Is it possible that an application our children spend years preparing for and weeks working on is evaluated by someone who is paid $2.57 per application (at the 1000 application rate)? How much effort do you think YOU would put into it for less than three bucks?
Maybe I am misinterpreting this? See this link:
That is true. It’s an unfortunate reality we must face.
Did they hire these people off the EDD unemployment line and train for one day to become professional readers?
My son got into UCLA, UCSD, UCD, UCSC and was rejected in UCI.
I think many of the application readers are qualified individuals who work in the college app industry. At my children’s school, two of the high school college counsellor’s read for a UC. One for Berkeley and one for UCLA. Reading college apps, helps counsellors know what the school is looking for in applicants, What is a great essay, what activities are valued, GPA / curriculum norm of admitted. These individuals of course do not read our school’s apps. Our school over the past few years has gotten students into the UC system each year. Not many apply since we are out of state. This year so far I know at least 2 have gotten into UCLA. Over the past four years as of last year’s apps(Fall 2021 start), the school has had about a 33% admit rate to UCLA and UCB. I think the school’s success rate has been influenced by having counsellor’s who know how the UC app will be evaluated. It helps at least with the essays or guiding students in course selection / activities early on.
Agree.
Time to add a 3rd ML reader
Agreed. Being an AO is not easy. No system is fair and objective. The current UC process certainly isn’t. Kids (and parents) should not tie their self-worth to the college that accepts or rejects them, although that’s easier said than done. I know kids with close to 4.0 GPA (raw) from somewhat grade-inflated private schools with ACT scores of around 30 who got into UCLA & UCSD, but those with slightly lower raw GPAs and ACT/SAT scores of 34-36/1540+ who got rejected or WL by these schools for similar majors. In terms of sheer intellectual capabilities the latter group is superior based on my personal interactions. But you can’t complain, given the sheer volume of applications and the lack of standardized methods of evaluating applicants. It is what it is. Besides going to UCLA doesn’t guarantee success, nor does going to UCD or UCSB condemn a student to mediocrity.
My daughter never received a B. 4.0 UW, 4.73 weighted. 3 AP/IB in Calc, Bio, Physics, CS, English/, Social Science (History, Geography, Env Sci); 2 years of band; 2 AP econ (Micro, Macro); 3 years of Spanish (1 AP, 2 Honors). 1 Pre Calc Honors, 1 Chemistry Honors; 2 IB TOK. 1560 SAT. CS Applicant. Rejected UCLA, GTech, MIT; Accepted UCSD, UIUC, Purdue.
Data point for next year: my OOS children (‘20 and ‘22) both received Alumni Scholarship email. Both denied admission. UCLA was a long shot for each, they filled out UC application for other UCs (and were admitted to other campuses ‘20 to UCSB and UCI and ‘22 to Davis and waiting on UCSB) so they added UCLA because application was complete and why not?
I wanted to help confirm that alumni scholarship email is not good predictor of admission.
Do you think UCLA did yield protection this year?
UC’s do not yield protect since they do not consider an applicants level of interest and they do not offer ED/EA/ED2/SCEA or REA.
All schools will yield manage, they want to avoid over enrollment so they rely on the waitlist for that purpose.
With 149,779 applicants this year, they could fill their Freshman class 10 time over with highly qualified top notch students. Each UC will select students that fit their institutional need with no regard to what other UC campuses decide.
I would add that public universities are extremely aware of the public pressure to provide educational opportunities to state residents and taxpayers. That is a much bigger concern than trying to inflate their US News ranking by using yield protection.
Engaging in yield protection by turning away more uber-qualified students they suspect will enroll elsewhere would only lead to more bad publicity and citizen outrage — something I am sure they do not want.
Just because a student with 8 APs got in and one with 15 APs did not does not mean there was yield protection. Even if all other factors are exactly the same (high school, gender, ECs, major, etc.), you might have different sets of readers evaluate each student’s PIQs and one set of readers is a harder grader than the other. Holistic review is not that precise, particularly when there are 10-20 qualified applicants for each available spot.
I know some people hate the tests… But I would prefer if the UC schools still looked at ACT or SAT scores
Are you questioning the integrity of public school kids who suffered being out of school and had to work HARDER, teaching themselves concepts while suffering in isolation? My kid doesn’t cheat. That’s the reality.
I would note that you can’t cheat your way to 4s and 5s on AP tests, either.
My non-cheating public school student essentially had to teach herself 6 AP courses during remote schooling, then take the same AP tests alongside the private school kids who had the advantage of intensive in-person private school instruction all year. But somehow it is the public school kids who are suspect and undeserving?
D1 accepted.
D2 accepted.
D3 waitlisted.
Congratulations to all accepted students.
Best of luck to all UCB and UCSB applicants.
I would too! And this article raises interesting questions: Commentary: What's less fair than the SAT? You might be surprised
Any insight about how they are handling Regents Scholarships this year, since they didn’t send out invitations to apply in Feb? Do you think they will send out invites now? Or just make awards based on the application on file?
Wondering about the same thing. Considering how late it is, I would think it makes sense to just send out the awards at this point and not go through the application process. Just a guess.
