<p>Huh xiggi, how did California spin out of control??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UC’s top 9% Eligibility in Local Context (was top 4%) only gives admission to some UC campus, not necessarily the one of the student’s choice. So a student who is ELC applies to Berkeley and is not accepted there may get the fat packet from Merced.</p>
<p>Also, top 9% for ELC is defined as having a UC admissions GPA above a threshold UC admissions GPA for the high school as calculated by UC based on data sent by the high school for previous graduating classes. Current class rank as determined by the high school is not used.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that something I wrote in 2005? If it is, I was not far from the mark! :)</p>
<p>In general or in terms of college admissions? For the first one, check the scene in Sacramento. For the second one, a stroll through Cal or UCLA followed by a visit to Merced, a CSU and a community college will suffice.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I don’t think that answers the question. Is your point that there is a difference between a variety of state schools? How is that out of control.</p>
<p>Not sure what I am supposed to add without getting in a lengthy debate about how the education system of California is a unmitigated disaster in terms of racial distribution. I have written more than I care about this subject. Except to share that here is absolutely nothing for other states to borrow from California. All other states can do is learn and avoid repeating the same disgraceful mistakes.</p>
<p>I think the answer to both could be found in Sacramento. California higher education has been the model for a long time - the three systems that feed into each other, each with a different scope and focus. The UC system has been and still is (even with the budget cuts) among the very best in the world, so it’s completely wrong to say that there’s “absolutely nothing to borrow from California,” especially when most public university systems would kill to be at the status of California public universities. (If you meant that only in relation to race/admissions policies and demographics, you can ignore this.) Regarding race, of course the status quo at many public universities is less than desirable, but to say that any of their actions regarding race is a “disgraceful mistake” implies that there’s a defined right and wrong re: race in college admissions. There isn’t, or else it wouldn’t be debated so much.</p>
<p>Phanta, read my post again as one answer which each word is in reference to “in terms of racial distribution.” The system developed in California might have been a model in a distant past, but today it is simply a poster child for racial, and to a lesser degree, economic segregation. </p>
<p>My comment has nothing (that word again) to do with the status or reputation it gained through its lengthy existence. Blinding at the reputation of schools such as Cal might be at the graduate level, it is important that what once was the envy of most educational systems through the world has sunk to an unprecedented low.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I still think it is the envy of many.</p>
<p>I would guess Xiggi is referring to the very high Asian enrollment in many of the UC schools, although not all. It is an interesting phenomenon that should be scrutinized to understand why it is happening. This is a very touchy subject that many people are probably to timid to go near unless they are accused of racial insensitivity. At the risk of employing racial stereotypes, I have heard from others that although American Asians do well in the classroom because of their prodigious study habits, they lack leadership qualities and the inventiveness and ingenuity necessary to think outside the box. Maybe this obsessive focus on academics has hampered their ability to think creatively and to relate to people in a leadership capacity. I would think the UC’s might want to think about broadening their admission criteria to assess these more intangible factors when making admission decisions.</p>
<p>Rather than the same old racial stereotype, the likely real reason behind “Asian American educational achievement” is relatively recent (within a generation or two) immigration. The US immigration system filtered immigrants from Asia by student visas and skilled worker visas. Plus, it took a motivated person to move overseas to a different country. So you have highly educated and skilled immigrants settling in the US and passing the value of education on to their children. While some may be overbearing “tiger parents”, plenty pass on the value of education is less overbearing ways.</p>
<p>It so happens that such highly educated and skilled immigrants and their first or second generation descendants are a larger percentage of Asian Americans than they are of European, Latin, or African Americans. But the tendency for everyone to see differences by the existing socially defined racial groupings means that the reasons behind “Asian American educational achievement” are not necessarily the ones people think of first.</p>
<p>A paper here discusses educational attainment and immigration / generation status:</p>
<p>[Educational</a> Attainment: Analysis by Immigrant Generation by Barry Chiswick, Noyna Deb-Burman :: SSRN](<a href=“http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=389380]Educational”>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=389380)</p>
<p>Note that European and African immigrants and their American children have high educational attainment, but they have much less of an effect on the aggregate stats of educational attainment of European Americans and African Americans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Either that or our White community is generally unable to follow the leadership of another race. I do not know where the real problem lies. For now, wealth and power and thus leadership has historically been in the hands of members of the white community. Once this power transfers to the more educated Asians, then we will probably find out the true leadership potential of Asians (or lack thereof). </p>
<p>I can still remember the days when people used to joke that the Japanese could never make a good car because they can copy but not innovate. That eventually turned out to be a myth. Honda and Toyota ultimately became pretty good leaders and innovators.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d say a range between high 1200s and low 1300s depending on math and verbal breakdown. </p>
<p>Also, ten years after 1984…an 1180 would make admission chances to Vassar practically non-existent unless the student happened to be male…and even that’s seriously pushing it. Forget about any admissions to Ivies or peer schools.</p>
<p>There may have been a fair chance for Oberlin or Emory…provided the applicant’s GPA is higher to compensate and the transcript/GC report can make the case the student’s coursework was reasonably rigorous by Oberlin’s/Emory’s standards…or the applicant wrote a killer essay/had supreme outside achievements…especially of the political/altruistic kind that is shown to come from the applicant’s own genuine interest/desire to help others and not motivated by bolstering one’s college applications. </p>
<p>As for SUNYs… Binghamton would have been quite chancy as a 3.59 HS GPA and an 1180 would place her near the minimum GPA/SAT requirement floor at the time I attended. As I recalled, you needed at least a 90+ or around a 3.5+ to meet that minimal floor or it is an automatic reject. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends on what parameters/traits/behaviors constitute “leadership”. From what I’ve observed in US pop culture, mainstream high schools, colleges/universities, and the workplace…it includes ridiculous amounts of egotistical self-promotion, appealing to the worst base instincts within the human species, and being an effective shameless BS artist. </p>
<p>Considering all of those factors contributed to the unfortunate events in 2008 and other outstanding national/international problems…is the seeming US popular notion of “leadership” something that universities should be encouraging in prospective students?</p>
<p>“it includes ridiculous amounts of egotistical self-promotion, appealing to the worst base instincts within the human species, and being an effective shameless BS artist.”</p>
<p>Sounds like you’re talking about Donald Trump. :-)</p>
<p>I do think it is reasonable for colleges to look at leadership activities on a application as one factor in the admission process. There are some kids who are very good at starting businesses or organizations to accomplish an objective that has beneficial societal effects. Kids who show this type of initiative tend to do very well in life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m also including some recent past presidents; some famous CEOs…including those who run prominent charitable foundations; and some politicians in the recent news who seem to have much success attracting followers despite a remarkable talent for putting feet in their mouths and acting like ye olde scolds, brawling kindergarteners, latter day Torquemadas, and outright hypocrites.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From those I’ve met in the former category, most tended to regard college as a complete waste of time or something that’s not a priority compared to testing/exercising their entrepreneurial acumen when they were the same age as the traditionally aged undergrads.</p>
<p>Some who are in the latter category do later go back to get a college education once they’ve made their money and their mark in the world of entrepreneurial business. One happened to be a college classmate who after decades of success in founding a small business which expanded to the point he was able to retire comfortably off of it and to attend Oberlin as a full-pay middle-aged freshman trying to decide on a major to make the most of the academic aspect of his college years. Great classmate to hang out with…especially given his life experience and curmudgeony tendencies when observing the foibles of our classmates.</p>
<p>Cobrat, there are very few high school kids who have the type of financial success where college becomes a waste of time. There are many kids who have demonstrated leadership abilities and entrepreneurial acumen and may still want to go to college for a variety of reasons. I still think these are desirable characteristics for colleges (including the UC’s) to factor in the admission process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. However, I was addressing the adolescent/young-adult mindset of most entrepreneurial minded folks I’ve met over the years. </p>
<p>It was a factor in why most of them dropped out of college…or sometimes even high school. Their post school life outcomes ranged from abject failure to the case of the comfortably retired middle-aged college classmate with most still running the same business or their xth business well-enough to avoid going out of business yet. Most of them…especially when high school/college-aged didn’t see much of a point in high school/college academics which they viewed as irrelevant to what they wanted to do or not the most important thing when they were of the traditional age to attend.</p>
<p>Let’s not narrowly define leadership ability. Starting a business is certainly one way, but it can also be demonstrated in many other ways. For example, the president of the school, editor of the school newspaper or sports team captain are other activities certainly worthy of consideration. Organizing a number of people and marshalling the available resources to deal with a humanitarian issue would be the type of activity I would certainly consider if I was an admissions officer. These type of activities, in my view, are more indicative of success in life than GPA or maybe even test scores.</p>
<p>The workplace is filled with people with different motivations related to family needs, personalities and cultures. Some people have an inate ability to “read” these needs and empathize while motivating others to keep on task while feeling valued. These assets are not tested on the SATs, nor are they necessarily reflected in gpa. They are easily spotted in junior high, by those who know what to look for. Schools want these men and women. They are found in every ethnicity, there is no shortage of them in the Asia-American population. When they go to “leadership seminars” they do not learn how to lead, they just learn what academics call all of the things that they have been doing naturally their entire lives.</p>