I don’t think about how many schools should be in each category, at least not past the likeliest categories. The main idea is to find the schools that really excite a student, that s/he would like to attend, and then to place them in the appropriate categories and make sure you have enough in the likeliest categories. Because as was discussed briefly in the thread about safeties, students and their families shouldn’t have (or create) a feeling that the best schools for a child are the most selective ones and that everything else is lesser-than. If a student’s favorite schools are highly likely for admittance, then great! There is no need to add on any that are less likely.
If I was dealing with a non-CC population, that’s how I’d probably start. But here at CC the focus tends to be so much on the Top X schools (whether overall or within a department) that almost all schools are less likely for admission. Thus, for the CC community, I recommend starting with looking at the likeliest options.
And as to your question, I think that 15 schools is on the heavy side for applications. But I’d have at least 1 guaranteed admission (either via an admissions chart or early timeline with rolling admissions), at least 2-3 in the extremely likely category, and no more than 7 total in the Possible/Less Likely categories. I think it is very hard emotionally on people if they are rejected to more than half of the schools that they apply to, and those categories have less than a 40% chance of happening (i.e. more likely to not be admitted than to be admitted). Thus, I would have the majority of schools be at least toss-up or above with respect to likelihood for acceptance.
The general dumbing down of education and grade inflation has played a significant role. You now have barely average kids with 4.0 GPAs. I know this because my teenage daughter hasn’t spoken a word of French all year, but is making an A in the class. The average high school student in Baltimore, for instance, is reading at a grade school level. Now there’s pressure to go test optional, because it’s somehow racist. There’s your rising applications. To compensate for the lack of education, colleges are having to lower their standards to this “new normal.” Education has been a race to the bottom for years. I just didn’t think it would get this bad.
I completely agree. In my son’s school, students sign up for APs and can revise test scores. All that is required is due diligence and making sure you complete assignments. Students are supposed to sign up for the AP tests (and this used to be enforced but not anymore) but colleges do not require students to report scores (except Georgetown) so there are all these “top students” with As in all of their APs who either don’t take the test or score below 3. They are also applying test optional as top students from the high school.
I’m not sure that your kids’ experiences are universally applicable.
Generally, if from a young age a student had (and took) every opportunity to learn the math necessary to excel on the SAT Math, and that student consistently topped out in the high 600s or low 700 on the SAT, then perhaps that may be some indication that the student may have come close to reaching their ceiling in math ability. But most students haven’t been given (and/or taken) that opportunity, and many of these lower scoring students are quite capable of learning math well beyond the limits of what is required on the SAT.
In other words, depending upon the circumstances, the same SAT score may represent a ceiling for some kids and a floor for others.
Again, I don’t see much point in focusing on MIT, which educates only small fraction of successful and talented tech undergrads.
With regard to the UCs, it just isn’t true that success of community college transfers is limited to non “quantitive” STEM fields, nor is it remotely true that these transfers are put on a “remedial” track where they are “reviewing algebra 1 or 2 concepts.” These kids take actual college math courses (not high school APs) before they are admitted.
As for the notion that the math departments at Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, Davis, etc. are graduating kids who are only qualified to become middle school math teachers, it is far from the truth.
In sum, I don’t see basis for disparaging these kids or the excellent schools that education them.
You are the only one disparaging them. Math skill, unlike many other talents, shows early, and also peaks early. Late bloomers with enough instruction can certainly perform adequately, but are not going to be able to catch up to the cutting edge that research universities expect.
I am glad you have such trust in our community college system. Only one of my children took such a course, but she rated it as presented at the 7-8 grade level of her school( at which she was not a particularly strong performer). One would have difficulty in transferring from such an environment to a T50 quantitative major, but I am sure there are exceptions. I do note that there are some majors, such as nursing, which I do not consider quantitative but you might. CC often provides excellent prep for that.
In some ways elite math resembles gymnastics or ballet. Starting young is key to the end result. Not necessary at all for routine math, of course
Nursing, accounting, math/science teacher (K-12). My local CC does a good job prepping kids who need heft in math and science, who can then go on to our state U with those careers in mind. I’m not sure starting at a CC and ending up with a BS in nano-technology or theoretical physics is realistic- at least in my state.
Obviously, it depends on the specific course. A community college course in elementary algebra (= high school algebra 1) attracts a vastly different student cohort from a community college course in multivariable calculus that is accepted by the state flagship as such when transferred.
Any faith I have in the California Community College pathway is based on the incredible results. I have no idea what the community colleges might be like in Texas or anywhere else.
The UC’s are “cutting edge” research institutions, Students aren’t transferring to UC’s from Ca CC’s with “7-8 grade level” math, and their majors aren’t limited to “non quantitative” majors like Nursing. Here’s a partial list of transfer requirements to UCLA’s school of engineering and applied sciences:
Calculus I and II
Calculus III (Multivariable)
Differential Equations (not required for applicants to Mechanical or Aerospace Engineering, but still highly recommended)
Thousands of students with lackluster high school experiences and low or no test scores are able to navigate these requirements and then succeed at competitive “cutting edge” programs at the top public institutions in the world.
Again, your knowledge of the UC system is limited. Merced provides a lot of Californians with a a high quality education. Plus, all of the UC’s accept a significant percentage of junior transfers, not just Merced.
Yes, they do, and that is a good thing for the UC system to do. But it has little to do whether top programs like MIT ( the original subject) should use standardized test scores in addition to grades and other indicia in admissions. MIT states it is helpful to them, and schools which are like MIT probably agree. As my earlier post noted, such scores may not be needed for other majors or less selective programs.
Do many CC students get accepted to engineering majors at UCLA? Since you mention UCLA, I note they have 8 different math major tracks-some for highly abstract students, and some for future 7-12 grade teachers. That works for them.
Agreed, and isnt that great? That is what I hope public colleges can do! In any event, we have wandered far from the OP: is this the new norm? Yes, at least for now
I think there have been enough previous threads to know CCs vary wildly in what they offer, and what depth they offer it at.
Some private schools accept their credits, some do not, and some will, but not within the major.
From what I’ve seen in other threads, CA tends to be a higher level within their CCs than most other states.
As for math being learned early or one won’t attain high levels, it depends upon the person. I’ve seen a gal go from entering 9th grade in our lowest level math class to majoring in math at a respectable college. Once it clicked, it clicked. Obviously not all do that, but making kids think they’re slow at math just because it doesn’t click early for them is likely self-fulfilling.
Convince someone they’re dumb and it’s difficult to break through the wall to prove otherwise.
I don’t have the percentage handy for UCLA, but here’s what Berkeley Engineering says:
At Berkeley Engineering, junior transfer students make up nearly 15 percent of our undergraduate population and are a valued part of our community.
Given that transfers take place junior year, that means that at around 30% of juniors and seniors at Berkeley Engineering are transfers (perhaps higher, because of the attrition rate in earlier years.)
I agree 15 is a lot. My older D only applied to 6 schools. She was really happy with her safety/EA acceptance+merit offer so only applied to schools that were even more appealing. My younger two have lists of 10 and 12 schools each and these may get shorter after we visit most of them.
Having not just a safety but a December or earlier acceptance in hand is HUGE. Especially if there is also a merit decision. Anything after that is gravy so the list could be very short. However, it can also be nice to have options. I expect mine will end up with 8-10 apps each, assuming their EAs are acceptances.
UCLA admitted 447 Engineering majors from 4269 applicants in 2021 that are CC transfers. Close to 2000 of the applicants were for Computer science. For CS, they only admitted 47.
That is nice to know, but I am not sure why one would conclude their high school sat scores were poor but they improved dramatically in CC. Maybe some did, maybe some always had strong scores
