Lawsuit Reveals How Colleges Really Talk About Rich Applicants
A lawsuit filed by a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) student alleges that the university knowingly and intentionally discriminated against a group of applicants based on their socioeconomic status. The ex-student, who has chosen to remain anonymous, claims that UCLA used secret “discretionary feedback” to reject the applications of middle-class and lower-income students, giving preference to students from wealthier backgrounds.
The suit, filed in August 2019, was initially dismissed by a federal court but was later reopened. The anonymous student is now seeking a jury trial and asking for damages for emotional distress and attorney’s fees.
Emails and memoranda, made public as part of the lawsuit, reveal that UCLA officials and admissions staff discussed the “discretionary feedback” process, where they would share their opinions about individual applicants with colleagues. The communications, although not explicitly referencing the financial status of the applicants, contain phrases such as: “not a good fit for us,” “poor fit,” and “not our usual type of student.”
The suit claims that these “discretionary feedback” notes, which can have a significant impact on an applicant’s chances of acceptance, were disproportionately used to reject students from lower-income families. According to the lawsuit, these students were often viewed as “not a cultural fit” or “not desirable” for the university.
This is not an isolated incident. Similar practices have been alleged to occur at other top-tier universities, with experts suggesting that such biases can be rooted in everything from stereotypes about socioeconomic status to assumptions about academic preparedness. The suit argues that these biases can significantly impact students’ college opportunities, perpetuating inequality and exacerbating existing socioeconomic disparities.
The lawsuit highlights the vulnerability and financial burden faced by lower-income students in the college admissions process, where even a small change in application filtering can shut the door to higher education opportunities. Experts warn that these biases can perpetuate inequality, stifling social mobility and limiting opportunities for marginalized students.
As the case continues to unfold, it is clear that the battle for fair and inclusive admissions practices is far from over. This lawsuit serves as a reminder of the need for colleges and universities to addresses these biases, ensuring that all students have equal access to higher education, regardless of their socioeconomic status.