Is The College Admissions Process Broken?

[Aimlesscat1]

@AustenNut

Public colleges reflect the priorities of their state. There are states for whom geographic representation is an important value (and usually a political necessity). So even if all the spots at UCB and UCLA could be filled by bay area kids with high stats, it ignores the rest of the very large and diverse state.

I completely agree with this sentiment as my earlier post indicated. I also grew up in a poor rural area (NYS not CA) at a school that had no AP courses and no math beyond Trigonometry. I very much understand the challenges that theses kids face which is why I am all for a system that guarantees access to kids from areas like Del Norte and Inyo counties.

I have no dog in this hunt, my child was unlikely to attend a UC and didn’t apply. But, given the noise that I hear in the system from various demographic slices I cannot agree that the system is working, at least in the eyes of alot of people.

@AustenNut

I think there are certain communities where there is a culture of hyper-ambition. The ones where families are trying to get into the right daycares/preschools to set them up for the right elementary schools for the right high schools for the right colleges.

That is very true but they aren’t the ones that I hear the largest amount of angst from. That group just opts out and focuses on privates from day one. They also tend to have a much wider view of options (going to a LACs is rare from Lynbrook and Cupertino, common at Paly and Gunn, and very common among kids from the privates) and vote with their feet.

Some apply, check a bunch of boxes but UCLA, and UCB are really the only acceptable schools. They add a couple more because the cost isn’t an issue. I asked my kid about this last night and she made an interesting comment that if you think that you aren’t going to get into UCB or UCLA then SDSU and SLO are better options as backups because they are just as good as the rest of the UCs and it is easy to apply.

It is the Lynbrook and Cupertino (not specifically those two schools, they are just example schools that I am familiar with) folks that have the biggest angst. They really want to go to the UCs and they almost all apply. There are alot of doughnut hole families in this group that need a UC price point. But in their eyes CA has stacked the deck against them in the same manner as some groups feel that admissions to elite privates is stacked against them.

They all test (and have high scores) but test blind takes that away. Capped weighted works against highlighting the rigor of their work. They see the admissions results and their take away is that uncapped GPAs aren’t really looked at but rather the UC system is set up to make their 4.0GPA look like everyone else so the schools can just pick who they want.

I’m not saying that they are right with their impressions though it is pretty obvious that these changes were made to limit (or expand) admissions from certain areas. I do think that people who believe that the current system is working are missing some signal.

@tamagotchi

It’s possible there is a middle ground that looks somewhat like the solution proposed by @Aimlesscat1 where high stats kids have a guarantee of being admitted to some subset of UCs… but I feel this is unlikely to satisfy the target audience, if we’re talking about families unhappy with Irvine or Davis, or families shocked that a valedictorian ends up at UCSD.

I’m not completely sure that it would help with some. I’m not too concerned with the Paly/Gunn families. They have for the most part written UC off (I don’t remember which one but one of them had 20% or less considering UC as their top choice with over twice that listing OOS Private). They really don’t need anyone being concerned about them either.

It is the publics with profiles like Lynbrook, Homestead, etc. where I really see the angst. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lowell families (in SF) have many of the same feelings. I suggested a hybrid system of some sort because both wide accessibility (especially from under resourced areas) and recognition for ‘doing the work’ are both laudable goals and should be compatible parts of the UC system mission.

@RWatterson

I wonder if people are willing to go back to the old system of 1/2 of the admits being determined by holistic methods and 1/2 being determined more by stats. In those days, the stats crowd would get their results back early (I think Dec?) and the results are more “predictable” from that perspective. The holistic pathway still has a lot of room to shape the class, find students with lots of promise, etc. One can change the ratios of one pathway vs the other, but I thought there were less complaints back then.

I don’t know. But, I do think that there needs to be a way to tamp down the ‘they’re screwing us’ mentality. Those feelings are tough enough when directed at Privates (who rightly should be operating in alignment with their missions as they see fit) but the Public system should try and minimize that type of feeling among those who are funding them.

@ucbalumnus

If UC went to any kind of rank based system, it would likely use the method it currently uses for ELC, which uses the top 9% threshold recalculated GPA from a recent previous class as a threshold recalculated GPA to get ELC. Presumably, this is to reduce cutthroat competition and rank gaming that is rampant in Texas.

I think that making the ELC offer a commitment to the top 5 or 6 schools rather than all of them might help quite a bit. People who are targeting only UCLA and UCB will still be unhappy. Rightly or wrongly UCR, UCSC, and UCM aren’t considered valuable by the kids we are talking about. They are very good schools but the ELC kids would get into them anyway so ELC as it stands is just virtue signaling. I’m not saying that this will please everyone but I do think that it would be better received.

It would be a positive step but it goes against the “all of the UCs are equally great in their own way” stance of the UC regents.

[roycroftmom]

This. Loss of trust in public institutions is a serious problem

[AustenNut]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

@Aimlesscat1

It is the Lynbrook and Cupertino (not specifically those two schools, they are just example schools that I am familiar with) folks that have the biggest angst.

As I am not overly familiar with the bay area, can you describe Lynbrook and Cupertino a bit so that I can delineate what you’re talking about? My guess is that they’re public magnet schools with higher percentages of economically disadvantaged students, as these are families who can’t pay for private school tuition for top San Francisco high schools, but I could very easily be wrong.

[Jellycat1]

I agree. High school kids should be worried about prom. Not home having a nervous breakdown because he only has a B+ in AP Chem. Youth sports has become way over the top competitive too. All stress, no fun.

[ucbalumnus]

@AustenNut

As I am not overly familiar with the bay area, can you describe Lynbrook and Cupertino a bit so that I can delineate what you’re talking about?

Lynbrook is 93% minority but only 5% SES disadvantaged. 84.1% of students have parents with a graduate degree, and 12.1% have parents with a bachelor’s degree. 86.5% of graduates go to 4-year colleges, and 9.5% go to 2-year colleges.

SchoolProfile23_24final.pdf

Cupertino is 90% minority but only 11% SES disadvantaged. 89% of students have parents with a bachelor’s degree or higher. 71% of graduates go to 4-year colleges, and 22% go to 2-year colleges.

CHS23-24SchoolProfile.pdf

@AustenNut

My guess is that they’re public magnet schools with higher percentages of economically disadvantaged students, as these are families who can’t pay for private school tuition for top San Francisco high schools, but I could very easily be wrong.

Note that these are not magnet schools, but neighborhood schools which reflect the demographics of their neighborhoods (which are in or near San Jose, not San Francisco).

[toandfro]

Both schools (also Monta Vista) are notorious pressure cookers with a lot of stressed kids. I actually think it’s a good thing such schools are not rewarded in the college process, as it would only incentivize even more parents to insist their kids go there.

[hoopsdad2000]

@cy7878

Not UC specifically, but we did apply to a few schools because of their mailer, and a app fee waiver. Figure if they needed S24’s stats to do whatever, as long as it’s free to us, we’ll play.

Yeah, same here. DD saw a couple of attractive departments at UC based on the mailers, and athletics where she could be competitive, plus the fee waiver, so she took an EA shot. We made a list of all the “free spins,” but recognized the odds to getting in without ED (cough-cough, Bowdoin) was not worth the time spend. That said, for certain kids it’s worth the effort to list all the “free spin” free applications and choose accordingly.

[tgl2023]

Lynwood High reported that students of Chinese, Korean and Japanese descents made up 80 % of the students population in their class of 2023, and likewise for Cupertino High, it reports for 2023-2024, students of Asian descents make up 74% of the population there.

[emi722]

@Aimlesscat1

There are alot of doughnut hole families in this group that need a UC price point. But in their eyes CA has stacked the deck against them in the same manner as some groups feel that admissions to elite privates is stacked against them.

They all test (and have high scores) but test blind takes that away. Capped weighted works against highlighting the rigor of their work. They see the admissions results and their take away is that uncapped GPAs aren’t really looked at but rather the UC system is set up to make their 4.0GPA look like everyone else so the schools can just pick who they want.

I’m not saying that they are right with their impressions though it is pretty obvious that these changes were made to limit (or expand) admissions from certain areas. I do think that people who believe that the current system is working are missing some signal.

My observation - this might result from the narrowly concentrated goal, most of these families expect/request their children to study CS. (Even in College Confidential site, lot of “seemingly negative comments” associated with - Bay Area, Asian Male, CS…)

The most recent famous case from Bay Area - Stanley Zhong
(He was rejected by 14 colleges. Then Google hired him. - CBS News)

[Aimlesscat1]

@emi722

My observation - this might result from the narrowly concentrated goal, most of these families expect/request their children to study CS. (Even in College Confidential site, lot of “seemingly negative comments” associated with - Bay Area, Asian Male, CS…)

There is definitely some weight to that, there is a big overweight on CS and Engineering yet it isn’t just those families. Some of the most frustrated are those looking outside of engineering and CS, they understand how impacted CS is, especially at UCB.

I am familiar with the story that you linked. It makes for good press (and highlights that this extremely bright student is good at a very specific subset of CS which is well understood with a a lot of training materials available).

I do think that the story shocked a lot of people in CA. People who understand elite admissions were not at all shocked by Jon Wangs results (SFFA vs Harvard) but this kid being rejected at UCD, UCSB, and SLO is tougher to explain.

All of these schools are impacted for CS but it is pretty hard to rationalize a reject with those stats (especially at SLO which is more stats based for admissions) without reaching into the ‘social engineering’ bucket.

This is why I suggested that a hybrid type of system might be a better way to align the broader goals of the UC system with the realities of how the current system is perceived by may residents of the state.

[tamagotchi]

@Aimlesscat1

All of these schools are impacted for CS but it is pretty hard to rationalize a reject with those stats (especially at SLO which is more stats based for admissions) without reaching into the ‘social engineering’ bucket.

Why? SLO really, truly is stats based. The kid apparently didn’t have the GPA to get into SLO for CS, and SLO doesn’t care about his startup, so what about his story “should” have gotten him into SLO?

Since his SLO GPA was apparently not competitive enough to get into his desired major, I am not sure that a stats-based overhaul of the UC admissions system would have helped him, either. His ECs are what got him hired at Google, not his stats.

[Aimlesscat1]

@tamagotchi

Why? SLO really, truly is stats based. The kid apparently didn’t have the GPA to get into SLO for CS, and SLO doesn’t care about his startup, so what about his story “should” have gotten him into SLO?

Capped weighted is not truly stats based. Grade inflation makes it even murkier.

His Leetcode skills got him hired at Google.

[KaylaMidwest]

@Aimlesscat1

Capped weighted is not truly stats based. Grade inflation makes it even murkier.

His Leetcode skills got him hired at Google.

there was an interesting video out on youtube somewhere with a college admission consultant analyzing what was know at that he was likely not at the top of his class out of his school. The grade inflation at this (and evidently many) schools is really shocking.

This student has a parent who is software engineering manager at Google. I’m sure that didn’t hurt any either.

[tamagotchi]

@Aimlesscat1

Capped weighted is not truly stats based.

Capped weighted SLO GPA is a stat, even if you don’t like that particular stat.

But I’m sincerely interested to know what you meant by “it is pretty hard to rationalize a reject with those stats (especially at SLO which is more stats based for admissions) without reaching into the ‘social engineering’ bucket.” Where is the social engineering? What do you mean?

@KaylaMidwest

This student has a parent who is software engineering manager at Google

Interesting twist.

[ucbalumnus]

@Aimlesscat1

His Leetcode skills got him hired at Google.

Google or other employer hiring criteria differs from college admission. Employers typically focus narrowly on the skills and knowledge they feel are needed for the job. Colleges in the US tend to want more breadth, even from applicants with “spikes” related to their intended majors.

[ucbalumnus]

@KaylaMidwest

This student has a parent who is software engineering manager at Google. I’m sure that didn’t hurt any either.

Google’s hiring process where the technical interviews are done up front by those not necessarily in the hiring group appears to be meant to weed out less competent nepotism hires early. However, knowing someone inside can still give advanced knowledge about how the process works and what kind of technical questions tend to be asked.

[Data10]

@Aimlesscat1

His Leetcode skills got him hired at Google.

I suspect a resume that included things like founding an Internet company, USA computing Olympiad, Google code jam semifinalist, highest ranked team in USA in AI competition, … also played a role. Another article mentions that Google recruiting first starting reaching out to him for interviews when he was 13, based on his Github profile. His father working at the company that hired him is likely also relevant.

In any case, it sounds like he had great software engineering skills prior to entering college, sufficient skills to be hired at tech companies. Most SWE type positions require a college degree in relevant major, but some do not, including certain positions at Google.

The more relevant question to this thread is why he was rejected at 16 colleges, in spite of having such impressive CS skills. He was accepted to UT Austin, which is a great school; but was rejected to many state colleges – both in his home state of CA and in other states. Most were extremely low admit rate colleges, particularly when applying as CS major, but there was also colleges like UCD, UCSB, and Wisconsin. Perhaps he had some red flags in other aspects of his application besides just the CS skills. There isn’t enough information to say.

[ucbalumnus]

@tamagotchi

Since his SLO GPA was apparently not competitive enough to get into his desired major,

That, or maybe he made the apparently common application mistake of not including high school level math taken in middle school on the application. For other CSUs, the validation of lower level math by higher level math means that that is unlikely to matter, but CPSLO counts math courses beyond the minimum for significant bonus points, and apparently does not consider implied lower level courses for this count.

[fiftyfifty1]

@ucbalumnus

maybe he made the apparently common application mistake of not including high school level math taken in middle school on the application. For other CSUs, the validation of lower level math by higher level math means that that is unlikely to matter, but CPSLO counts math courses beyond the minimum for significant bonus points, and apparently does not consider implied lower level courses for this count.

Well, that strikes me as broken. A well designed application process should not contain well-known pitfalls that eliminate candidates on technicalities. It’s like saying a person isn’t tall enough because although they submitted proof they measured 6ft tall, they didn’t submit proof they measured at least 3 ft tall.

[ucbalumnus]

Would agree that this particular aspect of CPSLO admission is broken. It looks like no other CSU or UC does this.

They could fix it by using CSU validation rules to count any unlisted lower level math and foreign language courses for the bonus points.