Use of MCA in the admission process?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
1

I understand that MCA is used as a minimum criteria to “proceed in the admission process.” And that each college has a different minimum cutoff. I conclude this from several sources including the link below that reports the college of engineering minimum MCA was 3000 in 2008, and was 3600 in 2011.

http://profiles.asee.org/profiles/5232/screen/17?school_name=
Or Google: “The College of Engineering has established a minimum MCA score of 3,600”

Using MCA as a minimum cutoff makes sense to me. But using it as the sole ranking factor to determine admission does not. Why would the same weighting factors be used to judge a potential Journalism major as a potential Electrical Engineering major? Taking this further, I can imagine two different students with the same MCA. Student A took tons of Math, Science and Engineering classes, while student B did not. It’s hard to imagine the engineering school taking B over A. Why would they if they have a list of all the classes taken by each student?

My guess is that MCA is used as a first pass, and then a “by college” or “by major” formula is used after that. But I may be wrong.

==> My question is WHY does anyone think MCA is the sole ranking factor to determine admission? <==

It doesn’t have to be. I haven’t seen it officially stated anywhere. Please provide links or other evidence.

Thank you

2

People, me included, believe that because they have been told it’s the case by admissions.

None of this is discussed in an official basis anymore by the school. It’s simply educated speculation based on past CP publications and past encounters with admissions. They still do maintain that it is 100% computer driven, with no human intervention. Given that, it’s hard to imagine a system to sort 60,000+ candidates that is anything other than the single MCA number.

Now, for transfers, the MCA is different for each major because the relevant CC course work is different for each major.

In reality, what does it matter? You bring your best effort and hope to get in, no matter what the admissions process is, at every school.

The last info I saw BTW, and that link has been pulled, minimums are even higher. The CENG was 4200 in 2013, AG was 3800, most of the rest, 4000. These are simply minimums to reduce the pool in order not to rank those who will be far below the cutoff.

3

Thanks for your reply,

I think we have to be skeptical about things we hear from admissions. But the way it was explained to me (by an administrator at Cal Poly) goes along with most of what you said, and I think makes much more sense for the colleges;

She explained to me that colleges develop their own weighting parameters and send those, along with the number of students they want to admit, off to the admissions department. Then admissions sends them back the applicants. I believe she also suggested it was all computer driven.

(For this to work, each applicants score would capped to some value so that the mandated bonuses for disadvantaged applicants remain intact.)

So; (a) I can imagine this working well for 60,000+ students, (b) it’s not that far from what you have speculated, © it does not contradict anything I’ve read officially, and I think (d) makes more sense for the colleges. (Would you agree?)

As for, what does is mater? Not too much. I need to stop thinking about it. My son was student A above. He took all Science, Math, and Engineering classes, but according to the MCA formula, replacing most of those classes with one additional art class would have given him a better score. I hope that the way it was described to me is true, and a single MCA formula for any major is false. I hope so and given all I know up to this point, I think it’s probably true.

The only thing I might suggest is to make it even more clear (and I know you try), that this is all speculation.

There is no doubt that some sort of MCA formula is used as a minimum cutoff. Whether it is the same formula for every major, or whether additional formulas are used in the “admission process” is unknown.

P.S.
This is not strong evidence, but more an example of the problem with an MCA only system. Several HS counselors and one college admission consultant told us not to worry “too” much about a third year of Spanish for an engineering major. This may or may not be right - but it does make some sense.

4

Rigor is capped at 750 points. A student who took “all Science, Math, and Engineering classes” should get 700 points for the math and science alone. That only leaves 50 points to get from ANYWHERE else. If a student didn’t take maximum math and science, their MCA bonus would be dramatically reduced. It’s virtually impossible, discounting non-academic adders of course, to be that hypothetical student you propose and get a high MCA without lots of math and science.

5

When you say, “Rigor is capped at 750 points,” I think what you mean is “According to an MCA formula published in 201? - which I and others speculate is the sole factor in determining admission - rigor is capped at 750 points.”

And your example illustrates my point. If student A scores 700 points for rigor and also takes 5 or 6 additional science and engineering classes; and student B scores 700 point taking the same classes except for the 5 or 6 additional science and engineering classes - then the 201? MCA formula does not distinguish them. (a) If I were the dean of engineering I would not be happy. (b) This is not how it was explained to me when I asked. I was told that the college (and/or major) has influence on the weighting.

But I don’t know for sure, and so I’m asking for evidence in either direction as to whether the MCA is the sole formula for admission.

Anyone?

6

The last MCA I’ve seen was published in 2013. I didn’t “speculate” that it is the sole determining factor. I was indeed told that by the head of admissions. Is that the case now, 4 years after I was in the position to ask, I don’t know. I haven’t seen anything to prove otherwise, but at best, it’s ALL speculation. I try to make that clear frequently, but I realize if someone only saw a post or two of mine, they might read it as me saying it’s gospel. It certainly isn’t.

No matter what the criteria, there will be winners and losers. It’s the nature of ranking. What’s important is in the eyes of the beholder. I personally do not believe that all science is superior to a broader education. I think being worldly and well rounded makes for better people. That’s my personal opinion. My son took two years of calculus, calc based physics, AP Chem, organic chem, biochem, and A&P, but elected to skip AP Biology to take AP Art History and an AP Literature class. Is he better or worse off? That’s purely a matter of perspective. He’s in the top 10% of his class and starting his masters in ME during his 4th year, so he seems to be doing fine.

For engineers, what is historically true, across the nation, is that success and level in math at the time matriculation begins is the highest correlate to long term success. That’s probably why it is favored so much in the algorithm, if things are indeed the way they were in 2013.

7

I don’t disagree with you on the value of being well rounded. Thanks for all your input.

8

A quick question: if the process is truly computer algorithm driven, it should be able to spill out the result one MINUTE or less after the poll closes. Why make people wait 4 months for the result?

9

While the algorithm is instant, data that comes into might not. Test scores might take a while to trickle in, but all that data should be in by early Jan.

I suspect the the bigger thing is the games schools play with admissions as they’re competing with other schools for yield. I noticed a correlation between the rank of the school and how late their decisions are published. Some of them are as cruel as to state that they made a decision on their website, but the student has to wait for the snail mail to get it.

10

Cal Poly’s decisions actually come in pretty quickly, relatively speaking. As @iulianc said, they verify all GPAs of students who they are offering acceptance to and that takes time. Once however that is finished, it’s pretty timely, unless you weren’t accepted. They do make waitlist students and rejections wait for quite some time, which is unfortunate.

11

@eyemgh, so when will admitted students be notified?

Also, how do they verify the GPA? Will we receive a request for official transcript before decision?

12

Late February to early March is when acceptances go out. After that, rejections can drag on for a long time.

It’s been so long since my son did this that I can’t remember the exact sequence. He sent his college transcript from dual enrollment after he accepted admission. I think he gave permission to send transcripts when he applied.

I have no authority backing this, just what I’ve read here from well informed posters, but they’ve said CP doesn’t calculate all applicants, just those above the MCA cutoff.

13

They are quick compared.to UCs

14

@babygroot The magic MCA score is urban legend. NOONE knows for sure what formula is used, how the formula is adjusted to account for out of state students, more competitive majors, veterans, Div I athletes, etc; how often the formal is tweeked. I don’t doubt CPSLO uses a formula. But I don’t believe it’s as simple as adding up all the categories for sum total score (eyemgh’s hypothesis) and the highest score wins. I believe CalPoly uses the select demographic data collected from the application to band applicants, then applies a algorithm. Your suggestion that the algorithm is influenced by “by college” or “by major” is probably close to the truth. If you follow CAL State politics, you’ll know that CPSLO is under the micro scope for manipulating admissions. If you have a data scientist friend who works for college marketing firm, you’ll know that CP director of admissions moonlights selling an admissions formula that guaranteed to increase “yield”.

15

This is not my hypothesis. It is my summary of an official Cal Poly Power Point. It was from 2013 and was the official policy of the time. There’s nothing to suggest that it has changed, but also nothing proving it hasn’t.

16

@momneeds2no, I think that the formula SHOULD be more complicated than one formula for all majors, but I have little evidence either way. Can you supply any links regarding CPSLO being under the micro scope for manipulating admissions? Or on the director of admissions? Or anything related to process? This is what I’m looking for.

17

@eyemgh thank you for your help to all here. I do believe your algorithm is mostly right. I had an engineering student who did not like foreign language take additional art to get the full 750 (based on your posting) — now a junior at Cal Poly in engineering. The selection is not perfect … our high school has valedictorians (which my student was not) who got rejected in engineering same year. There are many variables … courses, major selected, gpa and adders for work and personal circumstance that make a difference. Understanding them is very helpful.

18

@Dadfan, thanks!

Things might have changed, but I haven’t seen any evidence of it. We may never know for sure, but it seems better than the black hole of a holistic school, or worse yet, a holistic school where legacy status makes a positive difference.

I think, and I could be wrong, that the high stats students like your valedictorian that have been rejected were victims of CP’s odd way of tracking rigor. I’m guessing they left off middle school math classes AND applied to an engineering major like CS or ME where a loss of 250 points was a fatal blow. Several posters last year discussed that exact scenario. Victim though is the wrong word, because plenty figured it out. That said, it is a harsh punishment for not reading the directions carefully.