<p>Well, in another thread I was told the UC’s but a rather large emphasis on SAT II’s. I did really well on one SAT II and badly on another and I assumed they’d balance each other out, but someone else told me otherwise. I’m wondering if my crappy literature score will really bring me down (I want to go to UCI, UC Davis, or UCSB) </p>
<p>My stats:
3.75 UC GPA
1800 SAT I (590 CR, 600 math, 610 writing)
720 US History SAT II
480 Literature SAT II
US History AP exam-most likely a 4
Lots of honors classes
Taking 4 AP’s next year (senior year)</p>
<p>EC’s:
Job at local grocery store
Internship at hedge fund
Director of announcing program for little league
Youth umpire and referree
Lots of awards
California Scholarship Federation
In a few school clubs
Junior counselor at a summer camp</p>
<p>So with my stats in mind will my rather crappy lit score really bring down my chances of getting into UCI, Davis, or UCSB? </p>
<p>I KNOW HOW U FEEL. i'd kill to get into davis. but all i know about the sat IIs and the UC is the way they give you points. The most u can get from SATI and IIs is 4000, so you've have around 3000. but the thing is you should get your sat II score up, so you get more points because i"ve read in another threat the cuttoff this year was about 7000 i think. u get points for other things too and your gps. u can see it here for davis, i don't know if it's the same for the other UCs. </p>
<p>The UC's actually have a formula (a point system), in which they add up your scores, give you points for EC's and stuff, and then add it altogether. Then if you have enough points, you're in. So I guess in a sense, SAT II's do play an important role. I might be wrong about this though...</p>
<p>SAT II's are usually more important in the admissions process than the SAT's. Try to study for the math 2 SAT II and maybe that will increase your chances. I think you have a pretty good chance at the three UC's you put down.</p>
<p>By the way, COLLEGE!, not all UC's use the point system.. I know for a fact that Berkeley and UCLA dont.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure UCLA does have a point like system. From what I've heard, they divide the application into three, and one person reads each, giving points for different things.</p>
<p>ucla and cal do a tier-based rating. each student gets broadly rated on scale of 1-5 or something of that order in three categories (i think academics, extraordinary ability, and social background). when the reviewers read each application, they don't do stuff like giving points for being president a club or having a sick parent; the evaluation is holistic, with the reviewers assigning students ratings based on intangibles rather that some sort of scorecard. if you want to call that a point system, go ahead, it's perfectly reasonable to do so as they end up giving students points for the three categories. </p>
<p>other campuses like davis and ucsd literally assign points to various things and add them up. for example with multiplying the grade average by some factor, saying that being editor of the newspaper is worth X number of points, and saying that being the first in your family to go to college is worth Y number of points.</p>
<p>i don't know how the other ucs do stuff. probably they either do the cal/ucla system or the davis/ucsd system, or maybe something in between.</p>
<p>That makes sense, mrniphty. By the way, what's your source? I heard that UCLA's process was basically that (I think 1-4) from someone who took a course with the former chancellor of Berkeley and his view was affirmed by a education professor at Berkeley. Where did you hear Berkeley did the same thing?</p>
<p>One other thing- from these people, I've heard that UCLA has three main readers who each get seperate parts of the same application, where at Berkeley there are two main readers, one primary reader and a secondary reader. That additional nuance would make your summary more accurate (if it's true- I believe it is). I'm still not sure about Berkeley's process.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The report found that UC San Diego's admissions process relied most heavily on numbers, while UC Berkeley's was most "holistic," allowing a single reader to review all parts of an applicant's file, including academic and personal achievements or challenges.</p>
<p>At UCLA, in what admissions officials have described as an attempt to
increase fairness and objectivity, applicants' files are divided by academic and personal areas, and read by separate reviewers. The researchers asserted that UC Berkeley's process may be the fairest, because it allows students' achievements to be seen in the context of their personal challenges.
<p>i remember reading up on how the various campuses did their admissions when i was in high school. i don't remember specific sources, but mainly i got my information from the campus web sites, various newspaper articles (the sac bee did a big story a couple years ago), and maybe my high school counsellor. i was on my high school newspaper staff and we may or may not have done something about the admissions process, too, i can't quite remember.</p>
<p>oh yeah i should make it clear that my summary was just that--a broad summary. i could be wrong on the details, but in general what i said is correct (though maybe a little outdated because it's been a while since i looked up the admissions stuff). </p>
<p>i wasn't really aware of the nuances of ucla and berkeley's systems, only that they broadly do something without numbers and with a more holistic, reviwer-based process. you're probably right about the difference.</p>
<p>Our son was accepted at UCD, UCSB, UCI, and UCSC with similar total scores. His points were distributed a bit differently, but one of his SATII's was a lot better than the other. At least for UCD, the formula they use appears to be based on total points, not the exact distribution by subject. Plus, you still have time to take a different (or retake the Lit.) SAT II. Given you will be taking several AP classes, you might be able to schedule an exam that jives well with the coursework. So I think you have a good chance.</p>