<p>I was wondering about the author's sense of entitlement when I got to reading the student's profile and then I checked the by-line. Well, that's certainly consistent.</p>
<p>Thanks, I got a kick out of that, & passed it on to my daughter. Nice to read a success story about a kid without the awesome, amazing credentials that are common on these boards.</p>
<p>I didn't read entitlement at all...hmmm....guess I'll go back and try harder. ;-)</p>
<p>LDMom, look at the 3.25 GPA, the 23 ACT, and the mediocre--for competitive colleges--SAT scores and then look at the tone of dismay. That's what I was reacting to...before I saw the by-line. The kid is damn lucky she got into UCSD.</p>
<p>I don't see the "entitlement" either. Maybe that is because as a Californian I am well aware that if Maia is a Calif. resident and meets the MINIMUM eligibility requirements for UC, then she IS entitled to admission at a UC campus, albeit not her top choice. So the kid would have every right to be disappointed by a rejection from Santa Barbara, and while UCLA would have been a huge reach, the kid's interest in studying Russian makes it worthwhile. (UCLA and Berkeley are the only 2 campus with strong offerings in that area -- I checked, as my own d. has applied to Berkeley as a Slavic languages major)</p>
<p>Actually, I thought it was refreshing that a parent was candid about their kid's actual record. I sometimes think that some CC parents might be exaggerating just a tad about their kid's "stats" -- not too many people here would admit to a 500 math SAT score. Somewhere on the planet there must be kids who score about average on the SATs, but no one has ever seen or heard of them around here. </p>
<p>With Maia's GPA (unweighted) she needed a minimum combined SAT (the 3 SAT I scores + 2 SAT II scores) of 1990 to qualify for admission. (See <a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/freshman/scholarship_reqs.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/freshman/scholarship_reqs.html</a> ) . Taking her 2 best SAT II's, she had 3090. So yes, she's "entitled".</p>
<p>You are right she is lucky to get into UCSD, but she is guaranteed admission at SOME UC campus -- and San Diego probably would like to keep its Russian department going. (Insufficient enrollment is a major issue for Russian language, and many major universities have either dropped Russian entirely or are considering doing it. Russian is also considered by the US State department to be a "critical" language, and it is a difficult language to master - but there is only one public high school in California that teahes the language. So basically, this kid has something to offer the campus that admitted her.</p>
<p>Dad -</p>
<p>In the first paragraph, the writer states they knew UCLA was a longshot and were only surprised that UCSB, with a 50% acceptance rate rejected her. And they seemed apprehensive and then surprised by the UCSD result. So no, after re-reading, I still don't get entitlement. Are you sure you didn't read the NRO thing first? (JUSTKIDDING!)</p>
<p>I think the author's point was that her daughter was breaking all the rules of engagement when it comes to extreme college admissions games....graduating early with a less than perfect gpa, no gazillion dollar SAT review courses, no 'strategery' during the pre-k years....and somehow everything still turned out fine for her kid. Just my take.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>...and somehow everything still turned out fine for her kid.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Well, fine so far. But young Maia is going to have to turn it up a notch when she gets to college. UCSD is full of motivated young scholars who will likely eat her lunch when it comes to the grading curve.</p>
<p>And on the other issue, the author didn't seem "entitled" to me so much as she seemed naive. Naive and lucky.</p>
<p>I might have read it wrong, but I thought she was forced to take her final year of high school.</p>
<p>concur with coureur...unless young student cranks it up a BIG notch...UCSD is not a good fit.</p>
<p>CalMom, minimum standards for admission to <em>a</em> UC is not grounds for thinking that one has a reasonable shot at UCLA, UCSD, or even UC Santa Barbara. </p>
<p>LDMom, I wouldn't read that as "break the rules and you turn out fine" as well as "admissions is capricious and you <em>may</em> be lucky."</p>
<p>Coureur, yeah, naive and lucky...I can go with that. Naive is perhaps the flip side of entitlement. "This should work out perfectly fine." And I agree with you that she better step it up a couple of notches to take the speed of UCSD's pitching or her future classmates' hitting in stride.</p>
<p>I thought that the author's view that her daughter should graduate after 3 years was a sense of "Entitlement." A lot of people have enough credits to graduate high school junior year, that doesn't mean that they should. Also, she acts as if everyone with a good gpa or sat score must be paying a bunch for extra classes. I know plenty of people that did good, myself included, on the sat with only a book at the library to study with. Plus, she goes to a private school, she's obviously better off than the average student.</p>
<p>She's way lucky to get into UCSD but she should've gotten into UCSB. Go figure.</p>
<p>true...you and coureur may be right about that Dad. </p>
<p>But it is a dilemma...the whole college admissions thing is out of control, preparation is extreme and the bar continues to be set higher and higher. Do we as parents encourage our kids to jump into the fray or do we say enough. There is a temptation to just step back and pray for the lucky break because if admissions truly is capricious, where is the logic in killing yourself to gain an edge? I say this as I consider the option of sending my 7th grader to summer school to get h.s. on-level credits completed so they won't be computed in his high school gpa. I don't want to do it...but everyone else is. Kinda wishing to have my naivete back at this moment.</p>
<p>I think (just a theory) that UCSD liked that she did well in her college classes. But I don't make any claim to understanding the mysterious ways of the UC system!--just that it would make sense to me that might be the reason she got in.</p>
<p>What exactly was the point of the article? And since when do the UCs have a strict "ranking system"? </p>
<p>Meanwhile, there are more that a dozen California state universities, and probably another half dozen UCs or so that would have welcomed her with open arms, as well as 1,500 colleges and universities around the U.S., at the vast majority of which she could get a decent, and sometimes stellar, education. If she had the money to pay for it....</p>
<p>mini,mini,mini...you are missing the pov of the Times....</p>
<p>FYI: Maia is a regular CC poster (CecileMLDubois). Check out her posts and web site. You'll see how thrilled she is to have been admitted to UCSD.</p>
<p>
Obviously the kid DID have a reasonable shot at UCSD since she was admitted. </p>
<p>Since Santa Barbara has a 53% admission rate, compared to 39% for UCSD, it is more than reasonable for her to have applied there as well. </p>
<p>I'm tired of the test-obsession of people on this board -- the kid's pattern of weak SAT scores coupled with stronger SAT II's and good performance on AP's, and her strong performance in college-level language classes, suggest a very capable kid who doesn't test well, - coupled with a parent who encouraged her to pursue her own passions rather than playing the test-prep game.</p>
<p>calmom:</p>
<p>I agree with your point about test-obsession, but the gpa was real low for UCSD... a 3.2 in HS is Cal State fit.</p>
<p>this girl will struggle mightily, unless she takes it up a notch.</p>
<p>3.25 is not cal state fit.. i would say anything less than 3.0 = cal state fit...
remember, the 3.25 was UNWEIGHTED.</p>