<p>
[quote]
I don't even get the joke about "prostitute college".
[/quote]
It's a self-denigrating comment from a kid whose self-esteem was crushed. The idea is that she is so unworthy that she would end up in a college to train for the most demeaning occupation she could imagine. Kind of like, "Nobody loves me, everybody hates me, I think I'll go eat worms..."</p>
<p>Collegial:</p>
<p>I agree totally that community colleges are great for many people. CC's are the only way that some people can ever begin to make it thru college -- start there and then transfer to 4 year. They are often taught by people who work "in the real world" and who are able to bring necesary and valuable insight into the classroom which full-time profs sometimes can't do.</p>
<p>But.... I think you are taking the "prostitute college" thing too seriously. Remember, the mom was quoting an "off-hand" comment from a 16 year old who had just received a rejection. At that point, she felt that she couldn't get in anywhere.... Certainly, both know that women who end up in prostitution are abused, denigrated, and end up not being able to leave the 'business" even if they want to (altho I probably wouldn't call it a "twist of fate" as if it was something any one of us could wake up and find ourselves in.). Nevertheless, I doubt either women would hope that fate on anyone.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I don't even get the joke about "prostitute college". It's a horrible twist of fate when a woman becomes a prostitute, and why is it a joke, as if a prostitute really has a chance. Was she in "college" to learn about drug addiction and poverty?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I think we are getting a little too heavy on the PC here when we can't even make a joke a about going to college. Young Maia can speak for herself here about what she meant, but I didn't take it mean anything more than an exaggerated way of saying something similar to "bum college" or "hobo college". All of which are basically "no college". Jeez, give the kid a break.</p>
<p>So, xiggi, is this about your miserable language experience? :)</p>
<p>Collegialmom, I agree the "prostitute college" is a bad choice of word. Most people would get upset over it. Considering all the columns I read in variety of media recently, I am not shocked. But still ...</p>
<p>martie, do you think the UC admission still not arbitrary enough to puzzle people?</p>
<p>You mentioned that "My daughter struggles mightily in math, but is a science whiz." Please be really careful with this assumption when it is time to look for colleges. The link between physics and math is pretty obvious. However, sciences such as biology will also require a pretty significant chunk of math (statistics) for data analysis. Of course, one can work hard, and read ahead, and obtain tutoring ... just so one knows what one is getting into. I was extremely glad when my son dropped MIT from his list - too many wicked smart mathies.</p>
<p>Alwaysthere:</p>
<p>Yes, there is an element of arbitrariness in college admission, at least from the perspective of applicants and their families. Why is an oboist admitted one year and an oboist with equal stats, perhaps even stronger stats, is denied the following year? The answer might be that the orchestra needed only one oboist; but you and I would not know that. But--once Maia explained about her love of Russian and her preparation and accomplishments, I could see why an adcom would be willing to admit her. Based on her mom's article, I was baffled, as were folks from CA. I do think that articles like that should enlighten the public. I don't think that one did.</p>
<p>"I think we are getting a little too heavy on the PC here when we can't even make a joke a about going to college. Young Maia can speak for herself here about what she meant, but I didn't take it mean anything more than an exaggerated way of saying something similar to "bum college" or "hobo college". All of which are basically "no college". Jeez, give the kid a break."</p>
<p>The mom wrote it in a major publication. I think it was an arrogant article basically, and she put herself up for criticism, and dragged her rather clueless daughter into it. It was her idea to personalize her journalism and bring her daughter by name into it. She then has to go with it. Mom got the attention she desired. Personally, I wouldn't do that to my children.</p>
<p>"Twist of fate" yes, if you ever work in the poverty stricken inner-cities or rural areas, you will see that being born into many families leads to a future that often leads children to stay in that poverty. Such as "turining tricks" by age 14. This is not PC talking, it is reality.</p>
<p>"So, xiggi, is this about your miserable language experience? "</p>
<p>No, but it seemingly is about people enjoying to use the impunity of the web to hurl cheap insults at others and being too small-minded to recognize their mistakes. :(</p>
<p>Marite (re your post #120), Catherine's column included these remarks:
[quote]
We hoped that her tendency to get much better grades in after-school college classes she's now up to Russian IV at L.A. City College would count in her favor, as well as her initiative in seeking them out in the first place.... I was pleased that she got an 11 out of 12 both times on the test's new writing portion. Her SAT II scores were 700 for U.S. history and 630 for world history (not bad, considering she never took a world history class) ....She did do well on the two AP tests she took last year, getting a 4 on AP U.S. history and AP European history.
[/quote]
I think that's a fair way of showing that the kid had some good qualities to offset the weaknesses. As I have posted before the combined SAT scores were way more than sufficient for UC - the UC SAT averages are not anywhere near the level at elite privates. For example, Maia's ACT of 23 is actually within UCSD's midrange of 23-29 albeit at the low end; her verbal scores were well-within the expected range for Santa Barbara (midrange 520-640, ACT range 21-28). </p>
<p>I think actually the column does a great service because of its honesty. Five years ago when my son was searching for colleges I stumbled upon a forum like this one (CC didn't yet exist) where all the kids were posting stats -- it scared me off and I didn't come back until after my son was packed off and settled on a college campus. I honestly did not need the reality check on his 1440 SATs and National Merit status -- and since he was admitted at 8 of the 9 colleges he applied to, I have to say: neither did he. </p>
<p>In another thread a parent whose son has SATs 130 points higher than my daughter's posted a question about NYU, and a parent replied that the kid had little chance with his "middlin'" scores. I don't think I needed to reiterate every one of my daughter's strong points in order to counter with the news of her acceptance -- the fact is that the college admission process is about more than "stats". It IS somewhat arbitrary and it can be unpredictable -- but the whole point of the column is that all of us ordinary folks whose kids have solid-but-not-dazzling school records don't have to give up the ghost on college admissions, nor do we have to follow the presciptive paths laid out by the college admission counselors. It is very possible and very realistic for these kids to be admitted at well-regarded (but not necessarily elite) colleges and universities. </p>
<p>Quite frankly, the bar for admissions is not nearly as high as many portray it. The whole point is that colleges do look beyond GPAs and test scores and the number of AP courses racked up -- and it doesn't matter what Maia's particular strengths were or what formula UCSD used. The point is that she can get in, and so can a lot of others who are like her.</p>
<p>Calmom:</p>
<p>Many CA posters expressed surprise at the stats that were included in the article. They did not seem impressed by the Russian IV at LA City College. I don't know how that compares with a high school foreign language class or one at UCSD.
I was more concerned with the math scores. UCSD is known for its emphasis on science, in particular the biological sciences. I remain concerned.
But more to the point, what the article seemed to lead one to conclude was that admissions into the UC is totally arbitrary. Didn't get into UCSB but got into UCSD? Go figure. I got a better understanding of why Maia got into UCSD after reading and participating in this thread.</p>
<p>I came up with prostitute college a few years ago on my blog and still use it today...to describe anyplace of education worse than the worst community college. I don't mean to denigrate women who "work it" but unless anyone here is a prostitute, I really don't mean to offend anybody.
Again thanks for your support!</p>
<p>Maia,
I don't know if you caught my post earlier in this thread, but I think that describing prositute college as "worse than the worst community college" is something you might want to rethink, especially as you are so interested in languages. If you look at your statement the other way around, community college becomes one step better than prostitute college ... not at all what you had intended, of course. </p>
<p>Let me add my congratulations on your acceptance and wish you the best of luck at your wonderful school!</p>
<p>A few things: First, Xiggi will defend the honor of Claremont McKenna. Get used to it. And pay attention to what he really says, not what you assume he's saying. He's smarter than you know. Second, I think Maia has all the smarts she will need to do OK at UCSD, but she is a terrible test taker. Third, JLauer95 and Calmom are still clueless about the actual admissions prospects for most applicants to the more selective UC's. Guys - spend some time looking over the common data sets for those schools before assuming what qualifications it takes to get in. (And remember - most UC's have some scholarship athletes who bring down the averages.) Calmom, assuming you'll be admitted to a college where you barely peek above the 25th % in one of several categories, while falling far short of that mark in most others, is not actually a good game plan. UC admissions is highly (though not entirely) formula driven. Maia's Mom's cluelessness about that stuff is what almost sent Maia to prostitute college (which is funny.) Fourth, I'm surprised (in a good way) that UCSD found a way to game their own admissions system. I think they got the right answer - I'm just not sure how they did it, given their publicly disclosed point system for admission. Maybe they have a separate "we really want this kid anyway" category they just don't tell about. If so, somebody will raise a stink about it, you can be sure...</p>
<p>Marite --my point is that the California posters who expressed doubt or disdain are misinformed about the realities of UC admissions. I posted links to the published eligibility standards which make that clear. I know of many students who were rejected by UCSB but were accepted at supposedly more selective campuses, like UCSD. It isn't really haphazard -- its just a matter of understanding the admission process. UCSD gets a reputation of being hard to get into because it is desired by prospective science majors, so it is extremely competive for anyone who applies to those majors. Apparently it is not so hard for students applying for non-science majors -- in fact, my guess is that it is <em>less</em> competitive for students with a more artsy/humanities focus than a school like UCSB, which is probably overwhelmed with those types of students, but could use more science majors. </p>
<p>And it doesn't matter how tough the math & science courses are at a university for students who are majoring in arts & humanities. Those students never see the inside of a lab science lecture hall. </p>
<p>So to the extent that the column presents a point of view at odds with the posters here who are so dismissive of it, that's because the posters here are mistaken -- and the column presents the truth. It ought to be College Admissions 101 to know that admissions is always easier for under-represented groups. Catherine's article might have fallen short in terms of spelling that all out for the many who don't seem to get it -- but the intent of the article wasn't to provide college counseling.</p>
<p>
On the contrary, I'm quite adept at it. I have lots of experience with the UCs and know which kids got in where from my kids' respective high schools. So far my kids have been admitted to every UC campus they applied to, though we're still waiting on my d's application to UC Berkeley.
[quote]
Guys - spend some time looking over the common data sets for those schools before assuming what qualifications it takes to get in.
[/quote]
No, for the UC's you need to look at the data on the Pathways site and understand the comprehensive review process. CDS figures aren't very helpful because they don't reflect the way the UC's actually handle the information. For example, CDS reports SAT midrange, but in past years the UC's have been using a formula that assigned extra weight to the SAT II's.
[quote]
Calmom, assuming you'll be admitted to a college where you barely peek above the 25th % in one of several categories, while falling far short of that mark in most others, is not actually a good game plan.
[/quote]
Actually, Maia doesn't fall short in any of the categories that UC uses. UCSD admits 49% of applicants with SAT I Verbal scores in the 600-690 range, and 28% of those with scores in the 500-590 range. (Maia had 600V/500M) They admit 24% of those who are in the 500-590 range for math, and 15% of those in the 400-490 range. Source: <a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles/SanDiegoprofile.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles/SanDiegoprofile.pdf</a>
While that certainly is far from "sure thing" - they lead me to think that Maia's chances of admission would probably have been at least 1 in 4 based on test scores alone. Remember, as a Calif. resident she is entitled to admission to at least one UC campus, and despite the popular mythology, Riverside doesn't want everyone else's rejects.
[quote]
Maia's Mom's cluelessness about that stuff is what almost sent Maia to prostitute college (which is funny.)
[/quote]
Actually, there is no chance whatsoever that Maia would have had to forego a UC education - again, in California eligibility=guaranteed admission. Now obviously that could have meant Riverside or Merced, and perhaps Maia would have preferred a CSU or community colleges if it had come to that. But Maia definitely had a foot in the door.
[quote]
Fourth, I'm surprised (in a good way) that UCSD found a way to game their own admissions system. .
[/QUOTE]
They didn't. No where does it say that you have to have scores above the median in the common data set to get in. Of course, those of us who fare a little bit better in math can figure out that 25% of university admittees have test scores that are below the middle 50% score range. A 1 in 4 chance is a <em>reach</em> - it is not impossible.</p>
<p>(Warning: Now that my test-challenged daughter has been admitted to NYU with below-25th percentile SAT scores, I am really going to be insufferable on this point. I thought she had a good shot at NYU and it turned out I was right.)</p>
<p>Calmom--Just a little quibble--I thought that last year there were not enough spaces for all UC eligible freshmen. Am I not remembering right? I think I remember something like 3000 or so eligible kids not getting a space at a UC last year (or perhaps two years ago?). If I recall, those kids were told they would have to wait to get in, go elsewhere in the meantime. Anyway, the news made me think it is not an absolutely sure thing, admission to a UC, anymore, as the eligible population increases. Still though, the vast majority of eligible kids got in somewhere, even at that. But, I get your point--that <em>a lot</em> of kids with scores below the median get into the UC's, not their first choice, perhaps, but into the UC system somewhere.</p>
<p>Here's my prostitute story.</p>
<p>I was in a board hearing at a midwestern state capital, having recently moved from New York. We listed our firm under 'Architects' in the yellow pages though our new state registration was incomplete at the time. The board registration took exception and asked that we come down to the capital to explain it. We invited our attorneys, just in case. I wore my pearls. I was a 34 year old mother of two at the time.</p>
<p>For whatever reason, the chief muckety-muck was most upset about our transgression. We explained (in a nice midwestern manner, as advised by our attorneys) that we were, in fact, professional, registered archtiects. When we registered our new business phone, we naturally asked the phone company to list the firm name under 'architects'. Made sense to us. Nothing sinister intended. We advised everyone that our new state registration was pending.</p>
<p>The mucketly muck woman leapt from her seat and stormed around the table with a phone book in her hand. "And", she said with a sneering tone, "If you were a prostitute, would you list yourself under P for prostitute?"</p>
<p>Huh? <em>cheers looks to attorneys to verify whether she really heard this statement in a recorded state meeting</em></p>
<p>There was mild guffawing from the rest of the state committee. Suddenly, biz, bang, boom!! We were glad-handed and patted by 10 seriously apologetic and nervous board members.</p>
<p>
Mstee, it was the year before, and they created a special guaranteed path to the UCs via the community colleges -- but that program didn't work out, so they have dropped that and are back to guaranteeing spaces for everyone. I think that the opening of the Merced campus created enough extra space so that they can accomodate everyone - it was only a relatively small number who were turned away in 2004. Plus they are raising the minimum GPA for in-state eligibility to 3.0 effective next year -- this year's crop can still get in with a 2.8 -- although because lower GPAs need higher SATs to counter-balance everything, I don't think there are that many in the under 3.0 who qualify in any event.</p>
<p>OK, I promised in post #135 that I was going to be insufferable, and here goes:</p>
<p>While I was busy debating all day on this thread, it completely slipped my mind to check the mail, believe it or not. The mail is dropped thorugh a slot in the garage door, and around midnight I went to check -- and there was a big FAT Priority Mail envelope bearing the new that my d. has been ADMITTED to fBarnard. </p>
<p>My daughter's <em>stats</em> are this:
ACT: 29
AP Eng Language 4, Psych 5
SAT 620CR, 580M, 730 Writing
SAT II - Lit 690, Bio 520, US Hist 520<br>
(She did not submit SATs to private colleges for obvious reasons - she took the Bio exam at the end of 9th grade and had not taken history at the time she took the exam, a remnant of her skewed scheduling from her foreign exchange. The UCs did get the SATs and she has been admitted to Santa Barbara & Santa Cruz, waiting on Berkeley)</p>
<p>She is within the top 5 students in a class of ~150. She has completed one semester of one AP class, and is currently enrolled in 3 APs. Several more honors classes. GPA unweighted around 3.8, weighted around 4.2. Good grades, but no math beyond Algebra II. She dances and she went to Russia, which is what screwed up her schedule and made her miss out on all the APs she was supposed to have been taking along the way. Very nice essay, great recs, and she apparently had a dynamite interview when she visited Barnard last fall. </p>
<p>[I have never stooped to posting one of my kid's "stats" before, but I admire Catherine & Maia for their candor, and I think its time for a little myth busting.]</p>
<p>At least one professional admissions counselor advised us that we should not bother applying to Barnard with SATs under 1400. </p>
<p>So yes. We are "clueless" about admissions and like Catherine & Maia we can't manage to play by the rules and we have totally unreasonable expectations. False sense of entitlement and all that. Still can't figure out why I even let my d. apply to all these reach colleges. </p>
<p>We still have yet to see a rejection letter, though d. has been waitlisted at Brandeis & Boston U., and was deferred EA from Chicago. </p>
<p>Anyway: to those who resent the idea of a below 25th percentile SAT kid getting into elite colleges, I apologize. By the way, we are white and both parents are college educated with law degrees, and d. has never played a competitive sport. So face it: the kid simply got admitted because she did a good job of conveying her strengths and talents in her apps, and the ad com liked her.</p>
<p>Oh, calmom, I was so happy to see this! Congratulations on your daughter's wonderful news. And - thanks for posting her stats and background info - it gives us all something to think about.</p>