So let me get this straight. We have a large amount of students coming in that both can't do math and need remedial writing courses. The school has no problem letting ANYONE in, as they will just get a government backed loan. The UC wins regardless if the student ever finishes or not.
Seems to me, they are just insuring their income stream stays nice and healthy.
Not really. The UC system has way more applicants than it can accept, and it has been that way for decades. As such, they already know they have the "income stream" that is "nice and healthy".
What this really means is that the UC system is doing a much worse job then they previously did in "selecting" the students into their system that are ready to meet the requirements without needing remedial math and writing.
In other words, the UC system changed how they were selecting people for acceptance, and the metrics of tracking the need for these remedial courses by a much larger percentage of the incoming students are showing that their current selection criteria is doing a worse job of picking out students who are academically ready for the standards of the UC system at the time of their selection/acceptance.
3. The opposing lawyer.
Pretty sure the opposing lawyer caught it and brought it up, which is why it was in the appeal in the first place. They just were not able to convince the judge in time for the original claim. Many of these kinds of things were probably cited in various fillings with limited time to respond (some things have less than 7 days to respond, which does not give enough time to dig down to all the citations, and may only provoke a more generic response that they could not find the case/reference).
Brain fried -- Core dumped