Your onto something here but I think it has to do with the applications being evaluated so quickly that introduces huge amounts of noise into the process. So it’s not solely the kids fault.
I remember listening to a PIQ workshop run by the University of California. One of the panel members said the favorite PIQ he read was about brownies and how the kid loved to make brownies. He mentioned that he also loves brownies. So clearly personal biases of the reader come into it.
I work for a company that absolutely does that (though not “solely” – the real world is not binary). I don’t agree with it, but it’s actually a great company to work for overall. Sure, I could not work there on principle because of this one issue and of course have chosen not to do that. But the pay is good, the culture is super respectful, the perks and benefits are way above par, they are sensitive about not imposing on weekend or vacation time, they go to great lengths to make review processes meaningful, etc.
BTW, not that uncommon. We want it to not be true and most companies are reluctant to admit its true, but its been true to lesser extents everywhere I have worked – name recognition of where you went to school often impacts hiring manager perception.
Ofcourse, it requires a lot of objectivity to not let personal biases and perceptions interfere. Unfortunately, not everyone can do that. Rubrics may try to bring objectivity but as we all know, they are not completely effective because a person can justify anything they want to.
Other competitive schools read apps quickly as well…6-8 minutes. Most of these schools, including the UCs have strict rubrics that readers follow as they go thru and score/rate the apps, so I don’t think there’s all that much ‘noise’ in that aspect.
But, that’s not to say subjective factors can come into play, like a reader responding (or not) to an essay about brownies based on whether they like brownies, or at what point in the day they read the app, or if an app was read immediately after a stellar (or terrible) app, etc.
For sure there’s bias, but not all readers will have the same biases. With 4 distinct questions and multiple readers, students have an opportunity to demonstrate who they are and hopefully connect with the reader.
The activities section’s importance can’t be understated either. I’m a high school teacher, so I see a lot of applications in guiding my students through the process.I can’t tell you how many kids treat that activities and awards section like just a list. If you’re being given 150 words or whatever to explain your contribution, you’d better treat that like another’s essay question and not just a place to list- national merit semi finalist, NHS member, four years varsity baseball…
Good for you. I’m glad it worked out for you.
I don’t think it’s helpful to send the message to kids on here that their future will be dictated by the college they study at.
To your first point. But to get into a most UCs you have to really do well with ALL readers and ALL PIQs no? I presume the overall rating is an average over all ratings.
Regarding your second point. For the ECs section didn’t you just have to list your top 10. That’s how my kid told me she did it.
A couple years ago, when my son was applying to colleges, I told my friend that Harvey Mudd was my son’s top choice. (He did not get in.) She did not understand why we wanted to send our son to a small college no one heard of. I realized that people really value the names of the schools.
For the EC section, you list your EC’s but are given a word limit to explain the EC in more detail. This can be vital when some EC’s would be difficult to interpret based just on the name of the activity.
No, there was a large amount of space given to elaborate and explain the award or activity.
My kid, for instance, was a college board national recognition Hispanic scholar. He had room to explain what that award is and then explain what he personally did to earn it. It’s a lot of space given that many students under utilize.
Thanks for the edit. I can see why you are here to vent and vent you should do. Yes “disproportionate” (I wouldn’t say “unfair” since UC admission is “holistic”) results. Any merit or need based aid offered at any of those excellent OOS schools (yes most ranked higher)? An abudance of great choices if cost is not a factor. So maybe those OOS schools want your full-price pay (as UC likes others’ OOS full price pay). I like this phrase: UC breaks a lot of hearts. Certainly UCLA broke my DD’s heart (waitlist and her top choice). And if your son had a great SAT score he was unable to use it for UC unfortunately. We in CA get what we vote for, and test blind it is (I realize the UC decision to go test blind was the result of a settlement, but knowing UC I imagine they were more or less fine/relieved with being forced to go test blind honestly).
In general, the UC App EC section is so much better than the Common App – they give you more words, really ask you to define your time, date range, etc. and best of all are the ways it asks you to indicate the contextual significance of some things like the awards.
Also if you research, Payscale ranks the colleges based on the salaries of alumni.
Always perceived prestige colleges are on the top list. Where you go actually determines your expected salary?
I believe part of it is because UCs went test blind. Others here might have a more informed view.
Looking forward, UCs will come up with their own SAT replacement test, do you expect it would make the admission process “fair”?
Part is very likely because of test blind, but I’ve also heard speculation about the economy and how more CA families are looking to save money by staying in state.
I’m sorry but this is so unhelpful. This thread is for parents and kids to vent about colleges they didn’t get into.
How is laboring on the point that the perceived prestige of colleges determine your future and salary helpful?
So many examples in real life of people who are so successful (in whatever terms that means to the individual) who did not attend a highly prestigious college.
I hope those kids reading this thread hear this: You guys can survive these rejections. You do not need to attend the college that you didn’t get into in order to have a successful future.
I understand that my son has excellent OOS options. I just want to vent about his UC results.
My DD did a great job (have to say) with her EC listings and descriptions I think. She listed all 20 and had a good mix of jobs, extracurriculars, volunteering, clubs, sports, internship, and awards. She used every single character allowed (I think it was 300?) and all 20 spots. She crafted a really good and I think impressive description of herself that way. Maybe more important than the PIQs in some way. But since this is the venting thread–I’ll add–still wasn’t enough for her top choice UC campus (UCLA waitlist). But as soon as I learned 60% of UCLA students have a perfect uw 4.0 HS GPA, and she’s not first-gen (UC seems to be aiming for 50% first-gen students) or underserved so doesn’t have those “hooks” (that she can’t control anyway), I figured she was done for. She got 2 Bs soph year and one B junior year (oh the horror 
)
I don’t think UC is planning to come up with any replacement home-grown UC aptitude/achievement test. That was floated as an idea at one time but they abandoned the idea.