UCLA Eased Entry Rules for the Rich, Well-Connected

Among those receiving special attention at the university itself was Irell, founding partner of the prominent Irell and Manella law firm in Los Angeles, whose inquiries helped his granddaughter and two other students gain admission over the past 10 years. Two had been coded for rejection, and his granddaughter was admitted ahead of more than 5,000 others with superior academic records, according to confidential files.

Irell, now retired, said he wanted to make sure that the applications "didn't get lost in the shuffle."

"The reason I expected someone would look at it is because I was very active as the president of the UCLA Foundation and an active supporter in many ways," he said.

"I felt these three people were outstanding people and needed a little boost, especially at a time when affirmative action was cutting down on the number of openings, and people could easily be passed over. . . . "

The backdoor system also included requests for the University Elementary School. Documents show that many prominent people asked UCLA for help in getting their children and grandchildren into UES, and that the university reserved a number of prized slots as fund-raising tools.

Charles said that he worked out a "deal" with UES that allowed him to place the children of two or three donors into the school each year.

In court papers filed because of a lawsuit over admissions practices at the school, UCLA has acknowledged that it uses an "unpublicized" policy to accept the children of wealthy individuals with the aim of making them "pleased or gratified" enough to make donations.

Among those whose children were given reserved slots were movie producer Peters, actresses Sally Field and Ellen Barkin, as well as the grandchildren of DreamWorks SKG Music chief Mo Ostin and Sizzler Restaurant Chairman Jim Collins, records show. Fund-raising records show that in Peters' case, the producer promised to make a $175,000 donation over five years. Peters, through a spokesman, declined to comment.

What is not always clear is whether it was the donors or UCLA itself that elevated the cases for special consideration.

One local elected official recalled being surprised when UCLA reversed itself on an admissions decision involving his own child. The politician said he mentioned in passing at a party that his child had been turned down for UCLA but accepted at several other UC campuses.