<p>
</p>
<p>Now that UC is chasing OOS money, that is no longer true for instate unhooked, non-diverse (however defined) instate candidates, particularly based on your definition below, xiggi.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Under holistic admissions, the big 2/3 campuses will easily accept a second decile student with a good story over a (‘boring’) top 5%'er. Sure, it may not happen often, but it proves that the top 5%'er is not “guaranteed” (to use your term) admission to Cal/UCLA.</p>
<p>How does it affect you if they think they are safeties?
You can apply to some other “real” safeties so you are happy and also to some other reaches so they are happy.</p>
<p>It also depends on the major too, you can’t compare L&S or humanities at UCB admission rate to EECS for example.</p>
<p>When UC Statfinder was up (latest data was 2009), one could get admit rates for each UC campus by GPA and test score ranges. Even the highest stat ranges were not “guaranteed” admission to UCB or UCLA back then, although some applicants in those ranges could have called them “low match” (not “safety”) with 70-80% admit rates (but also depending on major/division applied to). Some other UCs did have 99% or so admit rates for high enough stat ranges. It is doubtful that admissions competition is less now.</p>
<p>UCLA has frosh admission profiles at <a href=“http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/adm_fr/frosh_prof.htm”>http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/adm_fr/frosh_prof.htm</a> , but does not have data stratified by GPA and test scores (as opposed to GPA only or test scores only), and does not show differences by major/division applied to.</p>
<p>USC selectivity probably also varies by major/division applied to.</p>
<p>If you qualify for <a href=“New Students | Apply | Undergraduate Admissions | UC Riverside”>https://vcsaweb.ucr.edu/gap/index.aspx</a> , sign up in July to make UCR a 100% sure thing safety for admissions. (Of course, check affordability and academic offerings.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, but the chances for instaters have only gotten much worse as the flagships ramped up their marketing to the wealthy OOS’ers, and began to offer some need-based aid to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BB, you are taking my comment about guaranteed admissions out of context. The guaranteed admission was related to Texas because there IS a system of admission based solely on the class ranking. It is a black on white affair. The point there is that for some UT is a safety school – it was for me. But is does NOT fit the typical label of “safety school” as it has been --erroneously-- used so often on CC, where the safety school has become the school one might attend in case all other options fall through, and reluctantly attent to boot! </p>
<p>All of us here know that it is not easy to be admitted at Cal or UCLA, and that there are few guarantees available. However, just as the majority of applicants do not stand much of a statistically reasonable chance, there are a good number of people who are shoo-in at those schools, be it academically or through athletic means. The same could be said for the students who qualify for one of those countless USC scholarships. </p>
<p>Again, and again, I think that the biggest problem and issue is that the term safety is used in the way a certain BB team derided UConn by chanting “Safety School” or … in the way the Pomona’s Sagehens used to make fun of the poor CMCers! </p>
<p>In my book, having a very good :highly likely" school is the most important part of the admission process. </p>
<p>I think people should overlook the screaming headlines, and study the real statistics for out-of-state admissions to the UCs. In some recent years the acceptance rate has been higher, admittedly, but out-of-state admits continue to boast higher median GPAs and test scores than CA residents. To begin with, the minimum GPA for consideration is 3.4, instead of 3.0, and the weighting system is geared to California public high schools. There are no “local context” admissions for non-residents, much less relationships with community colleges. </p>
<p>I doubt a California student could get into UCLA/UCB with 3.4 GPA, so that information is somewhat useless. We’re talking about state flagships not the whole UCs thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure that there is a whole lot to learn from looking at the GPA, as that metric is usually an overinflated one with plenty of illusory boosts. One only needs to compare the reported GPA at Cal for enrolled students and look at the state of public K-12 education in California to understand why those scores have lost much relevance at schools that maintain a local and regional pull. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source, please? (Since UC Statfinder was pulled, we can no longer test such an assertion.) </p>
<p>Moreover, you need to be aware of Simpson’s paradox (AP Stats), and parse the application stats to compare apples to apples, i.e., middle-income to-wealthy suburban instate applicants with middle income to-wealthy OOS applicants, bcos those apps are generally competing for the same spots under holistic admissions. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what D1 coaches are for. :D</p>
<p>I agree that the OP should just ignore the parents’ thoughts. Just apply to both schools, but also include a couple of real financial safeties. </p>
<p>This will only be an issue if the parents insist that no other safeties should be applied to. If that is the case, then find some that have free apps and apply anyway. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Hardly impossible at Cal as plenty of students who could not get into a UC school from HS find their way via the JUCO pipeline. Check the transfer data. </p>
<p>
If you look at the historical acceptance rates, the admit rate for out of state students follows a very different trend than the admit rate for in state students. For example, a comparison between 2005 and 2014 is below:</p>
<p>Fall 2005 UCLA admits:
In-state admit rate – 28.0% (10,200 in-state admits)
Out-of-state admit rate – 21.9% (816 out-of-state admits)</p>
<p>Fall 2014 UCLA admits:
In-state admit rate – 16.5% (9,143 in-state admits)
Out-of-state admit rate – 27.1% (4,110 out-of-state admits)</p>
<p>Note that the in-state admit rate is far lower than 2005, yet the out-of-state admit rate is far higher. I suspect that UCLA is trying to make up for CA budget cuts that occurred during this period by admitting more students from groups that have increased tuition above CA residents. CA colleges are certainly not alone in this policy. Some public colleges in other states have much higher admit rates for out of state students, and in some cases quite obviously weaker admission criteria.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Moving the goalposts a bit, aren’t we. JUCO transfers, like junior transfers from other colleges are evaluated very differently from applicants fresh out of high school or with only 1 year of college or less under their belts. </p>
<p>Unlike the latter, the former are evaluated mostly on their undergrad GPA and LORs from college Profs, not so much stuff from high school. Especially if the undergrad GPA/LORs are much better than the ones from HS. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is absolutely no doubt about this. Since only a fool would pay OOS fees for the lower tier UC’s, the OOS money has to be made form Cal, Southern Branch, and San Diego.</p>
<p>Assuming you are in CA, does it matter that they are mistaken. My understanding of the UC application process is that you just check off the schools you are willing to attend. So check off some of the other UCs. If you get into UCLA or USC great, if you don’t you’ll have other choices. In the meantime you can certainly try to educate them with all the statistics.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Unlike the latter, the former are evaluated mostly on their undergrad GPA and LORs from college Profs, not so much stuff from high school. Especially if the undergrad GPA/LORs are much better than the ones from HS.<<<</p>
<p>Cobrat, it does not change anything to the fact that students who could not get into the UC system out of HS are able to transfer in via feeders such as DeAnza or Santa Monica. </p>
<p>Feel free to speculate about why they did not start at the UC in the first place. </p>
<p>I know the OP knows this, but just noting that USC is not a UC; it is private.</p>
<p>If the parents think UCLA and USC are safeties, they probably know nothing about the elite New England boarding schools so this may be moot, but I’m looking at the Naviance scattergrams for both universities based on applicants from Choate, and I see plenty of red Xs (denied) for students with high GPAs and test scores. Certainly not safeties even for students from well-known rigorous programs. The OP’s parents are woefully misinformed.</p>