What changes most is the peer group. There is a notable difference in the median student’s academic abilities when you go from top 10, to top 30, to top 100, or lower.
A stronger overall class means that the class topics can be studied in more depth because the class can simply move through the base material faster. For lower ranked colleges, some of that can be made up through Honors programs that concentrate the best students, but not all.
Also since we are talking abut UC schools, I believe that many public schools are rated too low on USNWR.
You have to rank them somehow whether you do it on the weather, how pretty they are, etc. Rankings are just a comparison tool, don’t get wrapped around the axel about it. If you think CSU-Chino is the best school in the world then apply there. Use information as it should be used, to make informed decisions…or just put a bunch of college names in a hat and pick one out.
I use USNWR because they precisely list their criteria which I find useful. Each criteria tells you something, for example, selectivity tells you about the cohort you will be with.
Unsurprisingly everyone wants the scale to be tilted in their direction, so those who don’t have tippy top stats want a more holistic approach, whereas those who do have great grades and/or test scores want a less holistic approach. I can see some arguments for why an in-state NMF (of which there are about 2000 per year) ought to be automatically admitted to either Berkeley or UCLA (or another UC if they prefer, perhaps subject to some minimum GPA), but the separate evaluation of applications probably makes this impossible. There clearly is a fair bit of randomness involved at the UCs, made worse by the higher cutoffs for CS and Eng, but I think its still a lot less random than top private schools with their desire for class balance and willingness to play games over yield protection.
However, it does seem (anecdotally) that good but not necessarily stellar kids we know from top CA public high schools are having quite a lot of success at tippy top East Coast colleges (the stellar ones of course do well too), whereas really smart kids at less regarded high schools have a much lower chance there because those East Coast colleges already have plenty of kids to choose from at the top CA high schools they know well. It may be understandable that top out of state colleges can rely on those kids being well prepared (and full pay, and perhaps more likely to choose them, especially if they are shut out of the top UCs), but it seems to provide a meaningful boost for those who are rich enough to live in Palo Alto, Los Altos, Saratoga, etc.
That may be the source of some of the complaints cited on this thread, for example I know of one kid (at a very competitive school) who was rejected from UCLA but got into JHU and was waitlisted at Columbia. The corollary is that at my kids (less prestigious but fairly decent) school, most of the top kids were shut out of Ivy League and similar schools, but a significant number were successful at UCLA and Berkeley (and most of them will attend).
Not that big a surprise, when considering the differences between admission processes and criteria that tend to correlate to SES and prep school background:
GPA versus test score emphasis: UCs lean more toward GPA than most other schools.
Recommendations: not used at UCs, used in Ivy League.
Financial aid forms: UCs do not use CSS Profile or NCP information, Ivy League does.
SAT subject tests: not required at UCs, optional for some majors; required or recommended in Ivy League.
Legacy preference: not used at UCs, used in Ivy League.
I am a mother of three children and a second generation Californian. My Father went to Stanford and I went to UCSD. My oldest D14 is at UCB right now and about to graduate. Her GPA was not stellar nor was her SAT, however she began to row(Women’s Crew) as a junior in High school and was recruited this way.
My S17 was not as fortunate. He played V Tennis-good but not great. 3.86 WGPA and strong ACT and SAT. He always took advanced classes and APs. He was only admitted to UCM - watilisted to UCSC, UCR, CCP, SDSU. He SIR’d to UCM and is about to finish his freshman year there. He was admitted as a sophomore as he had a lot of AP units and CC credits. UCM DOES have free transportation into town. Thing are improving in that town; restaurants, retail, parks, etc. There are food trucks that come to campus daily. There will be a new food cafeteria next year and more dorms. You can walk anywhere on campus in about 15 minutes. EVERYTHING is well maintained eco friendly AC is solar powered. Off campus housing is insanely cheap. The campus is about to double in size and has the potential to be the largest in the UC group. The education that he is getting is excellent. He is a CSE major, which also explains why it was hard to get into the other UCs. It is hard for me to understand why people bash on UCM so much. He heard from his friends very negative comments about UCM… some said to just go to a CC and then transfer( I know of 3 kids that this did not work so well for as you have to maintain a high GPA) Honestly, it has been a great experience as the size of a smaller campus lets him know his professors better… the counselors actually care and make appointments with the students. My point is, that even if he didn’t get into the college he wanted or even thought he had a shot at, he got in somewhere and that somewhere has turned out great. It is a UC after all and they have standards.
College is what you make of it as well. Is it perfect? no. Is the location perfect? no. But honestly is anything perfect? I doubt it. I know Cal wasn’t.
The goal posts seem to be shifting. First we resented the Asian and Immigrant kids for taking up all the seats at the “top” UC’s. Now we seem to resent the kids at the lower UC’s and other public U’s as being marginal students who aren’t setting a culture of academic seriousness or success (if I’m reading the posts correctly).
But- if the “lower” U’s are getting filled with the high stats kids who couldn’t get into Berkeley… doesn’t that mean that the mean stats and overall culture of these colleges is either ratcheting up dramatically or at least rising proportionate to the “top” kids who are now attending “lower” U’s???
I see this as the GW, NYU, Northeastern “syndrome” which may be instructive for our West Coast brethren. Back in the 1970’s, these colleges were where affluent but dumb kids from DC, NY and Boston (respectively) went if their parents didn’t want them at a public institution, OR where super smart but poor kids went because they could live at home and pay tuition by working as a waiter, other retail job, or even manual labor. These colleges were centrally located in big metropolitan regions so a very popular choice for the poor but brilliant-- who I’m sure had to groan when their dumb but affluent classmates made a stupid comment during a seminar. But they survived.
Fast forward- these colleges are Hot Hot Hot, super desirable and not just from their commuting regions, but all over the country. And what is hilarious- there was no “makeover” of the faculty, which was then, and is still now- extremely strong in a couple of disciplines, quite distinguished in one or two, and overall well above average in virtually every department. What has changed? The composition of the student body. Every National Merit kid who shows up takes a seat away from a dumb rich kid. Every Val knocks out a slacker. Every award-winner takes the place of a kid who was just getting his ticket punched but had no interest in academics.
How do you know this isn’t happening (or has already happened) at the “lower” UC’s or Cal State colleges? Seems to me that every Berkeley reject is making Santa Cruz or Merced a better and more intellectual place, no?
The geography issue is one I have no solution for. Except to say that Storrs, CT is in the middle of a cow pasture, New Brunswick, NJ isn’t exactly a happening urban, chic place, and Binghamton NY or Albany (whichever you consider the flagship) are never going to show up on a kid’s list of “where I’d like to hang for four years”. And somehow- kids make it work.
Yea, I don’t get the geography argument – it’s specious at best. People who complain about UCD but would be thrilled if their kids went to some out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere LAC that happens to be associated with a certain leafy league
but the student who was accepted was also a California resident, with maybe the same stats or higher. Californians might be mad about an OOS student ‘taking the place’ of a resident, but the schools can’t afford to replace the $40K tuition spots with $13k instate students. The state has so many places for residents at the top 2-4 schools, and they are giving them to those they think are the most qualified, but they are still residents, and the ‘best’ talent is still staying in California. I don’t see where the brain drain will happen. Those in the UCLA spots are still residents.
Maybe the ‘problem’ is that California secondary schools are preparing ALL the students to be highly qualified, that those students all want to go to the top schools and only the top schools. They don’t want to go to Merced or Humboldt or Channel Islands. Well, some students in PA don’t want to go anywhere but Pitt or Penn State either but because of money or lack of spots have to go to West Chester or Bloomsburg or Shippensburg. It’s not possible to have every student who wants to attend the top school in a state do so, even those with 4.0s, even those with high test scores. This happens in Texas, in Florida, in Oregon and Washington.
If Californians want it to change, they need to do it through the legislature. UCLA and Cal can be like UNC with a very limited number of OOS students. One of the other UCs can be pushed into the same league as UCLA and Cal. Florida is doing it with UCF, making the school very attractive to instate and OOS students with free NMF spots, hiring top professors, making top labs. There are some who will only want UF but the option IS there for other residents with an open mind.
No top kid is shut out from a UC. Unless they are out of the top 9% of graduating students or are OOS. Even poor students like me applied to one UC school, got rejected, but received a very warm welcome and invitation by UC Merced. Didn’t get enough FA, so I’m saving up money at a CC (currently on a President’s Scholarship, your top children should really look into this to maybe lighten your mood) and am going to reapply this fall. It’s really competitive today, we all need to understand that. This is why we get made fun for being entitled, and frankly why College Confidential has a bad rep and is ridiculed(at least in my area).
Many so called “salty” students who were denied a spot at the top schools, but didn’t even consider going to UCM are now bitter at their local CC complaining about their education when they could have easily gone to UCM and not let the stigma of UCs get to their head. You do also know that they can transfer between UCs or apply again if they really want to get in their dream school? And if I’m not mistaken, UCs are known more for their graduate and research rather than their undergraduate yes? Personally I’m not concerned taking all of my GE classes at a so called lesser/weaker/non-competitive school. No loans, no debt, and be financially free from day one, with the same degree as everyone else at the same CSU or UC? Easy decision.
I can see why you’d be disappointed if your kid didn’t get into their school despite working hard, but it seems like you’re trying to find excuses for a single, small obstacle in the grand scheme of your child’s education. There are multiple reasons your child gets rejected even with stellar stats. From your FA they know what schools what applied to, and habe to make an educated guess as to whether they think you would even go. I don’t think anyone really has gotten into all of the top schools in the nation. The last thing schools want is to be jam packed and have students standing in class. This is explained by the limited place, at each school, for each specific degree. Remember, there are more options than just UCs. CSUs and trade schools might actually be better for them and have a significant ROI.
Sorry to be picky, but for the University of Washington (45% acceptance rate) and certainly University of Oregon (78% acceptance rate) I think 4.0 students can rest assured they can gain admission, with the exception of CS at UW. We Californians are fortunate to be a part of the WUE system, though, which gives kids a lot more options. I know quite a few seniors at my kid’s high school that are going to Washington State University on WUE…a good school with lots of school spirit and big time sports. My marching band kid is looking seriously at WSU, as the only big time college marching band opportunities in CA are at UCLA/USC/Stanford/Cal.
As someone residing OOS (Illinois) my initial thought was ‘yes’. However as the thread has continued and I learn more about the UC system, I find my opinion changing.
I understand anger rising from disappointment. I can empathize with the frustration of having to compete in an environment that is contrary to one’s own belief system. But I also think the situation is not unique to California.
Throughout history and across the world, people have had to face adverse conditions and confront change. Change stinks for those who had certain expectations.
It’s how we react to the change that will define us. In my opinion being sad, disappointed and angry sounds transient. But ‘bitter’ sounds like a stronger emotion which can lead to resentment. Resentment that can possibly be misdirected.
At some point you have to move on. Our children are learning a valuable lesson when it comes to expectations, supply and demand, and their place in the world. Being bitter is doing them a disservice.
We have the CSU system on top of the UC system. 9 UC campuses for undergrads + 23 CSU’s, and of course all of the CC’s with the guaranteed transfer path. . Many of the CSU’s are the equivalent or better than many of the less prestigious SUNY’s. The SUNY/CUNY system is wonderful, but my point is that in California the problem is with student & parent attitudes, not the real-world opportunity that exists.
Yes, if people in California viewed that flagship system (UCs) as a group of fairly comparable flagships (like the four SUNY university centers) rather than as an extreme hierarchy, the pressure to get into UCB/UCLA and the disappointment of getting into only UCR/UCM may not be so much.
@HRSMom
Yes, you make some good points in your post #110. Especially about UC suffering from its own success. The reality is that there are way, way too many truly, statistically and otherwise, qualified candidates who are California residents for ALL UC campuses. That is objectively factual. But that actually supports my point about the outrage of accepting OOS’ers at all.
except that OOS tuition keeps the lights on. Sad but true. States with elite flagships just have to live with it, or fund them like UNC to ensure limits for OOS.
@VickiSoCal Ditto on the brain drain being an old story. I went to Texas for free college for NMFs. Back in the day, I couldn’t afford housing in Berkeley, even though tuition was cheap.
I completely agree. But of course there’s good and bad in this. Silicon Valley, wake up. The boundaries of the State are finite. Got that? Start expanding out of state instead of continuing to put more pressure on the environment, on insane housing costs, on population, and on the UC applicant pool. I know there have been some movements in that direction, but not enough. It would be great if SV would share the wealth with the rest of the country and with the talent in other states in the Union. New York is aching for that. It’s unreal and extreme that STEM students in other States feel that if they’re serious about their futures, they virtually have to come to CA for their undergrad, graduate, and professional education, not to mention job opportunities. Ridiculous.
@calmom If you have looked at recent threads, the CSUs are now mirroring the UCs with many many high-stat students claiming to have been shut out of the better campuses like CSULB and SDSU. Cal Poly is also very difficult to get into. The problem isn’t a bad “attitude” on the part of parents and students, it’s the real consequence of a booming population. Many immigrants move to California so they can gain residency and take advantage of our esteemed public universities.
But that’s not what the Legislative Analyst’s report that I linked to earlier indicates. The entire purpose of that analysis is to assess whether new campuses need to be established, and the report indicated that the UC’s are operating at 84% capacity with plenty of room for growth to meet anticipated need-- of course with “growth” meant to take place largely at Merced & Riverside.
Note: I am sure some people can take issue with the conclusions of this report, but this is the official agency charged with reporting to the state legislature, which is the place where any decisions about the future of the system get made. So hard for me to see a way around their conclusions.
Obviously, it does require acceptance of UC Merced as being a genuine educational option. But it does seem to me rather logical that the state chose to build a new campus in a location with a lot of space to erect new buildings. Whether or not that happens to be a location that my kids would have found desirable. (I mean, I personally decided as a youngster that the entire state of Texas was undesirable - but that was my problem, not Texas’)