President Powers said that in certain cases he has responded to that pressure by increasing the class size by the added number of people he chooses to admit so as not to take any positions away from applicants already admitted. Because this information had not been provided during the Admissions Inquiry that concluded in May 2014, the Chancellor believed an independent firm should be retained to more thoroughly and comprehensively review the admissions process, investigate allegations of external pressures on the admissions process, and determine whether any factors other than individual merit as defined by a candidate’s academic achievement or personal holistic characteristics influence decisions to admit or deny applicants to UT-Austin. The Board of Regents subsequently authorized the investigation with particular focus on the undergraduate program, the law school, and the graduate business school. The UT-System issued a formal Request for Proposals, after which Kroll was selected in August 2014 to conduct the present investigation. This report contains a detailed summary of our findings and recommendations. C. Cooperation of Participants Kroll wishes to thank UT-System and UT-Austin for their full and complete cooperation in this investigation. Everyone Kroll interviewed spoke candidly and forthrightly, answered all questions put to them, and worked hard in providing the many documents and other materials requested for our review. Although there was understandably some pushback on the scope and extent of requested documentation, all discussions regarding the nature of our requests and documentation were cordial and professional. While it is possible that not everyone will agree with each of Kroll’s findings and recommendations contained in this report, Kroll has attempted to fairly and accurately describe the issues, facts and, if applicable, need for reforms. It has been a pleasure for Kroll to meet and speak with the many talented professionals at UT-System and UT-Austin. The commitment, dedication, and good faith of all officials and personnel with whom we interacted were readily apparent. 4 2 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION AND METHODOLOGY A. Scope of Investigation On August 5, 2014, UT-System entered into an agreement with Kroll to conduct an independent investigation into admissions practices at UT-Austin under the direction of the UT-System General Counsel. Kroll’s focus was to evaluate the conduct of UT-Austin, UT-System, and UT-System Board of Regents officials and employees in performing admissions services, not on any external recommenders. As UT-System is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the admissions process, it charged Kroll with the task of determining if the conduct of UT officials in the handling of admissions decisions “is beyond reproach.”14 Stated differently, the scope of work (see Appendix A) required Kroll to determine “if admissions decisions are made for any reason other than an applicant’s individual merit as measured by academic achievement and officially established personal holistic attributes, and if not, why not.”15 In carrying out this charge, UT-System instructed Kroll to focus exclusively on admissions practices of the undergraduate program, the law school, and the graduate business school from 2004 to 2014. Kroll understands that letters of recommendation from outside third parties are appropriately considered and evaluated as part of an applicant’s file, and that certain letters of recommendation may have more impact on the evaluation of an applicant’s file than others. For example, letters from individuals with personal knowledge of an applicant’s character, work ethic, and background are typically given greater weight in the evaluation process than are letters from individuals with limited personal knowledge of an applicant. However, the premise of this investigation, which is generally supported by the public pronouncements and representations of UT-Austin and the UT-System concerning the admissions process, is that an applicant should not be advantaged or given special consideration as a result of family connections, political connections, recommendations by persons of influence, or a perceived potential economic benefit or financial gain to the university. Conversely, a student should not be disadvantaged simply because he or she is unrelated to, or has no “connections” to persons of influence. Our investigation was thus directed at determining whether efforts or attempts to influence the admissions process do in fact impact admissions decisions in a manner that compromises the integrity and transparency of that process. In conducting this investigation, Kroll did not investigate or inquire into the behavior of individuals external to UT-System, the Board of Regents, or UT-Austin. While full cooperation was expected and received 14 Agreement Between University and Contractor, Exhibit A, Scope of Work. This scope of work is attached to this report as Appendix A. 15 Id. 5 from officials and employees within the University umbrella, we could not expect or insist upon such cooperation from external parties, nor did Kroll attempt to interview such persons, with limited exceptions. UT-System has no control or authority over the behavior of persons not employed by UT-System or its affiliated entities and can only be responsible for ensuring the integrity of its staff, employees, and admissions process. B. Methodology In performing this investigation, Kroll conducted the following activities: Document Reviews and Data Collection. Kroll requested, collected and reviewed relevant documentation and data necessary to prepare for interviews and to fully understand the issues raised and information addressed in the scope of work. Accordingly, we reviewed the Admissions Inquiry Report and all accompanying attachments, including relevant letters of recommendation and responses thereto, and related emails and correspondence. We also requested and reviewed information and data on undergraduate, law school and business school admissions; all written criteria, policies, and guidelines governing the admissions process at UT-Austin, UT Law School, and McCombs School of Business; and other relevant background materials and documentation necessary to enable us to appropriately evaluate and assess the admissions process and a comparison to best practices. After interviews commenced, and based on information learned during those interviews, Kroll requested additional documentation, including admissions data maintained by the Admissions Office on the UT- Austin mainframe computer concerning applicants for undergraduate admissions placed on various “holds” at the requests of college Deans, the Office of the President, or some combination thereof from 2004 to 2014; the same data for the entire population of admitted applicants from 2009 to 2014; admissions data and breakdowns for UT Law School and McCombs School of Business; and emails between selected officials and employees at UT-System and UT-Austin from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. After evaluating and analyzing admissions data from the UT-Austin mainframe computer, Kroll reviewed specifically requested application files that included the completed applications, written essays, high school transcripts, letters of recommendation (if applicable), and other documents or notes maintained with the applicant’s file. Kroll worked with UT-System and UT-Austin officials to ensure at all times that student privacy was maintained and that Kroll’s access to student information complied fully with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, 34 CFR Part 99, Attachment B. Consistent with the provisions of FERPA, no students have been named in this report and no student identifying information has been disclosed. Data Analysis and Reviews of Selected Applications. After beginning interviews of key university officials, Kroll learned that certain records of application “holds” were placed on designated undergraduate application files during the annual admissions process. Accordingly, Kroll requested all 6 records contained in the Mainframe and/or historical database at the UT-Austin Office of Admissions from 2004 to 2014 that had at any time a “hold” designation of “Q” (President’s hold), “L” (Dean’s hold), or “B” (hold requested by the President’s Office and a Dean). The information requested included student ID, the date the hold designation was created, removed, or changed, the label of the hold record (“L”, “Q”, or “B”), and the person who created, removed or changed the hold designation. For each individual for which a hold designation applied, Kroll requested access to the entire applicant file including but not limited to: Copies of AO4 or AO6 screen,16 GPA, SAT score, ACT score, Matrix score, AI score, PAI score, and Adjudication. Kroll did not request or review any records containing a student’s date of birth, social security number or other information that may be considered personally identifiable information. Kroll carefully safeguarded the information provided and took every precaution to ensure that at all times it complied with the terms of our contract, the provisions of FERPA, and all other state and federal statutory laws, regulations, and common laws concerning privacy and the protection of personal and confidential information. All information provided pursuant to this request was placed on an external media device in an encrypted format with password protection, or provided through a secure online Dropbox, to ensure privacy and confidentiality. Kroll also requested and reviewed undergraduate admissions data from 2004 to 2014 that included the total numbers of applicants and admitted students each year with a breakdown of GPAs, SAT scores, ACT scores, the academic index (AI) and personal achievement index (PAI) for each admitted applicant, and other relevant information. Kroll analyzed this data and compared it to applicant data pertaining to those applicants who received a “hold” designation. Based on a review of this information, Kroll then requested access to the admissions records of 73 UT-Austin undergraduate applicants that had been placed on a “hold” during the admissions process and who reported high school grades and test scores significantly below the median scores of accepted applicants – specifically, Kroll reviewed the files of hold applicants who were admitted (and enrolled) with a combined SAT score below 1100 (math and verbal) and a GPA below a 2.9. The admissions records contained information on demographics, quantitative scores, and copies of supplemental documents such as letters of recommendation, resumes and personal essays. Kroll reviewed the relevant files to discern additional information on the applicants’ holistic attributes, including family backgrounds, personal interests, and unique experiences. For the law school, Kroll requested admissions data that included the total numbers of the following categories from 2004 to 2014: applicants, admitted students, Texas residents vs. non-resident, undergraduate GPA, LSAT scores, and other relevant data. We also reviewed the specific application files for admitted and enrolled students from 2010 to 2014 who had reported an undergraduate GPA of 16 The A04 screen captures hold designations and instructions regarding action required on a file before an admissions decision can become final. The A06 screen contains most of the pertinent information about an applicant, including predicted GPA, test scores, evaluation scores entered during the review process (e.g., personal achievement index), high school class rank, high school units, residency, reviewer, and other information. 7