<p>Kluge, those are very useful graphs, even if for only one hs. The trends are certainly clear but what drives people nuts is that if you look at all the datapoints, it is not purely deterministic with regards to stats. </p>
<p>I think anyone applying at HYPSM should look at those graphs and get sober very quickly.</p>
<p>That's true. Of course, what people don't realize is that if UC admissions were purely deterministic with regard to stats the vast majority of the students some posters are referring to --- still wouldn't get in. Parents are unrealistic (trust me -- I spent a number of years in Little League!) They always think that somebody else's kid is getting an "unfair" advantage. Pandering to that natural tendency is a politically powerful tactic. My beef is that repeating these (false) claims denigrates UC (my alma mater) and tends to make people believe that dumb minority students are being admitted to Berkeley and UCLA by the truckload while deserving smarter middle class kids are being sent to Siberia. And it's just not true.</p>
<p>Kluge: thanks for posting. According to Berkeley's common data set, only 1% of acceptances had a gpa of <3.0, or about 85 kids. One can probably assume that the bulk of those are athletic recruits, or kids with extremely special circumstances. </p>
<p>TD & Kluge: </p>
<p>I find the data somewhat deterministic on the upper end. What the data points tell me, is that with one or two exceptions (my laptop screen is not clear), anyone with a 3.8 and 1400 scores get in to the big two UC's. Kids with <3.8 needed higher test scores, and lower test scores needed higher grades (which makes sense to me). At UCSD, all but 4 kids got in with a 3.5 and 1400 (that one must've ticked off the adcom, or had no strength of schedule.) UCSB had 3 rejected in the same category. (It is, of course, possible that the 3-4 rejectees are the same kids who applied to the same campuses.)</p>
<p>Don't forget, that the 3.8 gpa could be achieved by taking only College Prep courses -- not honors, not AP. Thus, we're missing the all-important strength of schedule component (just ask Auburn's football team on the importance of SOS). Also, the UC's double weight SAT2's (thru this year), so were missing the more important test scores.</p>
<p>I also noticed that one kid got into Yale with a 3.4 and 1400. Three kids into Dartmouth in the upper right quandrant, as well.</p>
<p>kluge,
...but I <em>wouldn't</em> be "one of those" parents, now, would I? I mean, my D <em>is</em> supremely qualified, <em>is</em> ELC. Irvine, San Diego, & Davis have been begging her to apply for awhile, & been promising the moon to her. Berkeley throws flowers in our direction at least once a week. Do not confuse your Little League parents with me. For me this is not about sour grapes or subjective viewpoints. It's about my viewpoint as an educator, in which I have earned my stripes as an evaluator, teacher, & consultant. I am an advocate, as well. I do not like to see mediocrity rewarded & excellence punished. While I definitely agree with you that no one can claim that admissions are completely topsy-turvy at U.C., I see vast room for improvement, & I do not appreciate your lumping everyone who disagrees with you or with U.C. into a group of disappointed parents or negative, misinformed propagandists. U.C. is simply not the egalitarian utopia they make themselves out to be, & if anything I believe their informal spokespersons (is that a word?) to be more vulnerable to propaganda than us skeptics who prefer to scrutinize & be their watchdogs. I happen to believe that as an alum, such scrutiny is one of my responsibilities. I am not stupid, ill-informed, etc. U.C.-produced documents are part of the picture; they are not the whole picture. I keep wondering why you believe that people who do not agree with you 100%, or agree with UC 100%, have some hidden agenda.</p>
<p>TheDad, while I agree with you that stats are not "deterministic" (for UC or for Ivies, thankfully), & that has been proven in various ways, I do not agree that a single h.s. scattergram tells the story. The scattergram of our outstanding school for UC tells a much diff. story. Perhaps kluge is at liberty to reveal his; I am not at liberty to reveal ours.</p>
<p>You can not look at one scattergram to get a complete picture. You need to look at a large enough sample of schools with upper, middle, and lower class kids to get an idea about what is happening. Maybe kids from an upper middle class school need 3.5 gpas unweighted and 1400 SAT scores to get into UCSD. What about kids from different economic backgrounds? I have been told this school has many Asians in it. How does this school compare with schools that are primarily Hispanic, White, etc.
I am sure we can come up with other variables. We need more scattergrams.</p>
<p>"...but I <em>wouldn't</em> be "one of those" parents, now, would I? I mean, my D <em>is</em> supremely qualified, <em>is</em> ELC. Irvine, San Diego, & Davis have been begging her to apply for awhile, & been promising the moon to her. Berkeley throws flowers in our direction at least once a week. Do not confuse your Little League parents with me. For me this is not about sour grapes or subjective viewpoints. It's about my viewpoint as an educator, in which I have earned my stripes as an evaluator, teacher, & consultant."</p>
<p>Your daughter deserves accolades for being accepted EA at Yale. There are thousands students who are "supremely" qualified, and in time, you will discover that there are many of those students who visit College Confidential . With very few exceptions, the students and their parents have a few traits in common: an remarkable humility and magnanimity. </p>
<p>In your case, I would suggest reading "The Frog and the Ox", one of my favorite </p>
<p>epiphany,
Just curious, when you say Berkeley "throws flowers" and Irvine, San Diego & Davis have been "promising the moon" to your daughter, what does that mean exactly? My son is ELC also, and aside from a nice letter from Davis and from Irvine, he is not being singled out for attention the way your D is. He's applied to Berkeley and Davis, but I didn't think the UCs adcoms wooed anyone.</p>
<p>To Xiggi:
I love the way some of you take quotes, & the bases for those quotes, out of context. Just FYI, kluge has been not just implying, but stating for quite awhile on this thread, that supposedly all people (usually he means adults) that object to aspects of UC's admissions policy & practices, have students who have been rejected from UC (one or more campuses), that those students really can't make the grade, that all who object to UC admissions in any form are just "whiny disappointed parents," are "Little League parents" [with disproportional belief in their kids], etc. Supposedly, you see, our children (those of us who disagree ever so slightly with UC) are incompetent. But apparently you did not read his posts well. And I believe there's a reading course or two at Cal for you, not to mention courses in reasoning, logic, & following a line of argument.</p>
<p>The tone of this line of reasoning predominating in this thread is only slightly less offensive than a debater of mine on another thread, who has stated twice now that my admission to UC was a "joke" (because of course all admissions in my day were "a joke," he says, & with his clairvoyance he would surely know my level of competence as an incoming freshman). He further went on to reference an article about how supposedly awful (poorly qualified) the average student at Berkeley was NOT DURING the time frame that I went there (by the way).</p>
<p>It may seem heavy-handed to you for me to defend my D's qualifications and mine, but you know, I'm human, & at some point I get tired of my record being trashed based on zero information about it, not to mention my D's record also being trashed by extension (e.g., the "disappointed parents" remark). And by the way, any ELC student for UC is considered supremely qualified in UC's judgment. (They set the standard.) That would also have to be a group of significant size. </p>
<p>(An aside: I don't feel anything personally against kluge, BTW; I just need to correct the facts, because I know he likes accurate facts so much.)</p>
<p>Don't need the Aesop's Fable lesson, but thanks for the unnecessary remark, anyway.</p>
<p>The only reason to mention the level of qualifications is in response to this admissions debate, period. The comment has no relationship to admission to an Ivy, so your lecture to her and to me are misdirected. This thread is not about Ivies. Read the title of it. Any earlier mention of Ivies by me here is in regard to the diversity question, which I would think does not pertain to my D. My D feels thrilled to be within any group of accepted students, let alone to an Ivy. She also doesn't need humility lessons. And I'm thrilled to be among parents who have students with such varied interests on the "Official Parent's Decision List," I think it's called. I'm sure those students are all immensely & supremely qualified as well.</p>
<p>Momof2inca:
(I love your description of your location, really cute)
I'm exaggerating slightly. It's been awhile since I've read the 3 letters I mentioned; they were all different in content, but essentially asked for her immediate enrollment; the promises were in regard to all the wonderful opportunities awaiting her in her field, etc. (Actually one of them did tell her she was already enrolled there when she had never so much as made inquiry, let alone done her online UC app with her ELC pin & password; that made us laugh; I assume the one to your S said the same.)
About Berkeley, I just mean that they seem to give us regular reminders. ("Hey, we're here!" type of thing) It seems something is in the mailbox from them every few days. This is called being recruited (LOL).But in a larger way, I've noticed that they can't seem to do enough for us when we call about a question, etc. Perhaps it's no more than some of the Privates do with the athletic recruiting & the whole coach call/likely letter thing (like Penn does). It's just weird to be in a special class; feels really retro, like in my Dad's day. (But hey, folks, no: UC's no caste system.)</p>
<p>I didn't want to get involved in this discussion since I'm not a parent (as far as I know) but a current (Cal) student. But since you decided to mention me, epiphany, Ill say a few things. </p>
<p>First of all, kludge, I agree 100% with everything youve said so far and am wondering where epiphany thinks he/she is finding faults in your arguments. Epiphanys argument is nothing but rhetoric and anecdote, and he/she completely refuses to acknowledge any piece of data that proves his/her delusional conclusions wrong. </p>
<p>Epiphany, note: I never criticized your competence when you entered UCB. Im sure you got a 4.5 and a 1600. I simply saying that the admissions requirements back then had <em>nothing</em> on todays admissions. And if extremely strict, purely meritocratic admissions requirements is necessary for a good education, then you didnt get a good education. </p>
<p>And surely neither did your mother, who graduated back in 1938, before things like admissions standards existed at UCB. Nevertheless, she has the nerve to be mortified by the lowering admissions standards? Can you really go lower than zero? </p>
<p>I truly doubt your daughter has much in the humility department if she followed your example. Perhaps she learned humility from her private school peers? Or maybe they offered a class. Dont feel too special about getting a few letters from colleges. It might not have happened back in your day, but today any kid with a 3.5 if going to get a mailbox full of college junkmail. The exceptional kids on this site could build a castle out of the college mail they get.</p>
<p>Come back to the Berkeley campus again and try and find these substandard minority menaces who are destroying the student body and preventing it from being a white upper class paradise (paid for by tax payers).</p>
<p>Oh Epiphany, you had me at, "I'm sorry!"</p>
<p>I don't live in CA so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious about the comment that kids with a 4.0 in HS who end up with a 2.0 in college should be chucked out.... isn't this a mathematical neccessity? Assume that an elite school only admits kids at the top of the pile in HS... by definition, some of those kids will have to be at the bottom of the heap unless you're in Minnesota where Garrison Keiler claims all the kids are above average...</p>
<p>What are the numbers? Ninety percent or more hs students that eventually go to Berkeley have hs gpas over 4.0. The average gpa for a student at Berkeley is around 3.0. I would bet that over ninety percent of Berkeley students have gpas over 2.0.
I don't understand where epiphany is going.
Here are the facts. The quality of students going to Berkeley is much higher now than it was 10 years ago, twenty, thirty, forty etc.
You can say the same for Harvard, and every other elite school.</p>
<p>As backdrop to this thread, a disturbing story about the quality of California public education appeared in today's LA Times and other papers throughout the state. I hope the adcoms at all colleges take this into consideration for our public school grads (such as my son). Very sad, and a long time in the making:</p>
<p>"Study Offers Grim Look at Schools" by Duke Helfand</p>
<p>"In nearly every objective measure of school quality -- including funding and academic achievement -- California trails national averages, a finding that paints a grim portait of the state's once-sterling educational system, according to a Rand Corp. study released Monday..."</p>
<p>Momo2, very sad indeed. In one generation, we've gone from best in the nation to "better than Mississippi." </p>
<p>There are pockets where you can get a good public school education but you have to have some luck and be both willing and able to make sacrifices to take advantage of them.</p>
<p>I find the lack of investment in public education here in CA very troubling as well.</p>
<p>dstark:</p>
<p>you are exactly right, today's students are much better prepared than kids were back in the dark ages. For example, back in the '70's, with rare exception of an impacted program (i.e., Engineering, Chemistry), UCB, UCLA and USC accepted EVERY applicant that met the minimum admission qualifications of grades and test scores. Indeed, one could practically drive up to USC on the first day of class and appply and register in the same September day. </p>
<p>In the '70's few state schools offered honors or AP courses -- then, the "rigorous" curriculum was considered College Prep. Typically, less than 15% of a class took four years of math! Of course, these same (ill-prepared?) California HS kids were also going to Stanford, and Harvard, where they had to compete with the (better prepared??) private prep school crowd.</p>
<p>Peruvian Mom (LOL): thanks for the link. It's amazing what Cal teachers and students actually accomplish given the limited resources from the state. Yet they still compete very effectively at schools such as the Ivies, MIT, Stanford (half of the class are state residents), and the like.</p>
<p>Blossom: thanks for the math reminder. At any college without grade inflation (Stanford & Harvard, among others, know who they are), the matriculating students will now experience a new curve, i.e., 15% A's, 25% B's....so, of course, there will be C's, D's and even F's. For many students, it may be the first B or C that they have EVER seen. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are slacking off. If one is not well prepared for Chemistry, for example, earninig a B in Frosh Chem is not easy because many of the classmates are well prepared (AP Chem in HS) and, thus, the curve is made difficult.</p>
<p>I think most readers of this forum recognize that the opinions ascribed to me by epiphany are not what I intended, or, in my opinion, even a reasonable projection from what I wrote. But I can be more clear. What I believe about UC admisisons is this:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The objective standards for admission, particularly to the most selective UC's, is much higher than it was when those of us who are parents were in college.</p></li>
<li><p>Many California parents are surprised and disappointed when their kids, whose "stats" would have qualified them to attend a particular UC campus in their parents day, are not accepted to the UC campus their parents believe is "appropriate" to their level of academic achievement.</p></li>
<li><p>Some people capitalize on that disappointment by encouraging the belief that those parent's kids are being cheated by UC accepting a slew of unqualified minority students who crowd out more qualified suburban white kids. That process involves making statements like:</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"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.
...
"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.
...
and: "I do not like to see mediocrity rewarded & excellence punished."</p>
<ol>
<li> I don't believe that "high-middle" white kids are being "punished" by a process which "rewards" mediocre minority students. The public data regarding the grades, SAT scores, honors classes, etc. of students who are accepted into each UC campus doesn't support the reward/punishment theory. What does fit the data is the fact that there's a whole lot of really, really highly qualified students competing for a relatively small number of seats at UCLA, Berkeley, and the rest of the UC campuses. "High/middle" just isn't competitive any more - although it was back in our day. A student who would have qualified for Berkeley in the 70's may have to "settle" for Santa Barbara today. A kid who might have gone to Davis in the 80's may be looking at Riverside today. Santa Cruz took every applicant who met the minimum UC standard up until a few eyars ago -- no more. Not because a bunch of dumb minorities are taking up the space in "their" rightful school, but because the competition - academically objective competition - is just plain tougher, top to bottom.</li>
</ol>
<p>So, epiphany, no, I wasn't characterizing you as a Little League parent - I noted your pride and satisfaction in your own daughter's achievements and their recognition. But I do think you're one of those who panders to the disappointment of the parents of "high/middle" students by encouraging them to believe that they've been cheated by a system which you claim favors "mediocre" minority students. And to tie into the current story about the de-funding of California primary education, the political result of undermining the confidence of parents/voters/taxpayers in our schools - at all levels - by encouraging them to salve their disappointment by blaming poor people, minorities, and "the system", is to justify voting against adequate funding for schools - at all levels. A constant drumbeat of half truths, "secret information", and repeated claims that "everyone knows" things which aren't really true can erode even the best institution.</p>
<p>Kluge-- nice post. I will add that this phenomenon is not exclusive to California... you guys just have more transparency around admissions. I would not be admitted to my college today (even after re-centering my SAT's). I was a good student with high scores and a few odd-ball interests (but not passions or accomplishments by today's standards). I wrote well.</p>
<p>In those days, you could be a contender at an Ivy with that kind of profile. Now, my stats put me below the mean at my alma mater... so without legacy (no) money (none) interesting life story (no) athletic accomplisment (none) musical ability (zip) and barely a passing relationship with the teacher's who wrote my recc's, I'd be an auto-reject. I'm sure my teacher's wrote that I was studious and never got into trouble.</p>
<p>We all have to grow up a little and deal with the current reality. Many of us couldn't be admitted to where we went, just like many of us can't afford our parent's house. That's life.</p>
<p>The thing that I find most disturbing is how difficult it seems to be to get good jobs for so many of the kids we know graduating from the UCs. The engineers and science majors seem fine, but the economic and english majors are taking jobs my generation would not have to have considered. Today's news on CA education make it even more distressing.</p>
<p>Sorry, swamped with finan. aid app concerns, then got distracted with film studies dialoguing. Back to finan. aid concerns now, but in the meantime...</p>
<p>Here's one of the links:</p>
<p>Page 28-33 are pertinent, but the earliest section also contrasts the industriousness of the transfer students vs. non-transfers, which supports a point I was making. </p>
<p>I also note the inverse relationship between SAT scores & undergraduate performance among the wealthy.</p>
<p>Got to run...</p>