ucsd point system unfair?

<p>Does anyone find that giving 300 points for people who participated in academic development preparation programs unfair? At my school, you have a choice of taking AVID, the academic development program, or taking an additionally AP. Taking another AP will only increase your gpa by 0.1 if you get an A in it, which is no way near the 300 point boast that these students get. Additionally, the factors: Low family income, First generation college attendance, and educational environment add 900 points, or a 0.9 gpa bonus to your application if you qualify for all categories. I don't qualify for any of the 1200 additionally points, but I have a 4.2 UC gpa, and a 2130 sat. Isn't it unfair that a person with a 3.0 gpa can catch up to me in points under the admission system? I don't know my admission status yet, but the point system definitely makes me nervous.</p>

<p>Virtually every college in the US practices some form of affirmative action or preference to socially engineer the incoming class. Whether it is types of people (leadership and volunteerism), economic hardship, or talent, admissions to colleges is not a strict ranking by academic achievement or even potential to succeed. </p>

<p>UCSD tells you how they do this. Most do not. The results are the same.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If everyone has the choice I don’t see what’s unfair about it. Seems like you made the wrong decision if you took the AP class which as you admit will get you nowhere near the 300 points AVID would have gotten you.</p>

<p>It only gets less and less “fair” from here. As the applicant pools get smaller and smaller, there arise more chances for nepotism / favoritism / connections getting people through doors they might not otherwise be qualified for. You’ll soon learn that networking is an invaluable tool for advancing in any field.</p>

<p>In the meantime, just focus on preparing yourself to the best of your abilities. It’s really not worth your time or energy to worry about other people.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah, all of those factors shouldn’t matter at all…</p>

<p>If you only knew the B.S. people who have low family income, and craptastic schools have to put up with, you’d be thanking your lucky stars you were lucky enough to be born into a family that can not only afford to send you to school, but also allow for you to focus on your studies. Rather than lets say, work to help support your family…</p>

<p>By the way, Affirmative Action has been dead in the water for quite a few years. Overprivileged cry babies like yourself saw to that. Why don’t I hear you cry fowl of the legacy admits? Or for that matter, the student athletes? I’m sure they don’t have your stats, but you still choose to single out those who have had the least opportunities in life.</p>

<p>You my friend, are everything that is wrong with America.</p>

<p>“If you only knew the B.S. people who have low family income, and craptastic schools have to put up with, you’d be thanking your lucky stars you were lucky enough to be born into a family that can not only afford to send you to school, but also allow for you to focus on your studies. Rather than lets say, work to help support your family…”</p>

<p>And so what? Your attacks aim to inspire guilt of living in an “overpriveleged” world without addressing the actual issue. Accepting underpriveleged people into the UC system will not magically solve all the problems in the world. Your claims would be valid if there were no other way for these people to get into an institution of higher education-- however there are the CSU’s and community colleges which are cheaper, but at the same time do not cheapen the college experience that one may have at a UC.</p>

<p>Accepting people on an economic basis is also based on the assumption that we as students are only the product of a lucky gamble judged only by money. In other words, we must “overcompensate” those born in an underpriveleged society without realizing that those born in an “overpriveleged” may or may not feel other more or less emotional or physical burdens which may or may not be as detrimental as being born in an low-income family. And that is why we have the essay section of the application- to explain potential life problems one may have experienced during one’s high school years whether the reason is economical or emotional. I personally believe there is more merit in saying I learned and became stronger from my experiences rather than “be sympathetic because I’m poor.”</p>

<p>Your arguments about student athletes and legacy are invalid because as far as I know no UCSD student has been accepted upon that basis.</p>

<p>The UC’s are an excellent institution because of its academic merit. All students who apply should be based on a fair system which seeks those interested in academia, and especially research. It has the responsibility to accept the best of students to maintain those high standards, and as far as I know does not practice nepotism, connections, or anything of that sort. At the same time it is not the “save all” solution. Not getting in will not kill you.</p>

<p>“Your arguments about student athletes and legacy are invalid because as far as I know no UCSD student has been accepted upon that basis.”</p>

<p>I am one of them.</p>

<p>If you’re mad about this, you should see some of the post-grad program screenings</p>

<p>Like all the pre-med post-bacc’s that require minority or low SES for admissions</p>

<p>And I honestly believe the caveat is that if you’re a marginally admitted student, you may be able to flourish more by a slightly less competitive school (i.e., Irvine, Davis, SB), though that assumption isn’t necessarily valid. One’s impression about themselves and their ‘fit’ at a school largely depends on their social comparisons–whether they’re upward or downward. Those with the preconceived notions that they don’t belong are prone to the confirmation bias; this can potentially and usually predicts that it will discourage a student’s academic motivation when they place greater emphasis on failures and/or mediocrity rather than achievements. However, at schools where a student more adequately feels like he or she is among peers, that fallacy doesn’t tend to develop as frequently, and rather, the opposite happens (i.e., demand characteristics of being the ‘smart one’).</p>

<p>Anyway, all this is just rambling and it’s all based on various theories of social dynamics of motivation. Maybe it’ll shed some light on some people’s opinions.</p>

<p>

If you had done any research on the subject, you’d see that method employed by UCSD has the highest efficacy for social mobility than any other. It turns out that the people who benefit most from an “elite” education are those of lower SES standing. Not the middle class, and for damn sure not the upper class. </p>

<p>What you’re essentially asking for is sending underpriveleged kids to unranked schools because you don’t agree that they should be given an equal chance as those kids (like yourself I would assume) who’ve never known what it is to truly struggle. No, I don’t mean struggling in the sense that you had to try hard to pass a class; I mean it in the sense that you need to take on a full time job because your family can’t make rent.</p>

<p>“Accepting people on an economic basis is also based on the assumption that we as students are only the product of a lucky gamble judged only by money.”</p>

<p>Turns out it is. Based on personal experience, the level of mediocrity I find in the students from middle class and upper class families is overwhelming. Despite all your advantages, you can barely keep pace with the poor (and sometimes foreign), motivated students who got here on their own merit, and because someone decided to give them a break. You are no smarter than they are.</p>

<p>Fact of the matter is, social mobility can most readily be achieved by attending “elite” schools as it helps to ensure the future prospects of its students are as good as they can be. Since I take it you’ve never attended a UC before, I’m gonna assume your obvious lack of knowledge of the conditions on campus are based entirely upon that fact. Let me be the first to tell you that it’s far from the idyllic picture you’ve formulated in your head.</p>

<p>

I agree. I hope you remember those words next time when some poor kid, or under represented minority takes your spot at your first choice school. They could use it a hell of a lot more then you ever could.</p>

<p>Wow, UC Transfer, you need to calm down. You are hardly keeping the civility of the discussion by calling runnerkid “everything that is wrong with America.” First of all, AVID wasn’t at either of the two high schools I went to, of which both are in CA. Would you still call that fair sstory? Furthermore, I shouldn’t have to choose between a path that will help me get into college and a path that will advance me academically; they should be one in the same. How does AVID prepare students for college better than the AP’s?</p>

<p>UC Transfer, why do you act like someone from a poor family is more deserving than someone from a rich family? True equality would mean that they are equally deserving (based solely on economic background). Why does having to help support the family make someone more deserving than someone who doesn’t? Sure it might build character, but then the character might be there in the rich person too, and the poor working student might still not build much character; you simply do not know. That is why you cannot generalize to the entire poor or rich population. I know someone from a family that earns $300,000-$400,000 a year but he has to pay for his car, insurance, and gas so he works 15-20 hours a week. I also know people who did qualify for that extra 300 pts and some of them have never had a job. So if you are trying to make an argument that somehow poor people are more deserving because they have to work or have better character or some other such argument, it doesn’t work. It is possible for rich students to put up with as much or more “B.S.” that poor students so let’s not create a policy that gives a leg up to the poor on the assumption that they are all more deserving. Of course, this is all predicated on the assumption that work or character building/hardships should be considered as much as it is in undergrad admissions; maybe it shouldn’t matter all that much for admission to academic programs. If you are going to really consider such criteria, it should be done on an individual basis (i.e. how many hours/wk did the student work) and not on blanket assumptions about all families earning a certain amount of money every year. </p>

<p>“By the way, Affirmative Action has been dead in the water for quite a few years. Overprivileged cry babies like yourself saw to that. Why don’t I hear you cry fowl of the legacy admits? Or for that matter, the student athletes? I’m sure they don’t have your stats, but you still choose to single out those who have had the least opportunities in life.”</p>

<p>Yes it is true that the affirmative action that is outlined in prop 206 (quotas and reac-based considerations) has been dead for a little while now, but affirmative action is being kept alive these policies in some form. But that hardly matters with regard to whether these policies are fair and should be implemented. Runnerkid did not mention legacies or athletes because the UCSD does not have legacy pts and it wasn’t posted that athletes get admissions help (on the pts sheet that is). I also think that those policies are unfair and should be done away with so do not act like we are the inconsistent ones. </p>

<p>“What you’re essentially asking for is sending underpriveleged kids to unranked schools because you don’t agree that they should be given an equal chance as those kids (like yourself I would assume) who’ve never known what it is to truly struggle. No, I don’t mean struggling in the sense that you had to try hard to pass a class; I mean it in the sense that you need to take on a full time job because your family can’t make rent.”</p>

<p>How is it that runnerkid is saying that all underprivileged kids should bee sent to unranked schools? Are you saying that if underprivileged kids were not given pts just for being poor or going to underperforming schools they could not compete with students from the middle and upper classes? That they could not get the same grades or also do well on the SAT. And, that all of a sudden, if these pts were not given, poor students could not get into top 100 schools. If these pts were not given there would not be a mass exodus of poor students from top colleges. </p>

<p>“If you had done any research on the subject, you’d see that method employed by UCSD has the highest efficacy for social mobility than any other. It turns out that the people who benefit most from an “elite” education are those of lower SES standing. Not the middle class, and for damn sure not the upper class.”</p>

<p>It is true that UCSD does very well in creating social mobility. But trying to fix social inequality by flipping the inequality in the opposite direction is a pretty stupid and ineffectual. Wouldn’t it be better to try to extinguish the inequalities rather than trade off who gets advantages? It should be the case that inequalities in primary and secondary schools were actually solved rather than waiting until students are applying for college; get the educational gap at its root. And lower the cost of attending college so that families of the poor and middle classes do not have to suffer the severe price tag. Also increase the standard of living so that no student has to put work before school with free health care and day care and higher minimum wages. These social changes should take place via our governments, not our academic institutions. </p>

<p>“Turns out it is. Based on personal experience, the level of mediocrity I find in the students from middle class and upper class families is overwhelming. Despite all your advantages, you can barely keep pace with the poor (and sometimes foreign), motivated students who got here on their own merit, and because someone decided to give them a break. You are no smarter than they are.”</p>

<p>No one said anything about anyone being smarter than anyone else. If the middle and upper classes produce students who are mediocre, can barely keep pace with the poor, and are no smarter than poor students then why are these extra pts so necessary? What makes you think that there aren’t smart, motivated students in the middle and upper classes that are also deserving, yet just because their parents earn more than $60,000 a year, did not participate in AVID, or their parents did go to college they are not as deserving of a good education as someone who is poor. So students should be discriminated against just because they were born into a family that alreeady had college graduates? What kind of advantage is that? At least you can say that rich people (no, not even the middle class) have the advantages of being able to send their kids to collegee prep academies and $1,000 SAT prep classes. But what if a rich family does not take advantage of its wealth, then there are no inequalities to be compensated for, should we still compensate (discriminate) against them by giving pts to other people just because of their economic status?</p>

<p>“In the meantime, just focus on preparing yourself to the best of your abilities. It’s really not worth your time or energy to worry about other people.”</p>

<p>It is certainly worth anyone’s time to point out an injustice. Runnerkid has every right to complain about a wrong and people should not try to quiet him by saying that he shouldn’t worry about it, that it is not going to change, or that every college does it.</p>

<p>You guys should join forces and talk about the UCLA holistic admissions injustice done to the economically disadvantaged vietnamese students.</p>

<p>bummmmp…</p>

<p>Life isn’t fair. As others have said, a transparent points system is better than having a school review “holistically” and just employ their own clandestine system which rewards the exact same thing. </p>

<p>Affirmative action is and always will be a touchy political topic. The ones who benefit from it like it while the over-represented middle-class people [especially parents] don’t, just like any other social-balancing system. With college admissions, it unfortunately is a zero-sum game where one person winning means another person missing out, which just magnifies the antagonism.</p>

<p>Like it or not, having affirmative action equalizes opportunity for the underprivileged much moreso than doing absolutely nothing. I personally don’t like it since I’m not a beneficiary of it but I accept it for what it is because even a marginally-successful attempt at fairness is better than none at all.</p>

<p>Really not sure why candy299 felt a need to bump this without adding his/her own opinion on the matter. This isn’t something that’s going to be settled here and what is said will have no impression on whether UCSD Admissions will continue using this system. Leave the content-less bumps for questions pertaining to UCSD questions, not a thread on Affirmative Action. I’m sure you can find those in more fitting sub-forums on CC.</p>

<p>Runnerkid has a very civil post and made none of these generalities that he is being accused of. Transferboy comes in and acts like his head is going to explode. </p>

<p>This is a topic that is extremely debatable… Will it really get the poor on their feet and eliminate poverty? Do all of those that benefit from AA really deserve the extra points? </p>

<p>Although admittedly biased towards a reform of the system, I see very good arguments on both sides of the AA case. There certainly is no ‘right’ answer, as Transfer is implying. </p>

<p>How do I look at it? Life is not fair. Some will benefit when they should not, and some get punished just because they are ‘privileged.’ I do think there should be some sort of a way to help the socioeconomic class get a hand in life, but the system as it stands, like a poster above mentioned, makes a blanket statement that all less wealthy or less privileged students should get nothing short of a free ride to a top 50 University.</p>

<p>For better or worse, we have a system that is set up to fulfill multiple societal and university values. It has the virtue of being transparent, appeal-able and honest. You know the score-sheet up front. There is no cause for complaint. If you don’t like it, go to another university which has a system that favors you (or which you think favors you).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>+1 (ten characters)</p>

<p>“The system as it stands … makes a blanket statement that all less wealthy or less privileged students should get nothing short of a free ride to a top 50 University.”</p>

<p>I don’t think that’s a fair statement to make. The point system set up the way it is allows for a variety of ways to make it to the admission number. If you have the academic numbers, you don’t need to qualify for any of them to get in.</p>

<p>In addition, no one is getting a free ride here. Unless you’re someone who had to deal with a rough family environment and work to support your family while balancing school work, there’s no way you can judge the fairness of the matter. Consider how you are likely getting points for participating in volunteer groups such as the Boy Scouts and such. How many disadvantaged applicants out there who have to take care of their siblings while their parents are at work are going to have the time to go out and volunteer and earn those volunteer hour points too? The point here is that the point system is there partially to account for the academic achievement that is presumably lost due to the demands of socio-economic challenges.</p>

<p>“Runnerkid has a very civil post and made none of these generalities that he is being accused of.”</p>

<p>I’d have to disagree with you on this. RunnerKid’s post is pretty clear in asserting that points for socio-economic factors is unfair. UC<em>Transfer has presumably overcome the challenges he has faced to do well and is obviously taking it personally. I’m not trying to justify his personal attacks, but RunnerKid ignores the reasoning behind the point system the way it is. It’s hard to judge what someone’s social-economic challenges are if you haven’t lived through them, so dismissing them without considering seems a bit careless to me. That’s what UC</em>Transfer is taking offense to, a person whose financial worries were less about paying the rent, and more about how they would get their parents to pay for that spiffy new shirt or a nice vacation to Europe. </p>

<p>I think the main thing that a lot of people miss is that the system is not about absolute equality meaning fairness in admissions. The system is structured in such a way to provide equality of Opportunity. The question you should be asking to “Whether the method of distributing points is providing a more equal opportunity to all applicants than if points were given for quantitatively-measure academic factors?” Also keep in mind that the GPA at one school will be different from the same GPA at another, which accounts for the “Educational Environment” points.</p>

<p>We all know people who got into better schools than us because of reasons outside of the academic. I admit to being abrasive about the matter at the time, but after the initial shock of it wears off and you examine the matter a bit more fairly, there comes a realization that had you lived through the same scenario, it is unlikely that you would have performed the same way in both the academically and extra-curricular categories. </p>

<p>So until you can come up with constructive criticism which offers ways of making the system more capable of providing equal opportunity, I don’t think there’s a point bemoaning the fundamental unfairness of college admissions.</p>

<p>UC_Transfer said everything perfectly. We should close the thread. </p>

<p>@UC_Transfer: If you only knew the B.S. people who have low family income, and craptastic schools have to put up with, you’d be thanking your lucky stars you were lucky enough to be born into a family that can not only afford to send you to school, but also allow for you to focus on your studies. Rather than lets say, work to help support your family…</p>

<p>By the way, Affirmative Action has been dead in the water for quite a few years. Overprivileged cry babies like yourself saw to that. Why don’t I hear you cry fowl of the legacy admits?</p>

<p>(fyi guys - it’s “cry foul” - not talking about birds here)</p>

<p>UCSD has legacy admits? the closest thing i can think of is having near-guaranteed entrance if you have a parent working at the school.</p>

<p>im confused does taking classes at a community colllege qualify as a college preparation program?
please private message me for the answer thanks</p>