<p>I thought the comment that some schools don't offer UC-approved courses within the state was bizarre. I attended a perfectly ordinary high school in a town that was about 40% blue collar, 40% white collar, and 20% barrio back in the early 70s. The UC requirements for entrance were well known to anyone in the school with academic pretensions, were part of the "college track" curriculum (there was also a "career prep" track in the large and well-equipped industrial arts program -- something that is completely gone in high schools here in Washington). In fact, I don't see much difference between what I took in high school go qualify for the UC as is required today. (It's been a long time, but I think we were only required to take three years of English back then.) If secondary schools haven't figured out how to let students know what is necessary as a prereq to the UC after 40 years of the California Master Plan, well, I don't know what to say.</p>
<p>EDITED: As for "not enough counselors," that's just weird. My parents and I were given a piece of paper at pre-registration orientation that said, in effect, "if you want to go the UC, take these classes each year." I'm not sure I ever talked to a counselor in high school.</p>
<p>California also has very good CSU system and many of the community colleges are also very good. Both have lower admission standard but do offer good education to students. I do not understand why UC needs to change the present policy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The UC requirements for entrance were well known to anyone in the school with academic pretensions
[/quote]
Unfortunately, at my kids' large public HS in a suburb I actually explained to one of the counselors what the UC A-G requirements were and where she could find them on the UC Pathways website. She didn't know them. There are some pretty lousy counselors out there.</p>
<p>The A-G requirements aren't really that unique or rigourous so I wouldn't think that too many California HS wouldn't have them. Where more HS fall down is in the AP and honors courses they offer but these aren't part of the A-G requirements.</p>
<p>And it's a good point other posters are stating that California has a lot more choices than the UCs. There are some fine CSUs and direct paths into the UC or CSU system from the CCs. There are plenty of students who weren't accepted to a UC from HS so they went to a CC and then transferred in to a UC or CSU. It makes sense since it allows for them to make up some of the requirements they might have missed in HS or simply refocus and still go to the UC/CSU without the UC/CSU having to create a lot of lower level classes. For a lot of others CC -> UC/CSU is simply a very cost effective way to afford college and still be able to matriculate from a highly respected University. I think the system works well enough that there's no need to reduce the requirements for attending the UC system.</p>
<p>yeah - it was pretty bad. We ended up insisting on switching counselors to a decent one and fortunately they let us do it regardless of the starting letter of our last name.</p>
<p>I disagree with AZSXDC--4% at my daughter's high school is still over 3.95 or so unweighted. Do you really think that kids with superb gpa's and test scores shouldn't be guaranteed? It doesn't work in the supercompetitive high schools.</p>
<p>a minor (hahaha) point, but the a-g requirements for the UCs are exactly the same as they are for the Cal States! But, some Cal State campuses will waive a missing requirement on occasion, such as an extra year of science of a semester of VAPA.</p>
<p>I also disagree with az: IMO, Lowell HS in San Fran is prolly the most competitive non-magnet public in the state; I would speculate that the top ~15% at that school is more academically qualified than the Val at podunk high.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, judging from your screen name, it looks like the new counselor knew what he or she was doing
[/quote]
The new counselor was better but actually I figured out the requirements myself so didn't really have to rely on the counselor. I hope that one who didn't know the requirements was a rare exception.</p>
<p>I suppose my story does however, illustrate that some kids can end up not taking all the right courses due to lack of guidance from counselors/parents. But even so I don't think it should be up to the UC system to make up for that especially since there are some good alternatives already in place.</p>
<p>Congrats to your kid at Cal and good luck to your UC to be D. If you think I might know something about UCSD you/she would be interested in - PM me.</p>
And that speculation may be right sometimes, but I know it's wrong other times. ;) I know nothing about Lowell, but I know a great deal about Podunk. The slickers shouldn't always assume their superiority to their country neighbors.</p>
<p>Brilliant, loving, adventurous, capable, ambitious kids can be found in many different environments.</p>
<p>Sadly, not all of these kids can prove it to the satisfaction of adcoms.</p>
<p>Some of the most achieving people would not have been able to.</p>
<p>I don't think the issue is that the Podunk kid (not a very nice nomenclature -- just reusing) is not as good. I am sure s/he is. </p>
<p>I think it's just frustrating that the kids at very competitive hs's have to compete with each other. But let's not take that out on kids from less "clogged" environments.</p>
<p>I NEVER said that such student was not as good. I said that such student was not as academically qualified, (and what I left out is) by UC standards, or at least as they are today.</p>
<p>btw: I tutor kids at "podunk" [my term] innner-city schools, with a 50% drop out rate, which I wouldn't call 'slickers' by any stretch.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCDad: the BOARS report states that acheiving better match to the state's demographics is their explicit goal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The guiding word here is a BETTER match! Wouldn't a cynic consider that an "upgrade" from utterly and completely out of whack with demographics to merely completely out of whack represents an accomplishment. </p>
<p>Isn't serving ALL its constituents the main objective of a STATE and PUBLIC institution? After all, quotas might not be a lot worse than the current system. The only difference is that one term is less hypocritical.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the issue of selective admissions at the UC is really nothing compared to the unbelievable (and alarming) erosion in the overall K-16 system in California. The real problems are not the UC admissions--although they are hardly a model for any other state by an extremely large margin!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, at my kids' large public HS in a suburb I actually explained to one of the counselors what the UC A-G requirements were and where she could find them on the UC Pathways website. She didn't know them. There are some pretty lousy counselors out there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And, mastering the ins and outs of applications to the state system is what they DO know! Indeed, there are some pretty lousy counselors out there. And unfortunately, it's pretty rare to find some counselors that are not lousy. The good news is that some of the lousiest and most clueless can start a non-profit organization a la Education Conservancy! :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
The A-G requirements aren't really that unique or rigorous so I wouldn't think that too many California HS wouldn't have them. Where more HS fall down is in the AP and honors courses they offer but these aren't part of the A-G requirements.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, the issue of selective admissions at the UC is really nothing compared to the unbelievable (and alarming) erosion in the overall K-16 system in California.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad and xiggi. </p>
<p>I have been stunned by difference in teaching between the honors and AP track and the A-G UC track. While the honors and AP teachers tend to be better, some can be horrible here too, I have been appalled at the teaching in the non honors classes. No wonder so many of our CA students have remedial work to complete at their 4 year institutions. It is frustrating, and we are in a highly rated school district where our teachers are among the highest paid in the state.</p>
<p>Same with our school district which is also considered one of the best school districts. Math teaching is terrible even in AP calculus. Some of the best math students who are friends of my daughter came and asked me Math questions, stuff that I have not touch for nearly 30 years and I gave them a correct answer in less than a second. Somehow it was not intuitive to them and it was not intuitive to the teacher. D asked a me and question that her math teacher could not answer. I don't know what to think.
Not bashing teachers here. Just state some of my observations of the current education system.</p>