<p>Not a CA resident, so I don't have a stake in this debate. I'm interested, however, in the apparent conflict between two points you have been making: #1 is that lots of students with 3.2-3.8 GPAs have not been admitted into top UCs owing to some misguided social/political agenda. #2 is that students transferring from CCs are doing better academically than students admitted directly into UCs with, presumably, higher GPAs than those who had to go the CC route.
If that is indeed the case, what is the value of using high GPAs as predictors of future college success and what role should GPAs play in the admission process? As well, I understand that the CA grading system actually allows students to have GPAs higher than 4.00 if they take Honors, AP and college classes. So I don't know how to evaluate claims that students with 3.2-3.8 GPAs are kept out, or that students with 4.00 high school GPAs become students with 2.00 GPA in college. Could you clarify? Thanks!</p>
<p>marite just brought to mind a common criticism that hasn't been mentioned yet. That being that poor and inner-city schools offer few honors and AP classes that are weighted by the UC scale. And so a UC weighted 4.0 at a bad school isn't as easy to get as a UC weighted 4.0 at a good school. (On the other hand, much easier to get ELC and a good rank.)</p>
<p>That's why I've never bought into this "GPA is the most important factor in admissions." You have to combine it with test scores, otherwise it's meaningless. Some schools just give out A's. Some teachers are harder than others. I know my GPA would have been higher if I hadn't been placed in classes with the toughest teachers, though I probably wouldn't have learned as much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
kluge writes: 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.
[/quote]
I don't doubt that kluge believes exactly what she/he seems to be saying, that the system is fair, differences between students are small regardless of race, and that people are looking for a scapegoat since standards have risen since their time.</p>
<p>Unfortunately this explanation doesn't jibe with what the statistics show or the people actually running the program say!! In the Wall Street Journal, for example, a July 2002 article says
[quote]
At UCLA last fall, the average SAT score of Hispanics who got in was 1168. That was below the average score for Asians and non-Hispanic whites who didn't get in, 1174 and 1209 respectively. (Accepted whites scored an average 1355, and accepted Asians 1344.)</p>
<p>Former UCLA admissions director Rae Lee Siporin says the new system also was intended to make the student body as reflective as possible of the state's population. She says UCLA determined that simply using poverty as an index of disadvantage would reduce diversity, because it wouldn't help middle-class blacks and Hispanics and it would "pull in" lots of low-income Asians.
[/quote]
If that doesn't explain exactly what they're after with comprehensive review, I don't know what does.</p>
<p>Epiphany: I guess I am still unclear as to your points. Please post again once FinAid forms are done.</p>
<p>Mikemac: don't forget that ELC can easily skew data, since the top 4% of each HS are guaranteed admission to a UC, but not necessarily UC of choice. If I recall, this year, the ELC's are guaranteed admission to Merced and Santa Barbara.</p>
<p>Marite: just to clarify....each HS may have a different grading policy, but the UC's recalculate grades on a 4.0 scale, with a bonus point only for UC-approved honors and AP courses. </p>
<p>BigBro: you are absolutely correct in your assumption -- many inner city schools may offer few AP courses, whereas a top suburban HS might offer 18-20 and the best prep schools 22+. Thus, it is hard to boost grades from poor schools. Also, surburban kids can game the AP bonus point system, by taking the AP class, but not the test. </p>
<p>btw: </p>
<p>According to UCLA's web page. of the 9,949 kids accepted to UCLA for 2004, exactly 111 had a gpa <3.3 weighted; on an unweighted scale, it was 345. 85% of accepted kids had a gpa >4.0 weighted; or, 73% of acceptees had an unweighted gpa of >3.7.</p>
<p>On an unweighted gpa basis, chances of getting accepted rates were :</p>
<p>I understood that GPA is recalculated. I was having the same concern as Bigbrother about the boost that Honors and APs and college courses can give to some students over others. Thanks for the UCLA stats!</p>
<p>It confirms that latino/chicano admittees in 2001 had lower SAT scores that asians and whites. But the overall picture is consistent with UC's openly stated preference for high school grades as the primary qualifying factor over of SAT scores. (SAT II's are also more heavily weighted than SAT I's, but they're not tracked in the statistics.) The average high school GPA for latinos and chicanos who went to UCLA is over 4.0 - that is, higher than the "high/middle" white kids who are supposedly being unfairly excluded in favor of "mediocre" minority students (and only marginally lower than the average GPA of the white and asian kids who were admitted.) And that is "what the statistics show."</p>
<p>So I'll stick with the conclusions the data keeps leading me to: "high/middle" white kids are not being excluded by policies which favor mediocre minorities. Yes, asians and whites score significantly higher on the SAT's. But UC thinks that high school grades are a more significant criterion than SAT scores (a conclusion which is supported by the study epiphany posted a link to a few posts back.) And based on UC's publicly stated criteria, the 4.04 average GPA latinos and 4.02 average GPA chicanos who were accepted into UCLA are more qualified for admission than the 3.3 - 3.8 GPA "high/middle" white kids who didn't get in. And according to the common data set for UCLA that year (2001) over 75% of the freshmen were either white or asian. So I don't see excellence being punished and mediocrity rewarded: I see straight-A latinos with so-so SAT scores being admitted over B+ and A- white kids with good SAT scores.</p>
<p>You can argue whether grades or tests should be weighted more or less, but UC's policies are not irrational and the outcome seems to track the publicly stated criteria - as a whole, kids of all ethnic backgrounds with higher GPAs get into the UC's over kids with lower GPAs.</p>
<p>Remember - I'm the father of a white kid who didn't get into the UC he wanted to go to. But I try not to accuse others of underhandedness unless I see proof. And I don't see any proof that UC is doing anything other than what it officially says it is doing - regardless of whatever a former UC employee is paraphrased, out of context, as having said.</p>
<p>Marite: the one point boost is a isssue that comprehensive review attempts to address in that the UC adcoms know that inner city schools offer few AP courses, so they review the app in the context of that HS; (this is similar to the type of review performed by private colleges). One of the UC's actually separates all apps by HS, and then reviews and selects kids based that HS alone.</p>