<p>the most competitive ones DONT use a point system because it'd be much harder to measure. >></p>
<p>Kfc4u,Sorry but what you said is absolutely wrong. ALL of the UC's that receive more applications than there are seats for (which is basically all of the UC schools) use a comprehensive review system that looks at factors beyond grades and test scores and they all are required to look at the same factors. Each school, however, is free to interpret and assign points as they see fit, so there are some small differences in how they apply the comprehensive review process in their decisions, but the basic underlying elements remain the same. Anyone wanting to know more about how each school looks at the comprehensive review process needs to go to the source - the UC system itself. Here are the links that highlights each schools admissions policies:</p>
<p>i'm under the impression that berkeley (i'm fairly confident about berk) and UCLA don't have a point system similar to the one UCSD uses. in other words, i'm under the impression that applications are read similar to the way a top private school might read them, and then the applicants are voted accepted or rejected, instead of having readers match up accomplishments with their respective point value. that doesn't mean they aren't practicing comprehensive review. they are still looking for all the factors that they're supposed to look for under comprehensive review, but there just isn't a point value fixed to it; in other words, the adcoms are being more holistic about it. </p>
<p>i could be wrong, but that's my impression of berkeley's and ucla's comprehensive review. </p>
<p>as for link crew: at my high school, link crew is basically an upperclassman who is paired up with freshmen and become their mentor. it is very similar to being an orientation counselor... they give them tours of the high school, give them tips on how to succeed, take them to football "tailgates" etc. seems to be a very popular EC; link crew leaders are chosen through a competitive application process.</p>
<p>regardless of one's view of Regent Moore's claims, research on the app process at Berkeley demonstrated that decisions are made holistically, similar to a private college. If I recall (too lazy to dig up the articles again), two readers score the app on a 1-5 scale. If both readers score a 5 = acceptance, according to Berkeley's admissions policies. (if readers split by more than a point, then app goes to a third reader.)</p>
<p>(btw: this was one of the points that Moore noted.....several students had a double 5, and should have been auto-accepts, but they were then overturned by the Committee....)</p>
<p>Coureur and TheDad, as Dstark said in the linked thread: "If I'm a 3.9 gpa student with an average score of 750 on the SAT tests (non-prepped), I can lose out..." That's a ballpark description of my son. Those stats, plus the 500 point "kicker" for taking lots of college prep courses, results in a total academics-only "index" score that's short of the UCSD cutoff. Without something more - leadership, hardship, family background, whatever - that kid doesn't make the cut. If the kid is an athlete in a spring team sport at a school where any junior who makes all league or the equivalent is a lock for a D-1 athletic scholarship, he's not going to get any "extra" points for his time consuming year-round EC unless he doesn't need them (if you get my drift.) That's just the way it is, based on the UCSD formula. </p>
<p>Which is not a tragedy. I've got no beef with UCSD picking a formula which doesn't happen to favor my son. It would be impossible to create a perfect formula, or a perfect system, for that matter. There are other good schools, including other good schools in the UC system. They've all got slightly different standards for picking students. He'll get into one of them.</p>
<p>Wasn't there a program on PBS a few years ago that showed how a UC Berkeley committee reviews and discusses freshman applications? I thought it was a streaming video, but I can't locate it.</p>
<p>Kluge--I wouldn't be so quick to count your son out. I don't know <em>exactly</em> how they score points at UCSD (yes, I know the info is there, but I really don't want to spend a lot of time digesting it, not sure if I would interpret it properly even if I did spend a lot of time on it) but my S, who I don't think qualified for very many extra points was admitted with the great SAT scores, middling grades. I get the feeling that they can award more points for various things if they feel like they want a kid because looking at the <em>points</em> list, I can't see how he could have gotten in otherwise. Or maybe some of his accomplishments qualified for more points than I would have guessed from looking at the list. Or perhaps there are a few things that aren't listed that one can be awarded points for?</p>
<p>I stand by my statement. Read Dstark's links. ALL of the UC's are using a point system, based on a "holistic" comprehensive reviewusing thefactors set in stone by the UC system overall. Each school is free to interpret the weight they give to different factors, but UCLA and UCB are no different in using comprehensive review readers to assign POINTS to determine who gets in. Points ARE assigned based on personal achievements and academic achievements, although the total point system may be different, total POINTS decide who gets in and who doesn't, not some idealistic committee meeting. </p>
<p>While these links are provided on the pages I cited above, read this statement from UCB (emphasis mine):</p>
<p>The only difference between UCLA and UCB and UCSD (or UCSB or UCD or the others) is that UCSD is very clear about how they assign and weight available points, while UCLA and UCB are not quite as clear. But, rest assured, POINTS are assigned at UCLA and UCB and those points ultimately determine who gets in, not some nice little admissions committee meeting "voting" on each candidate. It's a nice image, but it isn't how it's being done.</p>
<p>I've actually seen the UCLA point system and while, from memory, it is not congruent with the UCSD system, it definitely was a simple A + B + C = X kind of system. I may be wrong but what I don't remember is that very many students could score highly in non-academic categories...more like you might get one bump or maybe two...getting several was unlikely. Wish I had it at hand.</p>
<p>UCLA implements a balancing approach to selection, which takes into consideration the rankings assigned for each of the three admissions factors: academic achievement (AR), personal achievements (PAR), and life challenge level (LCL). Although these rankings are expressed quantitatively, UCLA does NOT assign a specific numeric weight to each factor in making admission decisions. </p>
<p>So, they do... and they don't... sort of... My sense is that all this life challenge index point scoring bs is simply an attempt to make the process look very objective and lets them achieve their desired goal of having a diverse class. It is a thinly disguised substitute for affirmative action. I would prefer they had direct quotas and create a class that reflects the socioeconomic profile of the state or the country... but they aren't allowed to do that.</p>
<p>NJRes,
Your first paragraph, correct! The general & overriding UC comprehensive review process is in fact practiced/instituted variously by campus. Period. People can cite links to their hearts' content: doesn't alter the reality of campus by campus admissions. No University admissions process is thoroughly transparent. Nor, i.m.o., will it ever be. And although some people yearn for transparency, & others protest it as a "fact" (based on publications), I'm glad for the opaqueness which is indeed present. </p>
<p>Your second paragraph, regarding the elasticity which overrides numerical factors or assignments as being supposedly due mainly to SES & ethnic concerns, is incorrect. Like Columbia, Yale, etc., Berkeley & UCLA seek a level of talent & promise within the student body that sometimes cannot be quantified. Three people that I know quite well (including their stats) who are recent admits to UCLA -- from an applicant pool which was numerically the most competitive in its history-- were admitted despite "disqualifying" quantitative factors. They are neither poor nor minority, yet all 3 had creative promise -- for a campus that seeks a critical mass of these every year.</p>