<p>ACKK!!! DS submitted UC app and when he checked on status today it says UC score calculation indicates he's not in top 9%? But his UC gpa is 4.1 and his SAT = 2300.
How can this be? He got the highest SAT in his class of 800+ seniors. SAT is factored into the UC calculation, is it not?
We are extremely confused</p>
<p>I’m sure only GPA is used to calculate ELC eligibility, or the school may not be participating in the ELC program.</p>
<p>Talk to the counselor.</p>
<p>Somehow, somewhere a mistake has been made. I was playing around with this and with my daughter’s test score, very similar to the number you mention, I could lower her GPA to 3.0 and it still said she was in the top 9%.</p>
<p>I think you need to determine which 9% rule it is talking about. I suspect it is the “local” eligibility rule where you need to be in top 9% of your high school class to qualify for admission based on GPA and not test scores. In other words, if your DS was not in the top 9% of his own high school class, he does not qualify under the “local” eligibility rule. The 9% rule you seem to be referring to is the “statewide” eligibility rule for which you find the calculation on line that combines GPA and test score to show it. There is no doubt your DS has that qualification so I would check a little further to assure that non-qualification finding is only for the one in “local” context. It can get confusing since both rules use a 9% figure now.</p>
<p>gladiatorbird, My son’s UC GPA is 4.2 and he is not in the top 9% in his HS school (not the most competitive HS). I’m really confused too!</p>
<p>Wow. Thank you for the kind responses. Love this CC site.
Yes, I think it was the local ELC: he’s at a competitive high school and his 4.3 HS gpa there evidently falls out of the 9%. Strange though, because his class rank puts him at 8%.
I guess the overall ‘UC admissions index’ will reflect his 2300 SAT. So that’s good.
But I’m with you, younglOoking mom: would hate to be a student now if 4.2s don’t put you in the top 9%.</p>
<p>Actually, when a 4.2 doesn’t put you in the top 9% it suggests school has gotten easier, not harder. There’s runaway grade inflation and it doesn’t take what it used to to earn an A.</p>
<p>^it’s easier if you go to one of those inflating schools. For poor suckers like me who go to schools with very entitled teachers who like to make their classes hard, it makes everything worse.</p>
<p>^^I see. Got it!</p>
<p>The thing is, I heard most of my son’s AP classes only grant 2 to 3 As; that’s why I’m confused at first place. But maybe my info is not correct. :)</p>
<p>Again, there is a big difference between 9% eligibility in a “statewide” context and one in a “local” context. For statewide context you do the math on-line because everything is provided including (a) how to calculate GPA but you only get a limited number of extra points for honors or AP courses, and (b) how to convert SAT scores and then find your status in the the combined GPA/test score table that is provided… You undoubtedly will meet that group of eligible applicants.</p>
<p>The 9% local context is calculated differently. Though it uses only sophomore and junior year grades, there is no limit to AP and honors extra points, and thus someone with straight A’s and all honors and APs can have a 5.0 GPA, and test scores are not used. The detemination made is whether you are in the top 9% your high school’s historical top 9%. A 4.2 GPA could easily be low for that calculation but if that is the statewide calculated GPA, you are using the wrong one because local allows an unlimited number of extra points for AP and honors. Moreover, you have the additonal issue of whether your high school even participates in the local context rule, and there are a number that don’t, and if it does not you are automatically going to receive a notice that you do not qualify for the top 9% in a local context.</p>
<p>Ah yes, the ole, really mom, almost no one got an A!:)</p>
<p>Thank you for your very clear, thoughtful reply, drusba. Got it. His UC calculated/capped gpa is 4.1. His UC admissions index will be very high b/c it incorporates his 2300 sat. </p>
<p>His local high school ELC is completely different: based on gpa only. </p>
<p>And the class rank is different, too. DS’s GC just clarified that they use 9-11 grades for in-house rank, whereas UC uses only 10-11 when they calculate ELC. Hence the varied results…</p>
<p>I thank you all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Note that ELC compares UC GPA against the top 9% historic UC GPA at the high school. So if the previous classes had set a higher UC GPA bar, then current rank better than 9% may not qualify for ELC.</p>
<p>Also, even if the UC GPA levels of the previous classes and the current class are the same, current rank calculated by the high school may differ due to different method of GPA calculation from UC GPA (which does not include freshman year course grades and has a specific honors/AP weighting system that is different from what many high schools use).</p>
<p>They don’t give many As, actually. The kids take a very high # of AP courses, however. DS took a ton of APs, so the Bs carry quite a boost, too.
Anyway, I understand this better now and appreciate all your comments.</p>
<p>gladiatorbird, no matter our sons are in the top 9% or not, at least they have a decent shot at a decent UC campus. So don’t worry!</p>
<p>Frankly, my sense is with a 2300 and 4.1 adjusted UC GPA, he is going to be competivie for the high ranked UCs.</p>
<p>Well said, younglookingmom. Best wishes to you and your hard-working son. :)</p>
<p>Thank drusba! He’s an Eagle Scout, too. :)</p>
<p>^I can only imagine the emotional shifts that have occured from the time you started this thread under the belief that your DS had just been rejected by the UCs to now where he has a decent chance at even the high ranks.</p>
<p>You sensed that, LOL. You are astute as well as kind and knowledgeable, drusba. 
Yes, the rising panic is gone.
I hope this thread helps others who may be greeted with the same message on their UC application status pages.
Thanks also to ucalumnus and everyone else who responded.
Sigh…
:)</p>