<p>I asked the UCLA rep and he said they do not give more weight to high scholls that are more competitive. It kind of make sense because the UCs are public institutions, so why should kids from low peforming schools be penalized.</p>
<p>^True and it is exactly what I said.</p>
<p>Kids from lower performing schools aren't penalized. Read what I said again. They get a bump UP in admissions for coming from a low performing school SO LONG AS THEY DO WELL. </p>
<p>Kids who come from high performing schools are looked at within the context of the school they go to. That means they are expected to take advantage of the opportunities they have within their school. A kid with much lower SAT scores might get into UCLA if they come from a low API school so long as they DID WELL at their school. A kid from a high performing school would have to do better for the same opportunity. The expectation is that kids who do well despite their poor school environment have what it takes to work hard, catch up and succeed.</p>
<p>The logic would also be that people from high performing schools would be able to score higher on the SAT anyways, if they were better prepared. It makes sense, and I guess in a way that means your SAT score could "redeem" your GPA (but not vice versa)</p>
<p>If you go to a high performing school then I agree 100% with you on that Peppers. I guess it's possible that a kid from a low performing school who has a low GPA could score high on the SAT's and that would still make them a desirable candidate for admissions. (it's just less likely) This is what the UC's mean by comprehensive review. UCB and UCLA use this to a greater degree than the mid tiers since the applicant pool is of a higher caliber. They need the opportunity to really review a students circumstances in order to level the playing field for kids coming from disadvantaged backgrounds.</p>
<p>I am sorry but Peppers and collegemom16 ur logic is fundamentally flawed. Awarding students from a high performing school does not penalize students from a lower performing school.</p>
<p>Where did either one of make that assertion Jinks. Please re-read what was said. Students are judged within the context of the school they go to.</p>
<p>collegemom...... 99cents said the following "I asked the UCLA rep and he said they do not give** more weight to high scholls that are more competitive. It kind of make sense because the UCs are public institutions, so why should kids from low peforming schools be penalized."** and u replied with " ^True and it is exactly what I said."</p>
<p>Awarding students from competitive schools does not penalize students from low performing schools.</p>
<p>^How is that so? More state resources are given to high schools that have higher API scores, so in theory they should produce more high caliber students. Competition for top RANK is undoubtedly going to be more difficult than at a worse school, but nevertheless, even with a slightly lower GPA, a student from a competitive school is going to theoretically have higher test scores, which can more than compensate. The only thing that low performing schools have to their students' benefits is rank (aka ELC), which probably won't compensate for significantly lower test scores. As a result, it is unlikely that the top UCs will be accepting any, if at all, students from outside of ELC at low performing schools. Therefore, the proportion of students that a competitive school can send out is higher than that of a weaker school. Someone coming from Lynbrook High can reasonably expect to be able to get into UCBerkeley or UCLA even if their rank was ~15-25%. I doubt you can say the same thing about prospective students at San Diego High School.</p>
<p>Jinx do you honestly think kids from high performing schools are going to be accepted into the top or even mid tier UC's with low test scores? They might and probably do have lower grades due to the level of competition, but their SAT scores can say a lot. The exact opposite is true for students from low API schools. They have to be in the top ranks, their performance matters. It is understood due to a lack of opportunity that they won't have had the AP and honors classes and so their scores can be lower. What admissions wants to see is their performance was excellent within the school they went to. Peppers is 100% right. There will be many more UC qualified students from high API schools. UC's can't admit students who don't meet the basic a-g, SAT 1, SAT 11, and GPA requirements. The point is no one is being penalized, all students are being looked at fairly within the context of the opportunities they have had in school. The UC's want to admit students who can succeed.</p>
<p>collegemom16. i never said anything about " UC's can't admit students who don't meet the basic a-g, SAT 1, SAT 11, and GPA requirements. "</p>
<p>This is wat happened: </p>
<p>collegemom...... 99cents said the following "I asked the UCLA rep and he said they do not give more weight to high scholls that are more competitive. It kind of make sense because the UCs are public institutions, so why should kids from low peforming schools be penalized." and u replied with " ^True and it is exactly what I said."</p>
<p>My reply was that ur logic is flawed that by awarding students from competitive schools you are not necessary penalizing students from lower performing schools. </p>
<p>However now either you have changed ur stance or i misunderstood. In ur above post u say: "The point is no one is being penalized, all students are being looked at fairly within the context of the opportunities they have had in school." Which makes more sense. It is unfair to deny any recognition of students from competitive schools and at the same time award students from lower performing schools. However **"ll students are being looked at fairly within the context of the opportunities they have had in school." **Is what i agree on</p>
<p>"More state resources are given to high schools that have higher API scores,"</p>
<p>Peppers,is that true? I assumed resources would be shifted to where they are" needed" (an "intervention program"). Do high API schools get financial bonuses, or are you saying high API's come from high resources?</p>
<p>That seems to be the gist of what my teachers in high school told me. I also thought there was a recent proposition advocating giving equal amounts of money to schools. To have a more neutral argument, it would be difficult to assume that there is an equitable distribution in state funds between high schools. The caliber of students at high schools can hardly be the only reason that some perform better than others, especially when some intercity schools can't even recruit enough teachers to adequately meet state standards. </p>
<p>I'll be honest, a year ago I was pretty much in this mindset of "UCs should know that I took hard classes and I was in a competitive school", but, in the end, there has to be a realization that, without some provisions for schools in poorer parts of the state, the UCs really wouldn't be doing a good job as a public school.</p>
<p>As an aside, following up on Shrinkrap above, I don't think that Peppers' assertion that higher API schools get more money is true. Our HS district has the highest average API in the state, but is something like third from the bottom in per pupil state money. The state funding formula is very complex; on top of the base amount, there are special programs for lower-achieving schools.</p>