<p>I went to a TAG workshop and when the presenter presented the TAG matrix the only TAG majors accepted for 2015-2016 are biological and economics majors for UCSB. -_- That ended up pretty much narrowing my prospects to Irvine. It's still rather disappointing because the loss of UCSD this year, further impacts the TAG Stem transfers. Well then, what do you CC forum-goers say? And sorry if there is a thread already, don't see a recent one.</p>
<p>Your information is wrong. UCSB accepts TAGs for all majors except anything in the College of Creative Studies, engineering, or the dance/visual arts stuff.</p>
<p><a href=“http://admissions.sa.ucsb.edu/docs/default-source/PDFs/ucsb-fall-2015-tag-criteria.pdf?sfvrsn=4”>http://admissions.sa.ucsb.edu/docs/default-source/PDFs/ucsb-fall-2015-tag-criteria.pdf?sfvrsn=4</a></p>
<p>Here is the current TAG matrix. This shows all the majors included/ excluded for each school. </p>
<p><a href=“University of California Counselors”>University of California Counselors; </p>
<p>Meh… at least they’re upfront about it. Back when I applied (CS major) I decided to TAG UCSC as a safety, turns out they pretty much denied TAG for all CS majors who didn’t have a perfect GPA and all the pre-reqs completed before application time. I wish they had straight up said “no TAG for CS” rather than leaving it open and rejecting everyone.</p>
<p>I’d say go ahead and TAG UCI, treat it like a safety school. Then just apply to the rest of the schools during the normal application period… it’s not like no TAG means no chance. I mean, if they’re not accepting TAG for the major, it’s probably because they wanted to increase the fairness of admissions by not guaranteeing seats to anyone this early.</p>
<p>TAG always seemed like a big scam to me.</p>
<p>I’ve seen plenty of people on here meet the criteria and somehow get rejected because they used their TAG, when they probably would’ve got in without it.</p>
<p>UCSB engineering TAG is even worse, I remember when I was considering my major, the wanted certain classes for TAG (Matlab) that weren’t offered anywhere. </p>
<p>Just because some people can’t follow a checklist doesn’t mean it’s a scam. </p>
<p>I don’t think you get rejected because of TAG, I think you get rejected due to lack of completed major prep.</p>
<p>Yeah, if you are thrown out of TAG, you enter the general pool of applicants.</p>
<p>I see more stories on here about problems with TAG then I do people saying their TAG was successful. </p>
<p>For UCSB, they required courses for engineering TAG that I’ve never even seen offered the whole time I was at CC (since 2012). These courses aren’t required for any other UC, and since they aren’t offered, it was auto rejection because you didn’t meet the “requirements”. This is the same for UC Davis, Irvine etc. </p>
<p>They obviously don’t offer it anymore for a reason. You probably have better chances for Berkeley or UCLA than relying on TAG to get you in somewhere because it requires less classes and if you do well, you won’t be at the mercy of following the “agreement”. </p>
<p>My daughter also had TAG issues with UCSB and was kicked out. UCSB appears to be more strict about certain things in general. Although I am referring to last year, not sure how things may have changed this year on other campuses. I think one big issue is too many ppl are coming into TAG near the minimum GPA and it’s skewing the avg GPA for majors. There is only so much room, and if lower GPAs are admitted and they run out of space there may be more deserving candidates in regular admission that can’t get in. And the number of TAG applicants is spiraling out of control compared to just five or six years ago. Something’s gotta give because they can’t keep guaranteeing everyone who fulfills TAG. As Scotty said to Capt Kirk, “You cannot change the laws of physics.”</p>
<p>I got into UCSB with the tag program as a pre communication major for this year. I thought tag was relatively easy to use, and was good motivation throughout last year to keep my grades up. GPA is a 3.2 requirement… </p>
<p>I’m confused as to where you see UCSB accepting all majors. It clearly says that the college of engineering is no longer accepting TAG. Not nitpicking. 
UCSB already wants 3.6 GPA to be competetive for CompSci as a normal transfer, I can only imagine this is applied or being applied to other engineering disciplines. I will come back later and respond and read a few more comments, I see some interesting remarks and don’t have the proper time to respond at the moment. 
(and excuse and spelling errors, in a rush -_-)</p>
<p>@kamiture , I think the reason ppl put that up was because the advisor said the only majors allowing TAG were economics and biology, and they were addressing that. </p>
<p>@TiaStone congrats on your admittance. My daughter was also applying to Communications, but was doing the math IP so got tossed out of TAG. She luckily had a rudimentary math completed so got in as a regular applicant (after a lot of mail-biting) because even as a reg applicant they won’t let you in unless at least some math is completed, but she ended up choosing a different campus. My friend’s daughter took Comm at UCSB and loved it!</p>
<p>I too was sad to see engineering removed from UCSB TAG. I understand however, because they did say for general admissions a 3.6 was required to be competitive, so it makes sense not to guarantee admission to students with less than that. </p>
<p>However, I would have very much appreciated them increasing the GPA for Engr TAG higher rather than eliminate it altogether. I’m now TAGing to UCI, but still applying to UCSB hoping to get in. I can only imagine as the only mid-tier UC that allows engineering TAG UCI will soon be denying “more deserving/better performing” students from engineering because they filled seats with TAG students and anticipate them removing TAG for HSSEA within a year or two. </p>
<p>That’s what I wonder about too, @bear87. Rather than eliminate it, why not just raise the minimum GPA. </p>
<p>I think, if current trends continue, they will continue to get a higher volume of very qualified students. They would need to raise the GPA req almost annually as avg GPA applied and # of applicants continue to rise. Eventually perhaps if the required GPA is high (say it reached 3.7) then TAG would be obsolete in that such students would very likely get in through general admissions anyway. Also, students at this caliber would likely also be well positioned for UCLA, UCB, even ivies and would likely be utilizing TAG as a “backup” or plan C, so that the UC’s would have a hard time estimating how many TAGs will SIR, and thus unsure how many general admits they’ll have room for. </p>
<p>I think the TAG program was good, but needed revision. The GPAs needed to be more challenging. Also they should have made them early decision so they’d better know how many seats are left for general admits. </p>
<p>TAP on the other hand I can’t stand. Too much variety in how students achieve it. One student can do an extra essay or a cumulative project to make a regular course an honors course, while another is doing more in depth work and harder course overall, at the end they get the same certification. It’d be like giving BS degrees to all students, even those doing BA coursework. Makes no sense. </p>
<p>Great analysis @bear87 and many I hadn’t thought of, esp high GPA vs TAP. About a week ago I read about the general formation of TAG. It’s only about six yrs old (more or less). Before that each campus just did their own thing, with their own program names, rules and forms. They finally consolidated but it took a long time for all campuses to agree. At the start there were just a few hundred applicants and it’s grown phenomenally. I don’t think they want to get rid of it but it’s definitely turned into the elephant in the room.
Also… TAP workload does seem random. At least it isn’t a guarantee. Maybe that’s what needs to change - TAG not a guarantee, simply a priority considerstion </p>
<p>@lindyk8 I think that would be a good middle ground. If you complete these classes with this GPA or better you get priority rather than guarantee. However, I think that why they did away with it, because that’s how general admissions work isn’t it? Top priority given to California CC students with high GPA and completion of requisite coursework? </p>
<p>And so they must have come to a point where they couldn’t guarantee admission for a program any longer, TAG was no longer viable and a very large percentage who would have been eligible under stricter GPA standards are already well placed in the general pool. </p>
<p>That’s why I try not to be too upset about it going away for the most part. </p>
<p>I also think the “comprehensive” review process will find its way into all the UCs over time, and then they’ll once again be able to admit the slightly less qualified but more lifestyle/experience diverse students that will be marginalized by the end of TAG. I feel for myself and those who missed out on the glory days of TAG, but I think the UCs have a far vision of how they want to build future alumni pools, and I think inclusiveness and diversity have a big role in that. Which I can respect. </p>
<p>I’ve never quite understood what the term"priority" means. It’s rather nebulous. I personally am not a big fan of TAG (as it stands now), but I have the sense they do want to try and keep it. But it may become a losing battle.</p>
<p>Great discussion! I understand now what the previous poster meant. It makes sense that TAG program is finally outliving its original purpose of diversifying the universities. In hindsight, UCSB is a free for all for those who have the GPA. Like a few of you have pointed out, it really wouldn’t be fair for those who are more competitive to lose out on seats.
I see Irvine going away in the forseeable future once it becomes the bottleneck of tagging engineers.</p>
<p>Now you transfer applicants are making me take differential equations next semester to be more competitive. </p>