I like that UC definitely looks at “rigor” and number of classes and not just the three GPAs.
1 Like
Yes… UC is a holistic process. I like that too. Texas does weight the rigor classes, like AP etc. But it is strictly class rank for the auto admits.
I guess the pro for Texas is a more clear understanding of acceptance. The pro for UC is that more kids have a chance.
2 Likes
You are spot on that there are pros and cons but one of them typically is not kids taking easier classes. If anything, it is the opposite as most top 6% (for UT) and top 10% (A&M/rest of public campuses) rankings are based on weighted GPA.
I don’t know that it is better or worse than UCs as both processes have benefits. The big benefit is that kids from all over the state know what at least part of the bar is and have a shot at attending flagship in the context of their high school. It also minimizes some of the arguments on grade inflation for at least a good chunk of the admitted classes. The negative for ultracompetitive high schools is that you are competing with your own high school and there is a race to the top (bottom?) to schedule as many APs as possible regardless of interest if you want to go to a flagship, etc…and leads to higher stress levels. Most kids (definitely not all) want to go to a flagship AND they are great deals comparatively.
Separately, being in top 6% in any Texas HS does not guarantee a major at UT…so then test scores and meaningful ECs can come into play for competitive majors like Computer Science, Engineering, business, etc.
Then you have A&M where ironically it is ‘test blind’ (and EC blind–a bit nutty IMO) for all majors if you are in top 10% (exception is engineering which is kind of holistic but appears most top 10 gets engineering if they want it). Top 11%+ is theoretically test optional but test scores (and to a lesser extent ECs) are usually a must for competitive majors…while class rank is still important.
So just different kinds of complexity!
1 Like
Absolutely… different level of complexity… different game to play all together.
Agreed… some majors are top 2-4%!
Let me clarify what I meant by “easier” classes. I should have worded that better. Of course some kids are taking the hardest and most rigorous classes and succeeding. However, some kids are picking and choosing easier AP classes not necessarily the most rigorous ones. All AP classes are weighted equally. When class rank for auto admits can come down to .01 in some cases in big high schools, taking AP Psych or AP Art History instead of AP Physics C or whatever other hard class can make a difference.
1 Like
Texas A&M then sounds similar to Cal Poly SLO–test blind, essay blind, LOR blind, and almost EC blind too.
Only if you are in the top 10%! Once you cross the line, then test scores, ECs and other factors come into play. It’s a weird combo.
A negative for TX is kids/parents in ultra competitive schools planning out junior high and summer courses to have the highest possible weighted GPA. This leaves little room to take the classes you want, or to make up for a ‘bad’ grade. Also, for kids that go to schools with science academies/magnet programs, the top 6% is taken up by those students. There are definitely pros and cons to each system.
3 Likes
Wild take.
I have a STEM kid who is now a PhD student in biomedical engineering. I have a liberal arts kid who has been admitted to several art history programs in and out of the UCs. They both think what the other person does is much harder than what they do. They chose the subject that spoke to them and thus came more easily to them without a sense that it must have been the more rigorous thing.
I hope other people are teaching their kids to respect the different disciplines that make up our world. I mean, what are all these engineers going to spend their money on if there aren’t artists and entertainers to create for them?
12 Likes
What about letting kids take the classes they’re actually interested in? Maybe calculus is of zero interest to a student, but stats seems useful to the kind of research they want to do eventually? I keep hearing this advice to take calc over stats because calc is more rigorous…But what if a student is just plain not interested? What if a student is interested in environmental science, but not physics? Forget it, kid, or you’ll be labeled a (relative) slacker and undeserving of competitive admissions.
So should kids they just take the classes for the sake of taking the classes or, as someone else described it, checking all the right boxes? Do we no longer care what students are actually interested in learning because we are so caught up in being the best, most rigorous, and most competitive? And judging others we don’t feel are keeping up based on own prejudices for and against certain subjects? And then, when admissions decisions come in, we wonder what went wrong and why we see all these stressed out kids (and adults).
6 Likes
Certain classses are foundational to a high school diploma. I do not think anyone should be allowed to opt-out of basic physics or pre-calculus any more than opting out of English or US history. Being "not interested " is not an excuse to be uneducated, and most of those classes are essential for many fields of further study.
2 Likes
It depends on which UC and which major. UCSB asks that their engineering applicants take as much math as possible. Berkeley asks applicants into COE and COC to elaborate on their interest and to discuss school and work related experience.
1 Like
The statement was about picking and choosing AP classes and suggesting that some students were trying to “game” admissions by taking the “easy” APs which, despite less rigor, get the same weighting. My point was - at advanced levels of study - perhaps we can allow interest to drive the decision rather than what may or may not constitute the “most rigorous” classes? Maybe not everything needs to be driven by being the strongest college applicant according to conventional but highly rigid wisdom? Maybe we let kids pursue their interests rather than check (in many cases largely imaginary, imo) rigor boxes?
11 Likes
So the problem is that the rigor differences arent imaginery:AP Physics C E&M rigor is in no way similar to AP environmental. I am guessing that the majority of very competitive UCB applicants also apply to Ivies, T50, or similar non California public schools which continue to care about rigor.
But a student could have interest in one and not the other. So should they take the one they have no interest in just because someone deems it more “rigorous.” I mean, obviously, that’s a choice they can make. Absolutely not a choice I would encourage my child to make. Curiosity and genuine interest in learning about a subject will trump perceived greater relative rigor any day of the week for me. If that means taking AP Enviro Science over AP Physics, so be it. And in fact my D did take AP Enviro Science instead of Physics and the UC she applied to didn’t seem to take the same judgmental view; in fact, I’d like to think that they recognized that she was driven to learn by curiosity and real interest, not a desire to check admissions rigor boxes.
6 Likes
Not only that but they offered her early admission into a STEM major.
1 Like
Agree. Unlike yours my kid doesn’t yet have her ticket punched to one of the top-2 UCs (and I’m grateful that she doesn’t at all seem anxious about getting into UCB this week, and in fact she almost hopes she doesn’t have to include it in her already complicated set of schools to decide between), but I’m absolutely sure that the reason she didn’t get into UCLA has nothing to do with her taking AP Bio and APES over potentially “harder” AP Science courses. As a kid who doesn’t like science, AP Chem in 10th was quite enough for her taste! I’m certain that the 4 UCs she was admitted to saw past that knowing that she’s an Anthropology or other social science major.
3 Likes
I agree with you pretty much–even if students aren’t particularly interested in say physics or Econ that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take it in high school. Many boys especially aren’t particularly interested in reading “The Joy Luck Club” in high school English and yet that is required. On the other hand I’m a huge believer in interesting and free choice electives, and 7 period days (or the 4 x 4 block schedule which enables 8 different classes over the course of a year).
They already take basic physics in 9th grade. And yes, pre-calculus is standard, mandated part of the curriculum.
1 Like
Sure, but there’s the core curriculum required for graduation which all students must and do take (at least if they want a high school diploma), and then there’s “rigor” of above and beyond classes, which is what is most often discussed around here within the context of competitive college admissions. That’s the spot where these kinds of choices - balancing interest and rigor - are made. Going above and beyond the graduation requirements is always a choice, not a requirement. But that doesn’t affect the core high school curriculum.
2 Likes
Also, the holistic process will then allow the student to show who they are and show how they’ve developed their interests…and their reason for choosing a particular major. Who determines rigor? Yes some classes are agreed to be tough by most. But several high achieving kids will not do well in all subjects due to talent or interest…for example art history, languages or other humanities. Why should a humanities kid’s courses be compared to someone whose interest in the STEM field? One of the PIQs asks this exact question.
3 Likes