<p>From what I heard, The University of California system is looking for students who are most likely to GRADUATE. They care about their acceptance rate (Selective = better) and their graduation rate (higher the better)?</p>
<p>Then wouldn’t low income be a disadvantage since your more likely to have to hold a part time job while going to school or being unable to pay the tuition and therefore dropping out? </p>
<p>For Ivy, I understand it might be different since Ivys are probably much more likely to be able to pay full scholarships for low income students and since the students are doing more with less, are more likely to graduate. </p>
<p>But in UC system, especially since the economy is going down and number 1 thing being cut in California is education, won’t that mean less scholarships</p>
<p>^ I see your point.</p>
<p>Well for me, I'm really low income and will be independent next year.
However, I have 4K in scholarships and I'm saving up money from part time work.
Also, I've applied to around 10 scholarships, I think I can get around 4-10K out of all of these.</p>
<p>I did note that fact on the "Additional comments" section of the application.</p>
<p>They're looking to level the playing field. Those with low incomes are not as likely to have had the same advantges as those who are wealthier, and the UC's don't want to DISCRIMINATE against someone based on their economic status. That's why UCLA and Berkeley have those supplements, so they can better judge whether an applicant would succeed at said college(s). </p>
<p>Without actually knowing the numbers, I don't think that the budget cuts will seriously affect the amount of scholarships given. I do know that the UC's are cutting enrollment by about 6% this year, and some are looking to increase OOS enrollment as well. But to go as far as deny someone an education because the college and/or the applicant is too poor? I seriously doubt, and truly hope, that's going to happen.</p>
<p>On account of budget cuts. I read in the newspaper that education is being hit the hardest. (50% of California budget already goes to education in the first place) But I also read that it was mostly for Cal States, High Schools, and community colleges. University of California did get hit, but not as badly. My high school has 2/3 of its students enrolled in summer school. Now its very likely we won't be having summer school this year. Also, I hear alot from my parent's friends about cal states getting worse and so on. I don't know how much FASHA or whatever is getting hit.</p>
<p>About the denying because of income. Who knows? I don't know but I'm sure they won't say "I'm sorry to inform you that you have been rejected to our school because you are too poor." They wouldn't say that.</p>
<p>"They're looking to level the playing field. Those with low incomes are not as likely to have had the same advantages as those who are wealthier, and the UC's don't want to DISCRIMINATE against someone based on their economic status."</p>
<p>Not discriminating would be judging solely on academics, with income/finances playing absolutely no role in the decision. "Leveling the playing field" already means that they're being unequal. I wouldn't say discriminating, but if you've seen the amount of points a person can get just for being poor at some UCs... 500 for low income, another 500 for attending a bad school, 500 for hardships (and I understand being poor is pretty difficult). This essentially averages out to a few hundred extra points on SATs or GPA that a "non-disadvantaged" person must earn to get the same number of admission points. </p>
<p>Now that? Well... I dont know if a person should have to work harder to merit the same points, just because his/her family isn't incredibly poor. This doesn't even have to mean they're rich or priveleged. Not many middle class families can afford 1000 dollar prep classes, but at the same time, their children don't qualify as "low income" either. Where's the fairness in that?</p>
<p>One thing I'm unsure of is how they know about your income. There's no REQUIRED section on the application where you fill that out, and it's not mandantory to submit a FAFSA either. Hm...</p>
<p>If you don't fill out the income portion, then you obviously don't need that fee waiver. If you use that fee waiver, then it indicates to them that you're of low income.</p>
<p>Well, that's how I see it.</p>
<p>mercurial - I wasn't saying that the UC's discriminate, but he suggested that the admissions board may be reluctant to admit someone based on their socioeconomic status. If this were the case, it would be discrimination.</p>
<p>That said, amount of points they award is kind of ridiculous... But it's possible to get only 500/1500 points. you can be poor, but bussed to a good school, middle-class, but go to a terrible school, and the hardships one is for extenuating circumstances, so you would have had to have something pretty significant to qualify for that. And that last one doesn't always revolve around being poor. Illnesses probably make up the most of the people to whom those points are awarded.</p>