It may be different in whatever region you are. However, in every single Sacramento school that I know of, they are actually considered UC Honors courses, where kids get the grade bump both on the transcript, and in UC GPA calculations.
While they don’t technically count as ECs, PLTW encourages schools to build extracurricular opportunities around them. In every Sacramento school that offers their curriculums, the courses are organized so that they blend both classroom learning and out-of-classroom experiences, all with an organized body of students enrolled in the courses that have leaders and coordinate with teachers/administrators to create such experiences. Students can hear from professionals, get connected with related intern/volunteer/mentorship opportunities to the PLTW subject, etc. In some cases, they have a variety of capstone projects, research, and theses to accomplish. Essentially, PLTW is adapted into a comprehensive program in our schools that are very much considered ECs.
I’m still not convinced it’s this simple. Our HS offers PLTW, but the UCI admit rate has plunged the last 2 years. It was more “normal” in the years prior to that.
It’s possible that the type of PLTW courses (bio-based or not?), and/or the popularity of the courses could be factors. Best case, ~10% of our UCI applicants took the PLTW courses.
I mentioned up-thread, but many schools adapt PLTW (which is already a great asset for kids since it offers the UC Honors grade bump for all of its courses) into programs that organize the enrolled students into essentially interest clubs. As such, applicants graduating from PLTW curriculums have school-endorsed leadership and field-specific experiences, which give them an edge over the average student.
I’m not fully convinced either, but I struggle to understand the disparities w/ OC schools and given Sacramento sees similar acceptance rates and have PLTW in common, it’s possible and don’t see other explanations that make much sense. No way to know for sure without much more data/transparency from UCI and others.
Yes I didn’t allow my DD to even apply to schools like UW, CU-Boulder, VaTech, or UF even though she would have loved all of those, because I knew they give little to no OOS merit aid. And since I have 4 kids the budget is basically $17k/yr max tuition. Even with in-state tuition, 4 years of UC or Cal State for 4 kids including room and board is easily a half million dollars. Hopefully your DS visits SDSU and loves it (?). Or is admitted to UCSB or UCB (if he applied).
Completely understand… we should have looked at merit aid trends prior to applying to some of these schools. UF and UW give some merit aid, but not a whole lot. UF is not too bad, so a little bit of merit aid brings it in line with UC (less than UCB, more than the rest). He was admitted to UCSB MechE (yay!), so he has a good mix of in-state and OOS options now… just need to find that Goldilocks fit among the options (crossing fingers it is in state). Still hoping for another IS option with aero (UCB, UCD waitlist, shocker late acceptance from SLO), but those are all long shots at this point. I think the prospect of college expense for 4 would send me into shock… best of luck with remaining decisions!
I think that may be the case, but I also believe that to violate the ‘achievement within context’. I view the PLTW program as similar to a plethora of AP options. Some schools have it, some don’t. The result may be that the worst position to be in is an engineering applicant from a high performing school with tons of APs, and highly-driven students, but without PLTW. At least for Irvine… don’t see that disparity at other UCs. But, I remain unconvinced that is the only possibility… likely missing something that more data would reveal. I know UCI has among the highest first gen enrollment among UC (over 50%, IIRC), so if the Irvine or Sacto schools have a decent chunk of firstGen, that might explain it as well… or something else entirely.
The UC’s offer little to no need-based financial aid to OOS students, usually only Federal aid if they eligible. UC campuses do over merit scholarships to OOS students but they can range from $500-13K/year. Still a drop in the bucket when you compare in-state and OOS costs.
So after all of my caterwauling last week about how kids from our Bay Area HS don’t get into UCI at nearly the numbers one would expect (compared to other UCs), it appears this year was a strong year for admissions to Irvine from our high school – so goes to show maybe I know nothing! My daughter would trade your son her Irvine for his UCSB. None of her friends were admitted to UCSB, and she had really wanted that one. Our school’s admissions to both UCSB and UCSD track below the campuses’ overall acceptance rates whereas do better with the two top-tier UCs. Go figure! In any case, she has enough schools to pick from, so I can’t complain, but I am definitely interested in seeing all the data get even more transparent around some of the things you are calling out (hopefully before I have to do this all again with my now-5th grader!). I have to confess I had never heard of PLTW until this thread. But my kids haven’t been very STEM-y. I don’t even know how I would find out if our high school has that program! I’m guessing not.
Good luck as you weigh all the options. Glad you have some excellent options now in state.
It would be listed as PLTW classes in the UC A-G courses for your HS.
FWIW, I’ve stopped trying to figure it all out… too opaque from a data perspective to draw any conclusions, and anyone telling you otherwise (including me!) is very likely wrong.
Gotcha. Thanks! I just searched our high school course catalog online, and that series of letters appears nowhere, so I’ll assume that we don’t do it. Maybe by the time my last one comes around!
University High School is literally across the street from UCI. All the professors’ kids who go to high school go to Uni, and Uni and Northwood are considered the best. Both are heavily Asian (more than 50-60%) with dual professional parents often executive/STEM/professor types- many immigrants or the kids themselves are immigrants. They are both intense schools with a very international vibe. Aside from Asians, there are lots of Indians, Iranians, and Arabs where educational goals are everything. All around Irvine are math academies, coding places, etc. Very easy access to UCI summer enrichment programs or year-long research opportunities.
UCI is changing. I think it’s a beautiful campus. So many dorms going up. If I am around there on weekends near the campus, I am always amazed how busy it is! I don’t think of UCI as too quiet. Hard to get a table at a restaurant. Their University Town Center, I think, is better than USC’s Village. I remember someone in a thread mentioning his kid’s attention was focused on how close is the nearest boba place. University Town Center has like 3 places and you go on the weekends and there’s literally a line of 10+ people waiting at each place. Sort of like Dulce at USC. Definitely not quiet!
At our SoCal high school, UCLA admit rate was 8.5% vs UCB at 20%. UCLA is definitely the preference at our high school. Pecking order generally is UCLA UCB UCSD UCSB UCI UCD UCSC UCR UCM
Troy is a magnate school, btw. Whitney is also a top notch magnate.
I’m not doubting that Irvine schools are excellent, and that they have highly successful demographics with dual-professional parents and a highly academic focus. Just doubting they are much different from the Silicon Valley schools with similar demographics. For example, Monta Vista, is in the most affluent area of Cupertino (district known for insanely competitive academics in the area), sounds a lot like the Irvine schools you mention (>80% Asian, ~same number of international UC applicants, etc.). Paly is across the street from Stanford with slightly more culturally diverse than Irvine (but more similar to Irvine than Monta Vista in that regard). So, Stanford and venture capital kids combined with Apple execs’ kids. Between the two schools, in the heart of the tech capital of the world, with plenty of academic and actual capital at most families’ disposal, 52 of 610 applicants were accepted to Irvine… 31 of 445 of the Asian kids. I can say confidently, that the disparity is NOT because Irvine schools have favorable demographics or a more driven academic culture (look up the tragic, not too distant history of suicides at Gunn High if you doubt the culture of expected academic excellence around here). I am also NOT claiming that the disparities are because of AOs purposely giving local kids an advantage (that would not explain Sacramento schools). It may be a combination of factors: AOs holding PLTW in high regard seems possible, self selection by academic major (SV kids LOVE to apply to CS, even knowing the dismal acceptance rates), and maybe even admissions considering yield (of the 52 above admitted to Irvine in 2022, ZERO enrolled). I don’t have the answer… finding the answer requires more transparency in the admissions process and more granular admissions data.
To my understanding, a part of it could also just be the holistic process that all of the UCs implement. Even though the lion’s share of South Bay Area kids in the west-of-San Jose area, like Cupertino and Paly, are amazingly accomplished, UCs probably still wouldn’t want to take every single applicant from that region that is above a certain threshold. They are taking into account the factors of the region, which give rise to above average applicants. Essentially, these kids are expected to “do more” just because they are from there.
As such, Irvine is most likely feeling the need to take only the top students out of this South Bay pool of already amazing students, even if most applicants from this pool technically outperform profile-wise to accepted applicants from other regions. A part of it too is the fact that many UCs seemed to have always encouraged regional diversity within their admitted classes. All too often, I’ve seen kids from the Central Valley or the Far North of CA get admitted, even if they generally have a profile which does not compare to even a below-average Bay Area applicant.
I feel like the UCs do still take into account yield/locality. A couple of the Sacramento schools, like those that offer PLTW, have over 50% yield to Irvine. UC Davis, which is also close to Sacramento, generally accepts an above average amount of applicants from our schools, and simultaneously gets a higher than average yield rate too.
Agreed on most points, but that still does not explain the acceptance rate differences between OC and SCC into UCI (other UCs seem more consistent w.r.t SCC). Both have an absurd number of applicants, presumably all highly qualified. If they are favoring regional diversity within the state, they’d accept more Bay Area applicants due to the lower yield, not fewer. Not sure what the explanation is… just would like more data to understand the process.
None of her friends were admitted to UCSB, and she had really wanted that one. Our school’s admissions to both UCSB and UCSD track below the campuses’ overall acceptance rates whereas do better with the two top-tier UCs. Go figure! In any case, she has enough schools to pick from, so I can’t complain, but I am definitely interested in seeing all the data get even more transparent around some of the things you are calling out (hopefully before I have to do this all again with my now-5th grader!). I have to confess I had never heard of PLTW until this thread. But my kids haven’t been very STEM-y. I don’t even know how I would find out if our high school has that program! I’m guessing not.