It will be interesting to see how AB705, which functionally eliminates “remedial” coursework at CA community colleges, has an impact on people’s perception of the Community College pathway. Passed this year and required to be fully implemented by 2019, this will mean freshman English and math courses at CC’s will be filled with students who range from a 3-4th grade reading level and a 4th grade math level on up. For many years, it has been typical to have about 70% of CC students needing remedial coursework in either English, math, or both. Those students will now be mixed in with students who are “college ready” in their freshman courses. Courses that previously had a certain level of English or math competence as prereqs probably will no longer. I imagine that will increase the bitterness of students who got excellent grades and did really well at competitive high schools and then find themselves in CCs. Many students are already quite frustrated when the prof. has to stop to explain something very basic to the students who can’t keep up. My students (who are mostly people of color) are merciless in their eye rolling, and sometimes, I understand their frustration. (I’m personally more frustrated by the “wake and bakers,” but that’s another topic altogether…) Additionally, the CC system is simultaneously moving to a new funding model that is predicated on student success in achieving transfer or a vocational certificate. So even more of the professor’s attention will need to be on the C/D student instead of the A/B student because the college funding literally depends more on getting that D student up to a C than caring what the A/B student gets out of things. We shall see how that pans out. In short, the legislature is defunding the state university system by promising the CC as an option. But in reality, the numbers of people who actually transfer and graduate with a Bachelor’s degree are DISMAL. You can check out your local CC’s stats at http://datamart.cccco.edu/Outcomes/Transfer_Velocity.aspx.
The Cal States “solved” this problem by eliminating the requirement for basic algebra (what most CC posters’ kids probably took in 7th or 8th grade). This is one example of why the CalStates have a lesser reputation. The overall philosophy of giving preference to local students is also a big part of the problem. Why do we penalize kids for wanting to go far from home, for wanting to try new things? For many students, the home environment is NOT supportive of their education.
@ccprofandmomof2 That link is very interesting. It shows for the latest years available, 2010-2011, only 41 students at our local community college district managed to transfer to in 2 years. Just wow.
I have been reading this thread with interest but also concern. My perspective is as someone who has worked at one of he UC’s for 35 years. The interesting thing is when I started working at UCI the campus was labeled a totally undesirable third tier campus that no one with great grades would consider attending. Boy have things changed. You definitely have to accumulate more then good grades, a high SAT, and numerous extra-curricular leadership activities to get a spot at one of the 6 “first choice” UC’s now. Some of it is luck, some of it is the needs of the campus to meet it’s goals but some of it is working smarter, not necessarily harder. What I don’t see discussed here is that the UC’s are getting more targeted on the type of EC’s students are passionate about. I don’t know that girls scouts or school clubs, or sports teams, if you’re not a highly recruited athlete, will provide the evidence of excellence that the UC’s as research universities are looking for right now. Because of the number of applications, they are getting more selective in choosing what students will have the next step in the cure for cancer, as an example, and they believe that an important public service responsibility to California is to contribute to that research goal. If your child has become involved in math tournaments, science fairs, or other sustained related activities to college programs early on I think they can greatly increase their chance of getting a spot. I am also a caucasian mom of an asian daughter with the kinds of stats discussed by many who would have easily had her pick of any UC a dozen years ago. My daughter showed an interest in math early on and has been involved in math program outside of school. Not surprisingly these programs are overwhelmingly Asian. I don’t see a lot of comments on this thread that maybe because of the limited resources the UC’s need to stop reserving slots for recruited athletes, In the past a generally good athlete use to be able to get a spot on a college team. Now those slots are getting a lot more difficult and people are spending a lot of money on club teams, private coaching etc… Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not but it is what it is. Another goal is to provide access by all communities in the state and as such most elite campuses are factoring in first generation students and providing more slots for community college transfers. Bottom line is It is all getting more difficult. This time next year I will stress with the rest of College Confidential parents hoping that my daughter is “lucky” enough to get one of the slots in her chosen university that might have been easy for her 10 year ago. I also, as a California resident, might advocate for increasing the percentage of in-state students that are provided those slots, will advocate for more support for the excellent systems we have, and we will make sure that we explore all the California campuses, as well as OOS and private options. What I won’t do is target any ethnic group or “lesser” Californian because of length of residency.
Clearly, you are right about this, but I find it a very sad development. Those activities that are now deemed inferior are the very things that made kids well rounded people. Girl scouts, involvement in the community, that chance to be in the school play, interests outside of a single narrow field – all those things used to be valued. I’m sorry to see that disappear. With D1 and D2, I had no idea this change had happened. Luckily, it won’t affect them because of the schools they are targetting. But I have seen first hand how those experiences have shaped and strengthened them. D3 is still very little, but now my eyes are fully open and I will have to make a decision about her future activities. My gut feeling is that I will let her follow her heart and find a school that values what she values.
@gallentjill I kind of agree with you about the change in what is considered important. Although it’s quite remarkable what some kids are doing in science or software during high school, so it’s hard not to be impressed by that over a mid-pack athlete. I think you’re right to let your D find a place that values what she does, she’ll be happier there. I sometimes wonder if some people play the game so much to get into the highest ranked school that they end up in the wrong place even though they got in.
@19parent Right on. Living near UCI, I have seen UCI go from not so desired college to the next UCLA/Berkeley. In fact, I would not be surprised if UCI becomes 3rd most desired or even 2nd most desired UC within 10 years. Orange County has a lot of educated work force and is between LA and SD but not as crowded.
@ucbalumnus re #224 The chart in the article you reference is about transfer rates within 6 years. Not 2 years. 6 years. I don’t see that 65% of college-ready students transferring within 6 years is anything to be happy about, and I don’t think that’s what most people are imagining when they think of the CC to CalState or CC to UC transfer process.
As a UCLA grad it makes me sad to see what the UC system has become. Dorms squeezing in beds. Students taking 5 or 6 years to graduate. I also think it’s a great loss that scouting and other “less desirable” ECs lose out to academic pursuits as @19parent mentioned. Getting in has become a game and that competition carries over to the college experience. DS1 did get into UCB as well as others, but after visiting selected USC instead. It had a better work/life balance for a CS major and, with the small scholarship he received, we were able to afford it. He did not even care that UCB was higher ranked. He knew he’d be miserable in that competitive environment. If you want a more well-rounded college experience these days, you need to look to privates or out of state.
“Culture fit and location does matter and not wanting to go to college in the middle of nowhere like Merced or Riverside doesn’t make someone entitled.”
Actually, it kinda does. There are plenty of kids in this country for whom their only affordable school is an in-state public in the middle of nowhere.
“She did everything right and possible and is highly qualified for many schools yet was turned down by schools thats stats showed she had an 80% chance of acceptance like Univ of Washington.”
That would depend on the major/school. Some majors at UW are very tough to get in to. Direct admit in to CS at UW is nearly as tough to get in to as in to an Ivy/equivalent.
“The problem is, after UCSC there are no more UC’s in the Top 100 schools (and certainly no CSU schools at all). You end up with a mismatched students (some high achievers, some not, many in between) and that doesn’t make for a good experience for those high stat kids who wanted to be surrounded by peers of equal caliber.”
Uh, yeah, and there are plenty of states in this country where no public is in the top 100. Kids there don’t even have a slim shot at only paying in-state tuition for a Cal/UCLA/UCSD.
@youcee “I think some of the angst is from parents/grandparents who remember back when a kid with great grades and super high SAT scores had no problem getting into Cal or UCLA. Fast forward 25-30 years or more and it is a shock when you find out how much the admissions landscape has changed”
100% agree. Schools like UCI, UCR, and UCSC used to be safety schools for a lot of “B to B+” kids and for SDSU and CSULB you only needed a 2.5 GPA and a heartbeat and you were in.
The rules of the game have changed dramatically as college costs are soaring and the competition is fierce to attend certain schools in certain locations.
Who knows what kinds of grades and test scores my 12yo S will need to get in to a UC or top CSU in 6 years?
I went to one very valuable session given by an admissions officer that said admissions is like recruiting a football team, you need a quarterback, defensive line, backfield, a punter, etc. . A coach doesn’t recruit kids with general athletic ability, they recruit for position and maybe potential position. The same is becoming true with academics at the most selective colleges. Our kids need to be specialists in math, engineering, music, computer programming. And in those areas they are looking for the best of the best. High GPA and test scores get you looked at, then those exceptionally talented specialists get fought over. After that those other soft skills, the type that are developed in scouts, clubs, close the deal. But when all our kids are actively involved in activities that show leadership, teamwork, commitment, it is much more difficult to assess the value of one club experience from another.
I think post #230 by @PurpleTitan clarifies one of the difficulties with this thread: what do you think of as “entitlement” versus what do you think of as a reasonable expectation. The view of entitlement in #230 is irrelevant as I see it, since this thread is talking about the expectations of California parent taxpayers and not the situation of people in other states, but I do appreciate the comment as useful in evaluating the relevance of posts on the main topic.
“As an example of how California has shorted its population of quality schools take a look at Colorado. It has 1/8 the population and 2 public schools in the top 100. California would have to have 16 schools in the top 100 to be equivalent. It currently has 7.”
MO and TN are more populous than CO and have zero publics in the USNews university rankings. To be equivalent to those states, CA would have to close down half the UCs.
@websensation:
“I am actually in favor of doing away with test scores and GPAs and am in favor of “on the spot” tests given out by each college. If you want to get into CS Dept at MIT, you show up at their test center and take a 2 hours test, and professors can decide.”
That’s the Oxbridge admissions method.
First you have to do well on some relevant tests (top grade in A-Levels, which are kind of like more in-depth AP’s), but then, after their own subject tests, it’s on to being interviewed by Oxbridge profs who grill you on the subject.
Not all students who attend CC have the luxury of being able to attend school full time while their parents continue to support them while living at home. Many have to support themselves and juggle school attendance with their work and family responsibities. They are not all recent high school grads, either. So many can onliy fit in one or two courses a semester-- and they may not be able to attend school continuously.
The article that @ucbalumnus linked to was about the way the required noncredit remedial sequences hold students back. That impact is much greater for older students and for lower income groups:
So the problem that the graduation and transfer stats are brought down significantliy because of the extra burdens faced by nontraditional students.
If you look at transfer rates for kids who simply go directly from high school to CC with the intent of transferring to UC’s, I think the numbers would be quite different. I honestly don’t think it matters whether it is 2 years or 4 years without knowing the whole picture – it isn’t a race and I don’t think it’s a bad thing for a kid to gain maturity and real-world work experience by holding down jobs while also attending CC. I have seen plenty of kids take that route and they end up doing fine.
There are indeed. I live in California and homeschooled my son. Normally, the bright homeschoolers start at community college at 14, 15 or 16. I know of several who did junior transfers either to a UC or to an elite college.
“I grew up in California back when conventional wisdom said a high-stats kid could use UCLA and Berkeley as a back-up plan to their HYPSM dreams. It was a perk of being a Californian. It’s been 30 years, and this is obviously not true anymore. The privilege of going to a top tier UCs is not a given for high-stats kids”
I think it’s still true provided the CA-resident kid is a true contender for HYPSM and not just a kid with “pretty good” stats who is throwing in an Ivy application for the heck of it.
Both my daughters were high stat CA kids who ended up getting accepted to and attending Ivy League schools. For them Berkeley and UCLA weren’t safeties; they were more like high matches or low reaches. The mid-range UCs were their safeties. D1 applied to Berkeley, SD, and Davis. D2 applied to Berkeley, UCLA, SD, Irvine, and Davis. Both girls got into every UC to which they applied. D1 was offered Regents Scholarships at Berkeley and Davis. D2 was offered a Regents at Irvine. For both girls their rock-bottom safety was my alma mater - UC Davis.
D2 decided to get a Master’s, and for grad school applications it was the same pattern again. Except this time her grades from her Ivy college were decent but they weren’t nearly so stellar as they had been in high school. But she still got accepted into every UC to which she applied: Berkeley, UCLA, and Davis, with Berkeley offering her support money (which is unusual for Master’s students). She picked Berkeley.
In addition, my wife works in our local mid-tier high school’s College and Career Advising Office, and so she sees who gets in where every year. And it’s still true that high stat true Ivy-material kids (the top 4 or 5 kids in the graduating class) can still count in getting into some good UCs. Maybe not every UC every time, but they have a solid shot at Berkeley and UCLA, and the mid-range UCs are still pretty much a sure thing.