<p>Especially other UCs, but any others?
<a href="http://alumni.ucsd.edu/magazine/vol1no2/features/admissions.htm%5B/url%5D">http://alumni.ucsd.edu/magazine/vol1no2/features/admissions.htm</a></p>
<p>The link won't work. After magazine/, it should be this... vol1no2/features/admissions.htm</p>
<p>very interesting</p>
<p>I knew most of the UCs bend over backwards to take under priviledged kids. I didn't realize how much. If I knew, I would have saved the app fee on my daughter's application.</p>
<p>How UC Davis selects its class?<a href="http://why.ucdavis.edu/admissions/froshAppCritSelProc.cfm%5B/url%5D">http://why.ucdavis.edu/admissions/froshAppCritSelProc.cfm</a></p>
<p>Bitter, Dstark? Or is it just the 'net's inability to convey nuance? With the great majority of the factors being straightforward "grades and SATs" it looks like a pretty fair system to me. A SAT-prepped, professionally tutored class president who is an outstanding oboe player gets the same "thumb on the scales" as a kid from a low income family with no previous college graduates in the family with the same grades and test scores. Unless you want to make it a straightforward tests 'n grades standard I'm not sure I could do better.
My son didn't get into the UC of his choice either, but that's life. I like the fact that you should be able to tell where you stand in this system.</p>
<p>I think all the UCs should publicize the selection process like San Diego does. I'm not bitter. I would have saved the app fee however.<br>
I'm not sure the UCSD criteria is totally fair to the families who aren't low income.
If I'm a 3.9 gpa student with an average score of 750 on the SAT tests (non-prepped), I can lose out to a person from a low income family that has a 3.5 gpa and (650 average scores). The low income person can pick up 900 points I can't get, plus more for the enrichment programs I can't take. That's a lot of points. I'm not sure that is equitable. It looks to me like the middle class gets screwed again.</p>
<p>The middle class in California have made out like bandits for a good long time. They get to purchase real estate that rises in value unlike any other and than not have it considered as an asset when paying for a UC. When are the low income to get the opportunity to break into the California largess? Getting to attend a UC seems to be a good place. If my child attends a strong school and garners a 750 and a child from Watts gets a 650, who should get the UC seat? Frankly I can tap into my home equity and send my 750 child to a private school. California, when you consider the breaks the middle class and wealthy get just from real estate, owes the under class.</p>
<p>kirmum, What is the highest income level you can reach and still get financial aid from the UCs? I didn't know that purchasing real estate was a gift to the middle class. I didn't know the middle class gets to purchase real estate that rises in value unlike any other. Do you think the middle class is buying a lot of real estate at today's prices?</p>
<p>Yes, because the middle class had bought real estate in CA for 100 plus years and it's passed down allowing the next generation to buy up. Anyone who has lived in a middle class CA home for more than 15 years is very likely to own expensive real estate. CA is the only State in which it's typical to make $80K/yr and own a million in real estate. Unheard of in most States, yet the UCs are among the rare State schools that do not count real estate as an asset! The lower middle class and poor benefit from none of this. The schools their children attend are so poor that a 650 SAT is a miracle. We need some equity in this State and comprehensive review is a good step at UCs as far as I'm concerned.</p>
<p>Kirmum, By the way, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, and UCSD do favor the lower classes so you should be happy. In 2001, 36 % of the Berkeley students received Pell Grants. I believe this is the most of any top school. <a href="http://www.jbhe.com/features/41_PellGrant_IvyLeague.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.jbhe.com/features/41_PellGrant_IvyLeague.html</a></p>
<p>I think the system is excellent. Far and away academics is the criteria, with other factors related to trying circumstances being a slight tip factor--which won't work if the applicant is not very qualified academically.</p>
<p>Personally I was surprised the "tip" was that low. 1400 points possible for the most disadvantaged and challenged out of 11,100 ? Didn't sound that bad to me.Yet.</p>
<p>How do you do the blue link thing?</p>
<p>Here's UCLA's:
<a href="http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/FrSel.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/FrSel.htm</a></p>
<p>Anyway, I went to it specifically because I wanted to know if there was a continuity between last yrs' and this year's for this campus. (I found no similarity between the 2 years.) Last yr's was very specific about the typical freshman profile; I found it very helpful as a benchmark for the kinds of qualification standards to expect. ("The typical admitted freshman has....") In fact, I referred a number of college-aspiring families to it. This year's is, i.m.o., a giant CYA if ever there was one.</p>
<p>I'm a UC alum, & I'm disgusted with the way that the whole University-wide system has become a self-conscious, apologetic exercise in "inclusion" in a way that actually mirrors a caste system, ironically. I don't know about the "middle class," but it is clear that the group most being <em>ex</em>cluded from UC is the high-middle group of majority ethnicity. If you are an Anglo Caucasian or non-first-generation Asian with a solid academic record of between 3.2 and 3.8 uw GPA + respectable e.c.'s & strong recs, one of your biggest challenges in life will be admission to one of the 3 big UCs, regardless of your CA residency. This group is largely locked out of UC unless your circumstances are quite unusual or you are an athletic recruit. It will actually be easier for you to get admitted to a selective private college in any state. In most states, were you a resident of that State you would also be admitted more easily to its own University system with the exact same record as above.</p>
<p>This is not about personal bitterness. I was admitted & attended UC in an ethnic-blind system based on merit & capacity to tackle the curriculum as successfully as all the others admitted. I just feel for the many I know who have been rejected over students with far less achievement & who have yet to prove in their lives that they are capable of more than 2.0-2.5 high school (non-Honor/non-AP) GPAs. </p>
<p>Do I think that "life challenges" should count for something? You bet. They indeed should be rewarded, but the reward should not be admission to UC if the applicant's record is not up to standard for UC. But if the applicant can do the work (has proven that from the h.s. record), admit him/her & reward them with a merit scholarship. (Social/moral merit)</p>
<p>A resident of a State should be entitled to attend (or compete for attendance to) the highest level of public college that he/she has shown the ability to meet. For a senior with "C's," that will be either a community college or a "State" college. At whatever moment that student proves able to manage UC's curriculum, he or she should be able to compete for transfer into the system.</p>
<p>In the last 35 yrs. the University of California has managed to thoroughly transform itself from an institution with an academic & research agenda to one with a political & social agenda. In my opinion, that transformation serves no class of people & no ethnicity. The result has been a desperate (recent) realization on the part of UC that it is losing its former academic greatness: hence, the implementation of the super-caste system known as ELC. (My daughter is an ELC but will most likely attend an East Coast college.)</p>
<p>Sorry for the rant: It's probably really my late parents speaking through me; U.C. alums they were, & have been turning in their graves for awhile over the state of their alma mater.</p>
<p>(Didn't mean "strong recs"; meant strong scores. UC does not use teacher recs.)</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>"I just feel for the many I know who have been rejected over students with far less achievement & who have yet to prove in their lives that they are capable of more than 2.0-2.5 high school (non-Honor/non-AP) GPAs."</p>
<p>Uh, epi - students with a H.S. gpa below 3.0 aren't even eligible to apply to UC. (Was 2.8 last year.) I think there's a lot of misinformation out there about who gets in and what the standards are at UC. The very small thumb on the scales for lower income, first generation, etc. applicants seems very reasonable to me. If you consider that, as a state funded school, UC should try to "reward" the students with the most promise and demonstrated ability, it makes sense to include an adjustment for factors which skew your basic standards (i.e. test scores and grades.) A first generation college applicant from a lower income background with the same basic promise and ability as, say, my kids, will likely score lower on standardized tests than mine will. My kids have the option to take an SAT prep course - not all kids do. My kids have access to the internet 24/7, and college graduate parents who know something about the subjects they study in school - and not all do. If you don't include a factor to address that you are actually skewing the standards against poor kids.</p>
<p>kluge, apparently we just have diff. info sources as to the bar for admission of CA res's who are also minorities. And as to a 2.8 GPA, in no way & for no reason do I consider this an acceptable standard for the University of California at Berkeley or Los Angeles. Aspiring students have an opportunity to prove themselves in another venue, i.m.o. </p>
<p>Oh, and my D did no have an opportunity for private SAT prep, etc. She got into an Ivy on her own merits & with her own efforts, & same for ELC.</p>
<p>Epiphany, of the 8800 students accepted to UC Berkeley last year, including scholarship athletes, exactly 72 had high school GPA's below 3.3. (And my guess is that the majority of those 72 are in San Diego right now suiting up for the Holiday Bowl.) For UCLA the numbers are 10,500 and 87. Over 75% of the students admitted to both schools have a GPA over 4.0. My "source" is the admissions statistics issued by UC itself. Your "source" appears to be inacurate gossip - nobody, let me repeat, nobody gets into any UC with a 2.5 GPA, and nobody gets into Berkeley or UCLA without (a) stellar grades and test scores or (b) a compensating non-academic talent (like being a nationaly recruited athlete.) If you think otherwise you've been misled.<br>
My congratulations to your daughter. My son was "UC eligible" last year by a wide margin but not Berkeley or UCLA level by any means and he didn't get accepted at any of the UC's he was interested in. I'm not complaining, and don't hold it against anyone who did. He wasn't cheated, and I don't think the UC admissions process at any of the campuses is unfair, even if we were disappointed by the outcome.</p>
<p>Kluge,
My sources are not "inaccurate gossip," & I would be careful about jumping to conclusions if I were you. My sources are both those admitted who have self-reported, and sources from U.C. data itself, some of which may duplicate what you have, some of which may not. It's stated fairly boldly in UC's written material that they are, well, chagrined, at the level of some students who have been accepted, & what that has done to the quality of U.C. -- especially the larger campuses. Hence the recruitment of ELC's. We very much disagree over the wisdom of such an admissions policy which seems to be based more on compassion than competitiveness. There is a place for compassion, a wise use of it; I do not think that UC's use of it in the recent past is warranted or appropriate or in the best interest of many of those very students who have proved incapable of meeting the challenge. I believe my opinion is every bit as valid as yours.</p>
<p>The self-reports of the students I mentioned were "athletes" in the broad sense, but not recruited athletes for UC., nor were they, by their own admission, good enough to play the sport in college or desirous of playing the sport in college. They were those who chose, by their own admission, to forego studies for the sake of sports -- sports which were to end with their graduation from h.s.</p>
<p>U.C.'s is not the only admission "game" with which I wholeheartedly disagree. There are several institutions whose policies I find not in keeping with the institution's own stated priorities. Some of those schools would be Amherst College (now off my D's list), Wesleyan, U of Michigan, Duke -- & to a lesser extent, UVA. I probably have picked those because I have learned something about them over the years. Probably there are others. The admissions process is imperfect, given the overload to the system & the need to reject qualified candidates. It's not the imperfection per se which irks me; it's the blatant mockery of & disrespect to those students in the 3.2 - 3.8 range who do not have special funds for SAT prep, etc. I'm probably glad that I don't have information on some of the other admissions results in other schools; I'm merely focusing on one in which I have intimate experience, as do several members of my family.</p>
<p>The Ivies manage to diversify while retaining quality for the most part. UC does not manage that, in my opinion. I see no moral justification in sending accomplished students of a majority race, who have not succeeded in meeting the 10% top-of-class range, to attend an alternative public where "C" students can be admitted, while unaccomplished students of a minority race can attend the premier institution immediately after h.s. graduation. I think aggressive affirmative action belongs in the <em>transfer</em> opportunity for underprivileged students who have not previously proved their academic ability for a major research institution, but do so after h.s. graduation.</p>
<p>We obviously are not going to see eye-to-eye on this topic.</p>
<p>Well, there's opinions and then there's facts. I've read the Moores report on UC Berkeley admissions - carefully enough to know where it qualifies for Disraeli's third category of "lies", and to learn what it legitimately shows about just who was admitted to UC Berkeley in 2002. I've checked the common data sets and the UCOP-released statistics on the admitted classes to all of the UC campuses for the past three years (I've got two more kids coming, so I'm interested.) You're entitled to your opinions as to whether the admissions standards for any of the campuses are appropriate, but the "facts" you have expressed do not match the data I have found anywhere - while they do track the propaganda-ish press releases of some irresponsible politicians.</p>
<p>I'd be interested to know if you actually know a student with a "2.0-2.5" high school GPA who was admitted to any UC campus as you suggested. Because that would be a scandal - and completely in conflict with the published admissions statistics of the University. And if you know of any 3.2 GPA students without some outstanding non-academic achievements who have been admitted to Berkeley or UCLA I'm all ears. (UC Riverside, if they've got decent test scores, yes - UCLA, no.) But I don't think that you can produce any of these specimens because I don't think any actually exist. The "extra credit" given to applicants from an impoverished background is actually quite small - at all of the UC campuses. And I don't think it's based on "compassion" but is simply an attempt to create a legitimately level playing field - as best as possible. Expressing your opinion is one thing - telling the internet universe that UC admits "C-students" and UC Berkeley and UCLA admits average 3.2 GPA students - of any race or economic background - is just not true (and an unkind slap at my alma mater.)</p>
<p>I think the real problem is that there's just a lot of whiny disappointed parents who like to exagerate the effect of the modest recognition given to economic disadvantage in UC admissions so as to indulge in self righteous indignation.</p>