<p>Wait a minute, you can't have it both ways. If you don't want to live in the Midwest, then there's nothing wrong with "go[ing] to either side of the country," is there? That's just what you want.</p>
<p>If you WANT to live in the Midwest, then you don't get to complain about "having to" live there. And there are plenty of good schools in the Midwest, not just a "couple of exceptions."</p>
<p>National universities:
U Chicago (#9 US News)
WUSTL (#12)
Northwestern (#14)
Notre Dame (#19)
Michigan (#25)</p>
<p>That's 20% of the top 25 right there, more than the West Coast (Stanford #4, Caltech #5, UC Berkeley #21, UCLA #25), same number as the South (Duke #8, Rice #17, Emory #17, Vanderbilt #19, UVA #23).</p>
<p>Plus some of the other Midwestern public flagships, especially Wisconsin-Madison and UIUC, are very strong.</p>
<p>As for LACs;
Carleton #5
Grinnell #11
Oberlin #20
Macalester #26
Kenyon #32
plus another 20 or so in the 50-100 range.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Somehow I find it hard to believe that every single rejected student at UCB/UCLA was in the top 12.5% of California seniors graduating that year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The University of California is designated for the top 12.5% of California.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCB: 21.4% admitted. Rejected: 38,075 students, all of whom were in the top 12.5% of graduating seniors in the state.</p>
<p>UCLA: 22.7% admitted. Rejected: 42,832 students, all of whom were in the top 12.5% of graduating seniors statewide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley's stats this year were especially competitive. For enrolled freshmen (not admitted), average UW GPA of 3.9, W of 4.4, median SAT score of 2060 (and this isn't superscored), 21% acceptance rate, 17% OOS acceptance rate. I daresay Berkeley is as selective, even in-state, as some top privates. Obviously not HYPSM, and of course its admissions process is different (emphasizing different things) from some other top schools. If anyone uses Berkeley (and to a slightly lesser extent UCLA) as a safety, they're being a bit arrogant/too optimistic about their chances with colleges and need to re-evaluate their college list. Sure, someone with a perfect score/GPA/excellent ECs might consider them safeties, but the fact is, some schools just should not be safeties. Those same students might consider JHU or ND safeties, but just because certain students are overqualified for a school doesn't mean that school should be considered a safety.</p>
<p>Funnily enough, I saw many, many students on CC who considered Berkeley/UCLA their safeties, and they ended up getting rejected from top privates. Now they're going to their "safety." :rolleyes:</p>
<p>highopes,
To be eligible to even apply to the UC system you do indeed have to be in the top 12.5% statewide. University</a> of California - Admissions
If you are not in the top 12.5%, you can try to apply as "eligible by exception," but only a very small % of those students are admitted - and they usually have extremely unusual circumstances and have shown great potential in some way.</p>
<p>Quote: "i should be more clear. UCs i mean UCLA and UC berkeley. even i look down on other UCs."</p>
<p>Keep in mind that only the top 12.5% statewide are eligible to apply to ANY of the nine undergraduate UC campuses. So when you see UCI's admit rate of 48.5% or UCSB's of 49.2%, those were selected from a pool where virtually all of the students (including the rejected ones) were already in the top 12.5% statewide. They are far more selective than those numbers would lead you to believe.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Should I be more clear - didn't I already point out that UCB and UCLA have admit rates in the low to mid 20s - so they aren't exactly good "safety" schools?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>well i said that i meant CC kids since most of cc kids tend to be in the top 10 percent of the academic field and a lot of them have good shot at ivies. if you are applying to the ivies chances are you will use ucla and berkeley as safeties for californians</p>
<p>
[quote]
if you are applying to the ivies chances are you will use ucla and berkeley as safeties for californians
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that's just how you (and some others) think, but for the overwhelming majority of Ivy applicants, Berkeley/UCLA are not safeties. Think about it: Harvard alone receives 27,000 applicants. Does, say, Berkeley accept 27,000 applicants? Last year, it was only 10,000. That means 17,000 students would have been rejected.</p>
<p>Of course, not all are from California, but even Californians shouldn't consider them safeties. Backups? Sure. Many would really prefer to go to the Ivies+ instead. But they're not "safeties" for these students.</p>
<p>If - by your definition - "cc kids" are in the top 10 percent, and if only the top 12.5 percent (in CA) can even apply to your "safety" schools UCB and UCLA, it seems to me that "cc kids" and UC applicants (at least those cc kids who also live in CA) are pretty much the same group (except for the bottom 2.5 percent of UC applicants that don't meet your definition of cc kid). As UCB and UCLA have admit rates (for the previously defined group of top 12.5% of students in the state) of about 22%, doesn't it follow that somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-75% (allowing for that 2.5% at the bottom) of your "cc kids" would be rejected at those two schools?</p>
<p>Whatever the intention, it was not my impression that the UC application prevents ANYONE from applying , and my daughter applied to 6 of them last fall. I could be wrong since she met that top 12 percent criteria, but I don't remember there being any way to keep you from applying.</p>
<p>Pretty much every state on the East Coast has a pretty good public university system -- Massachusetts has UMass, Connecticut has UConn, NY has the SUNY system, PA has Penn State, MA has UMD-College Park, VA has UVA, North Carolina has UNC-Chapel Hill, Georgia has UGA and Tech and Florida has UF. They may not be highly ranked, but they are all decent public colleges/universities. And in the case of UVA, UNC-Chapel Hill, and UGA and Tech they are on the US News lists.</p>
<p>Hi Shrinkrap!
I applied last year, too! On the application instructions, you are supposed to stop and figure your eligibility. (page 8 of the paper instructions: <a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/apply/pdf/APPInstructions_FR.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/apply/pdf/APPInstructions_FR.pdf</a> ) On pages 5 - 7 it talks about the different types of eligibilty and how to achieve them, and that the FIRST step in admissions is they determine if you are eligible, and only eligible students are considered. (The trade-off is that ALL eligible students who apply are guaranteed a spot at one of the campuses - but not necessarily their top choices.) There are similar instructions and "warnings" on the online application. I suppose a non-eligible student could go ahead and apply, but they would know before submitting it and paying the $60 per campus that they would not be considered for admission.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it was not my impression that the UC application prevents ANYONE from applying
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it depends on the eligibility requirement. For example, if you don't fulfill a-g requirements for courses (which you have to list on the application in a very organized fashion), you can't finish the page--it will keep telling you that you don't have all the courses.</p>
<p>tocollege, kyledavid, of course you are right. Is there some way to enforce the top 12.5 percent part? FWIW, my D got into five of the six UC's she applied to, and to my ( financial) dismay, STILL chose to go south.</p>
<p>Congratulations on your D's success, Shrinkrap!</p>
<p>I guess if an ineligible student REALLY wanted to spend the $60 per campus (knowing they would not be considered for admission) they could get around the online application lockout by printing the paper application and mailing it in.</p>
<p>The summer before senior year, nearly all California high schools submit the transcripts of their top 10% of students to the UC for evaluation. (Juniors get a letter in the spring requesting permission to submit the transcripts - if they don't give permission, their transcript will not be submitted.) You can check to see how many transcripts your D's high school submitted by searching here: <a href="https://www.ucelc.org/ucschoolstatus/school_status_search.htm%5B/url%5D">https://www.ucelc.org/ucschoolstatus/school_status_search.htm</a> - you don't need the "ATP" code, just name of school and city.)</p>
<p>The UC evaluates each transcript and then sends letters telling the students they are either 1. ELC (Eligible in the Local context - VERY helpful at the selective UCs), 2. On Track to Statewide Eligibilty, or 3. Not on track to Statewide Eligibility (meaning there is no way they can - in the one year of high school left - get all the courses needed to become eligible.) Eligible students are directed to the online application that has already been set up for them. There are eligible students (that other 2.5%) who do not get the letter - and they can start applications on their own - but hopefully they will do the calculations to determine if their application will even be considered that BEFORE spending the $60. By its own rules, the UCs are only allowed to consider a tiny % of ineligible students (and as a public institution they are often audited), so they are very strict on that point.</p>
<p>Like your D, I was very pleased (and relieved!) to be accepted at my UC choices, and like your D, I also chose another option. It was a very difficult decision because (it is probably obvious) I am a big fan of the UC system.</p>
<p>tocollege; Think you and I'll pass on the congrats. Are your parents "fans" as well? I'd love any suggestions for resolving her "choice" in my mind (and bank account).Joking..... Yes, I am familiar with the ELC thing; she got submitted (class size of 89!), got a letter, and was "on track". I guess that's what made me think there must be kids also were not "on track". Now realizing that the letters don't reflect the applicant pool.</p>