FWIW, CP SLO’s increase in apps, according to the LA Times article, was 4%.
If you’re in one of those groups listed, where there appears to be a decrease in apps at SLO, URM’s, low income or 1st Gen, then you’ve got an increased chance of acceptance at SLO, since they’ve had their issues historically with attracting applicants from this group.
Yes, I saw that article and yes, CP’s numbers aren’t as increased as UCs, but it was already incredibly competitive. I saw an article from a few years ago that they rejected 10,000 4.0 students in one admissions year. Unfortunately, we’re just a normal middle class caucasian family with degrees, so we didn’t get to tick any of those boxes 
He sounds like a great student! Much luck to your son as well! My son applied to all of the UCs except Merced, plus Cal Poly, along with a few other OOS schools (UIUC, UT Austin, etc.) He, too, wants to stay in or close to CA unless he miraculously gets accepted to MIT. Hopefully they all end up with some good choices!!!
Here’s the article from April 2020:
Yes, similar boat for my S21. Before test blind and huge increases in applications we figured the mid level UCs were target schools. He applied to UCD, UCSB, UCSC UCB and UCLA. My wife and I are both Cal Poly alumni and he’s been around the campus since he was a baby. After the test blind decision was made we added a few schools and he was accepted at Oregon and Arizona, still waiting on ASU and Washington. We added Loyola Chicago who offered him generous merit aid that actually brought costs lower than in-state. Those are good options but its upsetting that an in state CA kid with lots of EC’s leadership, community service, a 4.45 WGPA and 1460 SAT could get skunked at Cal Poly and UC.
I agree with your statements. My son’s stats are very similar to yours. Sad part is he’s always been told that if he can do his best during the 4 years of high school then his efforts will be awarded at the end. We didn’t hire tutors or send him to after school programs. He took sat on his own and got a decent score. Unfortunately with all this, I had to prep him mentally that his safety at this point is UCR. Not that there is anything wrong with UCR, since my daughter is graduating from it this year and starting law school this fall… but my son knows how much better his stats are in comparison to my daughter’s. I don’t know what exactly the society is teaching our kids nowadays… does hard work really pay off?? It’s quite disheartening but also a helpless situation. Sorry for the rant… and thanks for listening…
It does seem there are a lot of us with high stat kids watching this very nervously. Maybe this is a case of too much information and some internet fueled panic, for lack of a better word.
There is a good chance that by late next month all of our kids will be in somewhere in state that makes them happy. Deep breath, new friends. I feel like I have a group of kids on this board to root so hard for, and for that, I’m smiling.
Let’s relax. It’ll all be good. 
Remember, too, every school/major is different, in terms of acceptance rates. Gumbymom has posted this enrollment projection in the past:
It gives an idea of enrollment targets, how many apps were received and assuming a yield of your choice, backing into a rough acceptance rate.
We read the same stuff apparently, @sushiritto !!! 
I had seen the 2019 projections but not 2020. Thanks for sharing.
This is mind-boggling. Cal Poly SLO is clear that they do not consider URM in their admissions-- and since they don’t have test scores this year, essays, or letters of recommendation-- all they are left with is GPA and ECs. Unless all their selected students are above a 4.0 (which I don’t think is true), what the heck are they using to decide admissions??? I’ve heard about the MCA scores, but without test scores, that method is useless now, right?
@ChiSea They don’t even have ECs - no descriptions. They have a number of hours for ECs and checkboxes for leadership positions and work.
I don’t think Cal Poly SLO considers URMs at all. Has that changed?
Interesting! So doesn’t that really only leave… GPA?
From the article:
I’m just using what the article states about SLO. Also, as a rhetorical question, how does SLO attempt to increase enrollment amongst those groups listed in the article?
BTW, if you/we don’t want to get this thread shutdown in quick fashion, then “race in admissions” shouldn’t be discussed.
They give bonus points if a parent didn’t graduate high school and if you come from a Hayden partner school, although whatever that is is not transparent. Local kids also get bonus points. Other than that it’s GPA, if you took extra core classes, maybe how many a-g classes you took in total, and then some bonus points for ec hours, hours worked, if you had a leadership position or a job related to your major.
That is all that is on the application so that’s all they can use. No one knows if they are just weighting the gpa part more this year or bumping up how many points are given for the other criteria.
Cal Poly has always had some pretty random acceptances with kids who get into the higher UCs rejected from Cal Poly. I think the biggest factor is the major you applied to since each major has its own admission cut off which is different than many colleges that just admit the top how many ever students into the college.
It doesn’t appear that they target any disadvantaged kids for admissions, just perhaps in recruiting kids to apply by reaching out to different high schools and trying to portray themselves as open and welcoming to all different types.
I’ll try to be succinct.
Let’s say you’re applying to the Forest & Fire Sciences major at SLO and the applicant has worked EC’s and/or paid/volunteer job in that same area and checked the app box that states (from memory) “EC/job/volunteer in area of major” and then the box “leadership in EC” then SLO will award MCA points according their (adjusted) formula.
In the application, there were check boxes (theoretically to earn extra MCA points) to earn points for veterans, local to SLO , child of faculty, first generation college, etc. Not sure if they’re still factoring those in. If they are - am I wrong to hypothesize that kids who can’t tick those boxes, and can’t lean on SAT/ACt for additional MCA points, would be significantly disadvantaged? All other things like EC hours and work being relatively equal, they would have consistently lower MCAs than those who could tick those boxes.
As they eliminated SAT as a way to earn points, it really messes with the matrix. There are only a certain number of levers that a kid can pull - and most of those levers would already have been pulled by end of junior year.
I’d like to think they’re re-assigning weighting to account for no SATs, but maybe that’s naive?
I thought I read somewhere while researching MCA that at least at one point, they did one run through and admitted a certain percentage without those bonus points and then a second run through adding them to fill out the rest of the class. No idea if that’s still in practice or even where I read that.
When you say bonus points do you mean the “checkbox” ones related to status, or also the ECs/work experience? Our son couldnt check any of the boxes so we’re in the same boat. I hadn’t read about the round of reviews without the bonus points. That would be an interesting , and perhaps fairer, approach.
I think the veteran, hs grad, partner school, local area type of boxes.