Did they change the information about lottery system on their CSE website? I couldn’t find anything about it now.
Looks like even getting the lottery page is by lottery now :).
Just looked for it and had no trouble getting it.
http://cse.ucsd.edu/undergraduate/admissions/cse-capped-major-status
Also I just followed the link to their rationale for changing their system for how students are let into a CSE major:
http://cse.ucsd.edu/sites/cse.ucsd.edu/files/undergraduate/NewMajorAdmissionsPolicyRationale.pdf
They thought that the old way, letting in only those with the highest GPA in the required courses, was unfair and was causing too much focus on grades and too much stress. I think they are saying that some people with good GPAs, but GPAs that were too low to get in competitively in the old system, also deserved to get in, so they wanted to give them an equal chance. It was also interesting to read that they lack adequate funds to hire enough full-time long-term instructors.
I think we need to read between the lines. IMO, there’re two main drivers. One is to diversify for groups that are not as prepared or dare I say not as talented in CS to have a shot at CS. It’s essentially a mini AA for CSE. AA is AA and there may be some merit to it, but it’s kind of BS to say 3.3 gets in over 4.0 is more fair than the other way around. The other one is to reduce the number of UD kids come in to UCSD with a false sense of hope who’d end up unhappy campers. That I can agree. Last year more kids enrolled as UD than in engineering school, And most UD kids tried to get in engineering school to begin with. Now why UCSD admits so many as UD is another topic but you can see the issue facing UD kids. CSE is the biggest target for UD kids and the new lottery system should deter some of them from coming. In last year a GPA of 4.0 (yeah it’s getting harder over years) ensured a spot in CSE, which is around a 10% transfer rate. Now with the lottery it’s estimated to be about the same %, as even more kids will try their luck, why not. But the thought of a flat 10% chance no matter how good or how hard you try must be discouraging.
@Just4Years just because somebody has a 4.0 doesn’t mean they’re actually good thinkers or intelligent and creative. Sometimes a lower GPA, even if it’s just a 3.8 or 3.5 or something, might be enough to disqualify somebody who might have otherwise been brilliant in the field and has actually done a lot of hands-on projects and experience in the field, versus someone who just solely focused on trying to game the system and get an A in every class without ever actually learning much about how to program and think creatively. it’s not just about flat out diversity (which is a good thing, btw, certainly nothing wrong with adding more of that), and the ones with a lower GPA might be more talented than the book smart ppl who just focus on getting A’s but never actually do anything in life. good CS ppl are always known for taking risks, and a 4.0 isn’t risky. it just shows that you know how to cram and not have a life, and that you just want to follow the rules and accepted path towards ‘success’. great start ups don’t start that way, and that should be reflected in their students.
and i can’t believe they had the gall to say they don’t have enough funding to have full time professors after all of the money they’ve been putting into their latest advertising campaign and revamping the school and everything.
^but i do think it’s really unfair and they should just be more hollistic about it tbh but since u have to wait before u declare it’s hard to do that unless they apply again directly to the program after having applied to the university which kinda sucks but might be fairer than a lottery
@otoribashi Sorry it sounds bogus. With that logic you might as well ask UCSD or any school even Ivy to start not prefer higher GPA over lower GPA from HS to get in! Getting high GPA on CSE screening classes (all CS courses) requires doing well on a lot of hands on work. Book worms won’t cut it. I am not saying 4.0 folks are 100% better than say 3.8 ones in the long run, but it’s the best gauge on how fit they are on the rest of CS coursework ahead. They are not screening on general physics, math, chem stuff like some other schools. UCSD uses foundation CS course to screen. 3.3 has same chance as 4.0 along is not more fair than the current merit system by any means.
Now to rid the root cause they can simply stop admitting so many kids as UD. But that pretty much means reject instead. Well I guess UD kids would still choose UD over reject. UCSD CSE is among the largest CS dept in UC already so it’s not like they are not trying to accommodate. They must be hoping these UD kids can find other stuff on campus to explore but many are just die hard. This year with the new lottery I think they should think twice before coming.
@Just4Years I wouldn’t compare it to affirmative action at all. I think the lottery system is dumb, but most students who earn a 3.8 are as qualified to pursue a career in CS as those who earn a 4.0. I have a friend who received a single A- in the screening courses and wasn’t able to follow his career path—is that fair? Additionally, there is widespread cheating in the School of Engineering due to the stringent transfer requirements. I know of someone who had a 4.0 in EE before being found copying code directly from classmates. I expect the new system to reduce such occurrences, at least.
@DoctorP A 3.2 kid can pursue CS career just fine already but now there’s no chance for him/her is that fair? And there’re kids already in CS struggle to keep 3.0. You can go on and on. But it’s hard sell to say lottery is more fair than merit. There’d be ways to detect copied codes. Cheating may become less but there’s always those unfit or slackers trying to get away. Now I do think it can cure the current A-/B+ ppl dropping classes, which is really a waste of resource. Of course you could change to DQ them if any screening class is ever dropped, but the pressure would be even higher I guess. I am just wondering how come other UC’s CS transferring is not as bad.