<p>Your "empirical evidence" would only be valid if ELC students were randomly selected from among all Statewide-eligible students. They are not. ELC students are the TOP students in their schools. As the TOP students in their schools, many of them also have TOP test scores. That is why they are accepted to the TOP UCs.</p>
<p>@alamemom</p>
<p>As the TOP students in their schools, many of them also have TOP test scores.</p>
<p>not true, i have seen last year decision list for ucla, ucsd and ucb and there were at least 10-15 in each one of those threads where an ELC person had a 4.5 (or something in this area) GPA but has around 1600 or 1700 SAT I and 600s on their SAT IIs</p>
<p>None of this really matters any more to me. My D is safely esconced in a non-UC. She had options because she was a competative student, not because she was ELC. She was ELC, because she was a competative student. My next will not be a contender. I think most ELC kids want UCB and UCLA, and they have several other options. Going to a "bad" school for ELC, will not get them there. Whatev!</p>
<p>@Shrinkrap</p>
<p>First of all congrats on your D's acceptance.</p>
<p>Second I am not saying that an ELC students means guaranteed UCLA or UCB , my point is that ELC improves the chance of acceptance so much. Some kid at a "bad" or "easier" school can be an ELC and have his chances vastly improved whereas some student at a "good" or "competitive" can have his chance vastly decreased even though his SAT I & II scores were much higher.</p>
<p>Okay! But after all is said and done, I wish she would have gone to a better school, been better prepared, maybe NOT been ELC, but gotten into UCLA. But that's just me....I'm glad other schools were willing to give her another chance....for about 25k more ....</p>
<p>You're both quibbling about the wrong thing. </p>
<p>ELC is the product of your GPA, therefore it wouldn't really matter if ELC gauranteed any schools at all. And amby262roy is wrong in saying that ELC improves your chances of acceptance. </p>
<p>If a person already is in the top of her class, with 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 GPA, they've most likely already got the SAT scores and other things to make it into the mid-tier UC's and under. This is my anecdotal evidence from all the years of watching my friends / older peers become accepted.</p>
<p>Secondly, the reason that a higher number of ELC are accepted into CAL or LA is simply because if you are in the top 4%, then obviously you're more competitive for the spot. If your not ELC, that means your not top 4%. </p>
<p>Its not that ELC helps you, its the fact that you have a high GPA -> You are ELC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The above statement is even more illogical....if Uni is too competitive, transfer to Irvine High or Woodbridge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, that's not what I meant at all. It would be unfair to penalize those of us that cannot afford private HIGH SCHOOLS, not colleges. ELC works to provide for those of us who are lower in the class-system. Kind of like affirmative action if you will, only by class and not race, the way it should be.</p>
<p>I have no idea what you mean when you say "transfer to Irvine High or Woodbridge." In the public school system, you can't transfer anywhere. You go where your homeschool is, and have no say. Unless of course you apply to a private, which many of us can't afford unless we get our financial aid. So, we are stuck at the public school that the state assigns us to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
King: no, it is not ELC that gets your hypothetical kid into Cal, but all of those hypothetically 'easier' A's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Simply wrong.
Citing the UC Stat Finder, feel free to check it yourself for you own reference. A substantially greater 20ish% increase in chance.</p>
<p>As you can clearly see, ELC does have a huge difference in the admissions, for two students with the same range of stats (SAT And GPA, the two most defining factors)</p>
<p>Let's recognize ELC for what it is. A way to ensure that even the worst school district has 4 % of its top students given a direct admission to the UCs. It is meant to be equitable. These students do not necessarily have high SAT/ACT/subject test scores. indeed, some of them may not even have a rigorous college program available to those who attend a high performing public school. Someone in the third decile attending a highly competitive public school may have as much as 9 APs by graduation. Yet, the ELCs get admitted disproportionately to the top UCs -- and demonstrably occupy half the seats at Berkeley or LA. Essentially, the odds of a non- ELC kid attending a high performing high school getting admitted to berkeley is less than 20% versus over 55 % for an ELC. That is undeniable. ELC provides the UC Administrators with the rationale to justify admitting them.</p>
<p>i agree with stnfrdstd in some ways. Think about it like this for a sec...
Berkeley, LA and SD take at least 45% of the ELC students who may only have an inflated gpa but poor test scores (1600s and 450 on SAT IIs) whereas let's say a person who isn't ELC gets (1700s and 600s). With the budget cuts this year (yay HS class'09- we are screwed) and schools enrolling less people (except berk, la, and UCM) most of those 1700s students will probably end up at a JC, not a bad option IMO but kind of makes the student feel disheartening when he hears that someone with a 1650 got into LA because they were part of the ELC program at an easier school whereas they are going to a JC with their 1700.
kinda seems unfair. </p>
<p>Heck i am not naming a particular person but there is person who claimed to have received an A+ on APUSH but received a 380(OMG) on their SAT ii ush. They got the 5.0 in the history class with helped their gpa big time but a person who got a 680 on the SAT ii ush but received a mere B-</p>
<p>I believe most of this, if not all was approved Jan. 14th so starting with the class of 2012the rules are changing anyway. </p>
<p>"UC Academic Senate Proposes Changes to Freshman Eligibility</p>
<p>The UC Board of Regents will consider early in 2009 a proposal to change freshman admission to give more high-achieving students the chance to apply to UC and receive a full review of their applications. If adopted, the new rules would take effect for the fall 2012 entering class.</p>
<p>The Academic Senate proposed the changes to address concerns that current policy prevents UC from considering thousands of outstanding students with high GPAs and test scores just because of a technical flaw in their record or a missing test chiefly, the SAT Subject Tests, which are not required by any other public university in the country.
Proposal highlights</p>
<p>Under the version of the proposal expected to be presented by UC President Mark Yudof, all California high school seniors who </p>
<pre><code>* complete the 15 UC-required college-preparatory ("a-g") courses, with 11 of those done by the end of 11th grade,
* maintain a GPA of 3.0 or better (weighted by honors/AP bonus points) in these courses, and
* take the ACT with Writing or SAT Reasoning Test
</code></pre>
<p> would be invited to apply and would be entitled to a comprehensive review of their applications at each UC campus to which they apply.</p>
<p>Within this "entitled to review" pool, two categories of applicants would be guaranteed admission somewhere within the UC system:</p>
<pre><code>* those who fall in the top 9% of all high school graduates statewide, and
* those who rank in the top 9% of their own high school graduating class.
</code></pre>
<p>Together, these students would make up about 10% of the state's high school graduates. If these students are not admitted to one of the campuses they applied to, they would be referred to a campus with remaining space (currently UC Riverside or UC Merced) and offered admission there, as eligible students are now. The remaining admissions needed to make up the full 12.5% pool of top students would be drawn from the broader "entitled to review" pool.</p>
<p>All qualified students, whether receiving the referral guarantee or not, would have their applications reviewed comprehensively by all UC campuses to which they apply and would compete for those seats. Their qualifications would be assessed using the same campus-based review processes currently in place ones that emphasize academic achievement, but that also account for a wide range of personal accomplishments and educational contexts.
Differences from current policy</p>
<p>The proposal as presented by President Yudof would require the same number of "a-g" courses and the same GPA as current policy. What is different is:</p>
<pre><code>* Two SAT Subject Tests would no longer be required for admission. However, students could still choose to submit their scores for consideration as part of their application, just as they do now with AP scores. The Subject Tests also could be recommended for certain majors.
* All applicants would need to complete 11 of the 15 "a-g" courses by the end of their junior year. Currently, this is required only of students who are designated eligible by ranking in the top 4% of their high school class.
* The share of students who are guaranteed admission based on their rank in their own high school class would grow (9% vs. the current 4%).
* Fewer students overall would receive an admission guarantee (10% of high school graduates statewide vs. 12.5% now), but nearly all students who would have received this guarantee under current policy would still be entitled to a full review by their campuses of choice under the new proposal."
</code></pre>
<p>We go to an under performing school and my last child is graduating. Kids have been at that school for a total of 9 years. It has been our experience that kids transfer out not in for better opportunities. It is my belief, that if a kid is going to do well in school and is competetive, they will do well anywhere they go. My kids attend UCLA and SDSU (not ELC) and my 3rd child is ELC but is probably going to the UW.The colleges want to see that you have taken advantage of all the opportunities that are available to you and that you have challenged yourself. Also on the application, an adcom sees the HS's you attended and all grades, they see a school transfer, so unless there is some explanation you get the picture. Anyway, that is my opinion.</p>
<p>I made a mistake above, in post # 23. My D was reviewed for, but NOT ELC.</p>
<p>king:</p>
<p>You are making a couple of assumptions.... What if, for example, the low scoring kids in your table (ELC & non-ELC) ALL attended the same few high schools. Then, wouldn't it make sense that UC accepted those with the higher gpa? In this case, ELC would just happen to be by-product of GPA. Yes, of course, we do not know if those kids attended the same few high schools -- but that is the point. Unless you compare the records of the individual kids, you just don't know. But, in any event, it's about 10% of UCLA acceptees, many of which might have been accepted anyway due to economic hardship, family hardship, taking classes at a Juco, etc., all under comprehensive review. ELC is just a plus.</p>
<p>BTW pinkfeather "Let's hope we all use empirical evidence to inform our judgments and opinions."</p>
<p>That seems condescending to me. I'm no student of statistics, but I DID manage to graduate medical school & complete a few specialty training programs that required me to understand research and data. I just don't see where we have enough data to show ELC increases admission rates beyond what would be expected of the same student without ELC. What is the control group?</p>
<p>"What does this tell you. That while the policy says that ELCs are guaranteed admission only at one UC campus, the vast majority apply to the top 3 UCs, are admitted in much greater proportion (60 % rate to the overall average of 22%) and disproportionately fill up freshman classes at UCB and UCLA. That is to be expected. Hello, the ELCs all want to attend the top 2 UCs. The number then drops sharply for San Diego and falls off the cliff for the other UCs."</p>
<p>What it does NOT tell you, is whether most UCLA or UCB students with the same profile (including EC's, SAT II scores, and AP's, which is where I think good schools make a big diffence) would have gotten into the same schools without ELC. Like you said, it is these schools that the average CC kid is trying to increase their odds at. The exception would be the schools that use a formula giving points for ELC.</p>
<p>I want you to know I respect you -- as an individual, as a father, as a participant on this board, and congratulate you on your achievements. You are a professional making a difference in the lives of your patients.</p>
<p>I am a senior, fortunate enough to attend a high performing California public school. I am not ELC. Nor, do I begrudge students who are annointed ELC. The ELC at my school may be good enough to be admitted to Stanford or the Ivies. Not all ELCs are created equal however. And let me preface what I say below by saying that philosophically I understand and empathize with the ELC program. It is well intentioned. But let's not fail to understand how it works in practice (not theory) and what its unintended (or otherwise) consequences may be. I believe in judgments ground in fact, so please consider the following table which looks at all applicants and admits to UCBerkeley (non-ELC and ELC broken out by the the API ranking of the high school. API State Rank 1-2 are pubic schools in the top two deciles, Rank 9 - 10 are public schools in the bottom two deciles. Now, notice that Berkeley admits ELCs from the lower ranked schools at a higher rate than ELCs from the top schools. Look at the progression of Berkeley's admit rate -- as the school's API rank drops, Berkeley's admit rate increases.
University</a> of California: StatFinder</p>
<p>Berkeley
2007
State rank on API UC eligible applicant Eligibile in the Local Context (ELC) status Fall applicants Fall admits Fall enrollees Admit rate Yield rate
Total 36,258 8,974 3,872 24.8 43.1</p>
<p>State Rank of 1 - 2
Total 2,758 635 297 23 46.8</p>
<p>Eligible in the Local Context (ELC) 1,025 459 192 44.8 41.8
Qualified on Track (QOT) 537 65 34 12.1 52.3
NOT ELC Qualified (NEQ) 209 38 24 18.2 63.2
NOT Evaluated for ELC 987 73 47 7.4 64.4</p>
<p>State Rank of 3 - 4
Total 3,331 742 359 22.3 48.4
Eligible in the Local Context (ELC) 1,227 526 238 42.9 45.2
Qualified on Track (QOT) 690 84 48 12.2 57.1
NOT ELC Qualified (NEQ) 140 17 9 12.1 52.9
NOT Evaluated for ELC 1,274 115 64 9.0 55.7</p>
<p>State Rank of 5 - 6
Total 3,623 882 413 24.3 46.8
Eligible in the Local Context (ELC) 1,363 683 302 50.1 44.2
Qualified on Track (QOT) 916 75 42 8.2 56.0
NOT ELC Qualified (NEQ) 95 26 14 27.4 53.8
NOT Evaluated for ELC 1,241 98 55 7.9 56.1</p>
<p>State Rank of 7- 8<br>
Total 6,134 1,498 668 24.4 44.6
Eligible in the Local Context (ELC) 1,862 1,072 442 57.6 41.2
Qualified on Track (QOT) 1,562 210 103 13.4 49.0
NOT ELC Qualified (NEQ) 105 26 16 24.8 61.5
NOT Evaluated for ELC 2,591 190 107 7.3 56.3</p>
<p>State Rank of 9 - 10<br>
Total 13,378 3,541 1,551 26.5 43.8
Eligible in the Local Context (ELC) 2,380 1,804 652 75.8 36.1
Qualified on Track (QOT) 2,918 893 420 30.6 47.0
NOT ELC Qualified (NEQ) 106 37 20 34.9 54.1
NOT Evaluated for ELC 7,312 800 452 10.9 56.5</p>
<p>What does this tell you? Mine this data. It is rich in meaning. Then reflect on its implications.</p>
<p>In your earlier post you said:
"My D did not get into UCLA with a better than 2k SAT's and better than 4.0 GPA. Good EC's with leadership ( and urm if you still believe that mmeans anything). I believe it was because she did not have enough AP's, and her school did not offer many (maybe 4 by the time she was a senior), nor did they prepare her well with those they had. Private school, BTW."</p>
<p>I applaud you for not blaming your D's not getting into UCLA on the ELC system. In the general sense, however, it is impossible to ignore the meaning of the way Berkeley (and UCLA) implement ELC on the rest of the candidates, especially those who are highly qualified as measured by GPA and SAT who attend high performing public schools. The undeniable fact is that in a capacity-limited situation, accomodating ELCs from low ranking schools does come at the cost of a non-ELC who otherwise had the stats and qualifications to get into Berkeley.</p>
<p>ok guys the bottom line is this
ELC students who come from easier schools with high inflated GPa's can get a lower sat i score and a lower sat ii score and still be admitted to a UC whereas</p>
<p>non ELC students who come from harder schools have to get higher sat i and sat ii scores to compensate for not being an ELC member.</p>
<p>Check your interpretation, Pinkfeather... </p>
<p>From this site: <a href="http://www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/CaCGR_APIGraph.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/CaCGR_APIGraph.asp</a></p>
<p>"The API is an indicator of a school’s performance. Schools are ranked from one (lowest) to ten (highest)."</p>
<p>If you think about it, it wouldn't make sense that >13,000 students applied to Berkeley from the worst schools while <3000 applied from the best.</p>
<p>As your data show, less than half the ELC applicants from the low-performing schools were admitted; over 75% from the high-performing schools were.</p>
<p>Nobody disputes that ELC gives applicants a boost; that's what it was designed to do. But it hardly gives applicants a lock at the top tier UCs.</p>
<p>pinkfeather, why would you assume I'm a father? I appreciate your ....appreciation...I didn't read your whole post as i must talke my son to soccer practice. I notice as i leave my office I shift from analytical to "whatever" mode, that's why I'm just going to sum up feelings rather than data. Please value a good school if you are at one. It may not seem this way now, but nothing is more important than a good preparation.</p>
<p>amby262roy, you do realize that colleges also can look at the scores you're school gets on STAR testing to see how smart you're overall school is.</p>
<p>The HS I go to has a score in the 890 range, which is pretty dam good for only 26% asian population.</p>
<p>There are others I know of with 60+% and they have scores of 960.</p>
<p>Obviously, a crappy school with a score of 700, and you're ELC is worth less than an ELC from a better school.</p>
<p>amby262roy, colleges also can look at the scores you're school gets on STAR testing to see how smart you're overall school is.</p>
<p>The HS I go to has a score in the 890 range, which is pretty dam good for only 26% asian population.
There are others I know of with 60+% and they have scores of 960.
Obviously, an "easier" school with a score of 700, and you're ELC is worth less than an ELC from a better school.</p>
<p>MaMoose: The API Rank of schools as used in the Cal Stat Finder is Rank 1 & 2 are the TOP TWO DECILES in Performance ie the best schools, Rank 9 & 10 are the lowest two deciles. And as I demonstrated, as the school's rank drops, Berkeley's admit rate increases. So your interpretation is incorrect.</p>