<p>The “priority” admission talk would make more sense if they said, this is how we score you, this is how many points you get for TAP. But they dot release that. So it’s really ambiguous. I guess all you know for sure is that against another student from the same background, same GPA, same classes completed the one with TAP will have priority. </p>
<p>At this point I believe it’s deliberately ambiguous, as is the way comprehensive review is worked. This allows them to essentially build exactly the class they want (Racially, educationally, sexually, economically, etc) by hand picking and they can say its comprehensive review and we measure peoples intangible and immeasurable qualities, so no one can say boo. </p>
<p>And honestly I’m ok with that. If they admit another white late 20’s female chemical engineer with all the same stats and don’t admit me, I’m ok with that. That’s their prerogative, it’s their school and it’s their choice. They didn’t ask me to apply, I chose to. It’s because of the pervasive “everything should be fair, and blind, and equal and systematic” mentality of our time that they have to be ambiguous so they can admit who they WANT to. </p>
<p>I’m not sure that TAG early decisions would be very helpful. I tagged Irvine, but even if I had been accepted in February, I wouldn’t have SIR’d because I needed to hear back from UCLA first. </p>
<p>I think TAG is a good program, but some of the GPA requirements are way too low. I’m not saying someone with a 3.2 shouldn’t be admitted to UCSB or wherever, but that admission should be guaranteed. I think 3.5+ should be the TAG baseline. </p>
<p>From a UC standpoint 3.0-3.3-ish is low-to average. IMO students with average GPAs shouldn’t have a guarantee. There is so much minutia in the details for TAG and missing the smallest thing terminates your TAG. Students with a 3.8 who took their math in the wrong semester get dropped from TAG while 3.2s get in. </p>
<p>There definitely needs to be some program modifications.</p>
<p>I really don’t understand TAG. It’s like saying, “this person here can get in because he signed a meaningless piece of paper that makes him part of our little group, but you did not sign that piece of paper, and thus are not part of our group and will not be accepted.” What is the point of tag?! I think it’s just to make things easier for admissions? Because otherwise why would they reject more qualified applicants in favor of less qualified applicants, when the only difference is that the latter happened to fill out some papers? That is not to knock anyone who used tag…I’m criticizing the system, not those who rightly took advantage of it.</p>
<p>And yeah I agree with what you said, @lindyk8</p>
<p>@music1990 - It’s just another bureaucratic process like at the DMV.</p>
<p>Mainly the TAG specifically is for borderline students for example UCSB is 3.2 for most majors. So if a student has a 3.3 they will likely get into some UC’s and denied at others but will be guaranteed at a mid-tier UC like SB.</p>
<p>But I definitely do not believe they should tell the students with higher GPA’s with more major prep complete that they are rejected due to having to accept too many TAG students. That being said this usually is a rarity because higher GPA’s and major prep complete usually gets someone into better UC’s like SD, LA, Berkeley. With the exception of those in the 3.4-3.7 range those students are in kind of a limbo but considering SD has done away with their TAG I would assume they’d TAG to the UC they want and they definitely have the qualifications to do so if that UC offers a TAG you just need to spend 15 mins and do the TAG app if not it’s really they’re own fault </p>
<p>I see what you’re saying. It might be kind of personal for me, because I was 3 units short of being able to sign TAG, but it didn’t matter anyway for me. Now if I had been rejected from my schools, I would be on a vandetta to see tag removed. I do think students with a decent GPA should be guaranteed a spot at a UC, just not Davis and UCSD, which do actually reject students with GPAs of 3.7 and up.</p>
<p>I really don’t think a college should have to guarantee admissions at all. Of course if they do, I’ll use that. But that type of system is not indicative of the real world. You’re never guaranteed a job as long as you have a degree, or guaranteed an apartment as long as you have the minimum income. I think part of growing up is accepting you can’t always have what you want, and you aren’t entitled to it by merit or desire.There are situations in life where decisions that affect you in very profound ways are very much out of your hands. Also @music1990 I think it sounds like a temper tantrum you would have thrown, trying to have a whole program removed simply because you weren’t eligible to use it. </p>
<p>@Bear87 - But if we live in a world where nothing is guaranteed that means that there’s a possibility that no college/university will accept a person. And they actually have had that situation, which leads to frustration and some students who want to go to a school but were rejected. That’s why the CSU’s have the AA-T, and lower/mid-tier UC’s have TAG’s. Now of course we could say well they should’ve tried harder but it’s much easier to just tell them you’re at least guaranteed somewhere and you’re not stuck in limbo. </p>
<p>If the universities do this then it gives people a little more trust that the system can actually be to their benefit. </p>
<p>I believe that if the universities choose this of their own volition then by all means continue on, but if it is codified into law that because a student did A,B,C they are required to admit them or they would be breaking the law then that’s a different story.</p>
Actually the UCs have always had a guarantee for frosh.
In practice this means Riverside or Merced. While the words aren’t an ironclad promise (although in the past I think they were), I have been told they always put these kids somewhere.</p>
<p>Almost any student can be accepted somewhere. There are much easier requirements at many of the CSU’s for example. Some public uni’s will pretty much accept you with a C avg. And I think its ok that someone might not get accepted anywhere. It already happens, because some students lack a high enough GPA to be eligible to apply anywhere. They have to raise their GPA to meet minimum standards. </p>
<p>As I said, there is no guaranteed job out there, which is why some people are unemployed. Why should school be any different? Because people want to go to school? Trust me, most unemployed people want to go to work too. I’m not an elitist. I just feel that admission is something you earn and work for, not something you should be given because you want it. And in real world life, there is a whole lot of not getting what you want, even when you work hard for it, ask any waiter in LA how his acting career is going. Even in countries with free university you have to take a test to get in. </p>
<p>Guaranteeing admission will invariably lead to better students who weren’t in a guarantee program being rejected (they want to go to school too) or overcrowding. Most students who apply and don’t get in anywhere failed to adequately access their competitiveness. That’s why they always tell you to pick a few safety schools. If someone only applies to top-mid tier UCs and isn’t accepted, chances are they should have been shooting for lower-tier or CSUs as backups.</p>
<p>That being said, I have no problem with utilizing the programs they have put in place. I will be using TAG myself. Its just that as TAG goes away (which it will) I know we’ll see a whole lot of “its not fair” talk and I think we should look at it as something that was very nice while we had it, rather than something the UCs owe us. </p>
</p>