Are you saying you think admissions officers/readers at the UCs are considering race if they know it based on PIQs, in direct violation of the law?
Source please. AOs/readers do not see race as part of the application package, and yes many applications do not go further than the two readers (and some UCs dont commit to two reads anymore either). @gumbymom?
Absolutely! Many many cases in front of my eyes.
With hundreds of thousands of applicants, this is undoubtedly true. There is evidence that the UCs know and care about the problem:
Of course they wonât catch everyone but itâs nice to know they try. Note that the thread is nuanced - not a cheater but a question of citation.
It is almost next to impossible to fact check In the given amount of time. The only way would be secondary research which would take forever to do for the huge number of applicants!
I get it. Itâs the honor system. Unfortunately, some people have no honor.
Thatâs why they do random checks of some percentage of the applications. That is probably all they have the capacity to do and, while it likely doesnât discourage every would be cheater, hopefully the possibility of getting put through review does discourage some outright lying on applications.
And all I can say is, life catches up.
Not to in any way diminish the completely legitimate frustration expressed here, and my heart goes out to the disappointed kids who have worked so hard not not been accepted to some of these schoolsâŠ
For perspective, students and parents in most other states also support a public higher education system with their taxes and still have to send their kids OOS because their schools arenât competitive. Those are likely some of the families competing for the limited capped OOS slots at UCs. My wife and I grew up in CA and went to a UC but moved for work (our college savings is still in CA Scholarshare). In my current state we have to deal with a flagship that is less regarded than almost all the UCs which is massively deficit financing a money losing athletic program with our tax dollars while doing very little to improve its academic standing. Even the CSU system is better than the best public colleges in most states. What CA has accomplished with its college and university system is amazing, even equalizing for per capita tax contributions from its residents.
In general what weâre seeing with the UCs is indicative of any college that becomes highly rejective. Many of these UCs have rejection rates higher than the Ivys did a couple decades ago.
There is another discussion thread about how PIQâs are evaluated if interested:
I do know the following:
-The number of times the PIQ essays are read are now at the discretion of each UC campus.
-Outside readers are not given access to the whole UC application so race/ethnicity/demographics etc⊠are not seen.
-The UC uses a consistent system, so all campuses grade on the same scale.
-All readers are required to go through Anti-Bias training.
Based on the Hout report , after the scoring by the 2-3 readers, applications are ranked by score within admission buckets (division or major where admission to division or major is used). For each bucket, a cutoff is set to target a matriculating class size based on estimated yield (which is presumably lower for the top-scoring applicants and higher for those scoring not as well). If the cutoff is within a given score level, a tie-breaking process is used within that score level.
Regarding the comment about Native American ancestry. My understanding is that to claim Native American ancestry on any college application you have to show proof of tribal registry. Especially since the UCâs offer this program: Native American Opportunity Plan | UC Admissions
I think this is exactly what happened with my '21 grad. She ended up where she was meant to be, which happened to be the âdream schoolâ she called out sophomore year. The UC campuses where she was accepted were truly a good âfitâ. She didnât accept her waitlists because she knew they werenât.
I actually talked to a seasonal admissions reader at a UC a while ago, and they said that the way students talk about their experiences, their first and last name, and the kind of activities they do tend to give them a good idea of the studentâs racial/cultural/ethnic context. While not explicitly, this does then factor into their decision. Humans are reading these applications of course, so bias is inevitable.
Also, UC Admissions Deans (most notably that of UC Berkeley) have been very vocal in stating that they are opposed to the race-blind criteria, since it hinders diversity in the student body (rightly so, Iâd say). So, it wouldnât surprise me if they were seeking ways to get around the race-neutral stance (especially given the fact that they recently enrolled the most diverse class in UC history)
Perhaps, but in the case where someone dishonestly checked the Native American box, I am not certain that there would be any such indications, as they would likely be predicated on lived experience as a member of that ethnicity/race. If they have no such lived experience, then they would have much to say about it in the context of a PIQ nor would they have any activities that specifically speak to that identity. Unless they have an incredibly rich imagination, and I am sure some kids do, but that does not sound like the case of this student, who seems to prefer to cut corners than to craft imaginative narratives. But who knows. And I guess thatâs really the bottom line. We can gossip and speculate about those we feel do not deserve their acceptances, but not a single one of us knows what was actually in their applications.
Oh, Iâm not commenting on that at all. Iâm very happy with the way my decisions have gone, and I think everyone that got accepted truly deserved to (from what Iâve seen, at least).
Looks like I wasnât reading this thread that closely (facepalm). I didnât realize the race comment was made in relation to a student ticking the indigenous box. I agree in that case - unless the PIQs specifically referenced their background, I doubt this detail actually factored into their admissions decision.
Yes, it was speculated that an applicant lied about being NA and that this possibly helped them gain acceptance to UC as an URM (in addition to using a paid college counselor and other things, as well, which might all be true, but checking the NA box likely was not a factor).
I feel these actually might do more harm that good. Iâve seen friendsâ PIQ completely re-written and edited to the point where it stripped the writing of any of applicantâs actual emotions/reflections/insights. And, they havenât been hearing back favorably from the UCs, who I think really value authenticity. In contrast, I know of someone who wrote her PIQs all the day before, with minimal editing, and made it into 8/9 of the UCs.
So letâs go with what we know: Missed half of junior year, was failing a class because of attendance and the teacher wasnât going to let her get away with it, her father threatened to sue. Her father has done this on two other occasions and I know because he contacted me to also mount a complaint against the honors chemistry teacher. We also know her class schedule and it was no where near the rigor that other competitive students had.In fact, that was her last science class. It doesnât add up.
Yes, her dad sounds like a real jerk. No argument there. And not failing a class versus failing a class would obviously make a big difference. But again, we never know what actually goes on behind closed doors - maybe the student was given some additional assignments, maybe they did other things, and maybe that still isnât very fair, but who knows.
Admissions donât always come down to things like who has the highest GPA and who has the most AP classes. So that fact that her rigor was low relative some other applicants doesnât mean a whole lot - they look at the whole application, not just coursework/grades. The readers decided that she offered something more important than the highest possible rigor. That is how holistic review works.
Half of this you donât know probably. 20 posts speculating about why some random child got in and yours didnât is really a waste of time and effort. That kid likely didnât take away a spot from your kid.
Vent about life is unfair, but experienced adults dumping on an unknown child is just not a good look.
Thank you Gumbymom⊠I did read about that program. But maybe if you donât want to be considered for that program, you donât have to show proof. Iâm just speculating. And I certainly donât think this is only about claiming to be NA. This is a totality of circumstances that allowed her to bypass kids who worked so much harder. For us, we naively thought that she would end up at a lower ranked private school considering her performance. We were wrong.
I donât knowâŠI mean, I totally get the need to vent. I really do. But all the same, venting at the expense of other students - deciding who was supposedly more deserving without seeing their applications and knowing the whole picture - just seems really icky to me. We can be better than that.