Senior Year

<p>I know that colleges don't get to really see your grades for senior year but they see your schedule and how rigorous it is. How much does this bear on your admission when compared to 10th and 11th grade? I slowed down a bit in the difficulty of my classes in my senior year. for ex) taking regular english instead of AP course, a journalism class, Art I (lol) instead of an extra AP.. and when it comes down to it, I am still taking 3 AP courses: AP Physics, AP Calculus, and AP Govt.. so I'm a bit concerned for colleges like UCLA that im planning to apply to. I have 4.0 weighted GPA's in my 10th/11th grade years, been practicing for the SATs and it looks like its gonna be around (2050+), and ECs are decent</p>

<p>Thank you in advance.</p>

<p>I don't think that will really matter much for you, in the normal world 3 APs is A LOT (lol). </p>

<p>They just don't want to see you taking all standard level courses</p>

<p>Hahaha, to be honest, it does not matter.</p>

<p>Wrong. It matters a lot. First, you are already borderline. UCLA's average UC GPA is 4.2 and average SAT is about 2050. So in a year where it will be super competitive because they will take fewer students and many are skipping applying to privates, you need to be as strong as possible. They very much pay attention to Sr. course load.</p>

<p>hmmm.. interesting.. </p>

<p>@hmom5: so, from your pov what is the best course of action for me? should i go back to my 5 AP course alternative? and what would be my chances if i didn't step it up? are they really that asanine about this AP class stuff.. i really wanted to step it down a notch</p>

<p>@yummymango: what from your experience makes you say that?</p>

<p>I'll put it this way. There are way more qualified students applying to the top UCs than can get in. This year will probably be the worst in history. Most will be using senior year to step it up and clinch the deal. What you do is your choice.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hahaha, to be honest, it does not matter.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd love to see some support for this too. It's the exact opposite of What UC says.</p>

<p>Not only what hmom5 says, but also the financial crisis is going to play out in ways that aren't pretty to the UC system. Expect that the enrollment reduction ax is not going to pass the top UC tier (Berkeley and UCLA) by the time the HS class of 2010 is sending in their applications in November. This will result in more competition.</p>

<p>wow that's pretty severe then.. oh well.. there's alternatives out there...</p>

<p>If senior year didn't matter I would assume most students rigious course load would be concentrated within 10th and 11th grade, which I would have done myself if I knew senior year was less observed... much more logical. Though I do think senior year matters, but as I now see it may be more logical for one to start taking Ap classes during their mid years of high school ( 10th and 11th). Then again, I'm not that sure which would be the best time to do most Ap classes, but senior year usually matters... heard of a few students getting their admission taken away due to their academics in 12th grade.</p>

<p>How much weight can a rigours courseload (AP Chem, AP Calc AB, AP Govt, AP Lit, and AP Econ) carry?</p>

<p>In terms of the importance of senior year, maintaining your GPA is all that really matters. If you're trying to compensate for your other years with a rigorous course load senior year, forget about it. Just take number of APs and honors that you normally would. Ufcollins, your schedule's pretty similar to what I had except I took AP Calc BC instead of AB. The weight your schedule carries? For admission purposes, very minimal. If you don't care about rankings, during your senior year, just maintain a 3.0 for UCs. For privates, it's safer to maintain a consistent GPA. I care about grades and don't believe in senioritis, so I ended my year with a 4.45. But really, if you're talking about admission chances, your senior schedule is not as important as you think. It's not a break it or make it thing.<br>
--from a 2009 high school grad going to Northwestern University</p>

<p>P.S. I have a few friends, who really didn't care about senior year, that are going to Berkeley/UCLA/USC this fall and just maintained a 3.0 for both semesters.</p>

<p>^
Wow, if I would have known that I would have stacked my Ap classes during 10th and 11th grade... though I should mention ap classes aren't even offered at my school to 10th grade students. This is really confusing, yet surprising.</p>

<p>^Colleges, especially privates, will know if your school does not offer AP classes to 10th graders. As long as you challenged yourself with the available Honors courses, then that's more than fine. If you're applying to any UCs (UCLA/UC Berkeley), you're in some luck, I guess. Because the UCs know that not all schools offer APs and Honors to all grade levels, they limit the number of Honors/AP courses for which you add an extra AP/Honors point; you can only use 8 semesters for the extra point. </p>

<p>All in all, I think the important thing is that you try your best in everything and challenge yourself enough that you actually learn something. Then, colleges will see that you're a diligent and passionate student.</p>

<p>Just as an interjection, this year, the major cuts in UC admissions were done in all UCs UCSD and "below". UCLA held just about steady from last year and Cal actually went up from 21-22% to 26.7% admission.</p>

<p>And there are rumors Cal will continue to expand freshman class size for another year.</p>

<p>So in reality, for UCLA, expect a modest increase in competition; and you can actually. afford to be optimistic about Berkeley.</p>

<p>@yummymango: As I have said before, the UC point cap is indeed used by all UC campuses, but I have it confirmed from admission staff that virtually all schools above Santa Cruz , use the cap only to determine eligibilty. Fully weighted GPA is what is used when actually evaluating your application in the context of your school (which is what really matters to UCs).</p>

<p>Here's is a non-rumor about what some are thinking about the yet to be adopted budget in CA:</p>

<p>CSMFO STATE BUDGET UPDATE
July 21, 2009 </p>

<p>Early last evening the Big 5 emerged announcing an accord to fix the 2009-10 state budget deficit.</p>

<p>The suspension of Proposition 1A and borrowing just shy of $2 billion from cities, counties and special districts property tax revenues is included. Since the legislative leaders declined to offer details prior to briefing their respective caucus members, we should assume, unless we discover to the contrary, that the borrow will be the 8% across-the-board proposal offered by the Department of Finance some months ago. We are told that the suspension of Proposition 1A will be coupled with some form of a loan program for local agencies to access, but again, no details.</p>

<p>Both houses are expected to vote on the budget accord Thursday, and as you know, suspension of Proposition 1A requires a 2/3rds vote within each house. Nothing is a done deal around here until it’s a done deal, but the legislative leaders should very optimistic last night that each house will, in fact, deliver the necessary 2/3rds votes.</p>

<p>The budget accord also takes the local share of the gasoline tax and $1.7 billion in funds from redevelopment agencies. Both the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties vow to sue the state over these takes (Please see the League’s Press Release attached for additional details). The budget plan also would provide for a long-term extension of redevelopment plans, which is somehow tied to triggering the take of the local share of the gasoline tax.</p>

<p>To recap:
Local Government impact is ~$4.3 billion.
Prop 1A borrowing is $2 billion.
Two-year borrowing of local gas tax is $1 billion per year.
Local redevelopment agencies take is ~$1.3 billion.
Prop 1A and HUTA raids would be triggered if RDA proposal to impose a 10% tax increment take does not materialize ($3 billion estimate annually).
CSMFO will continue to provide its members with information as it is available.</p>

<p>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</p>

<p>League of California Cities Condemns Proposed State Budget as Reckless Ponzi Scheme</p>

<p>SACRAMENTO — California’s legislative leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have agreed on a proposal to “balance” the state budget with illegal raids of local government gas tax, public transit and redevelopment funds, according to recent court decisions and a legal analysis obtained by the League of California Cities, as well as a “loan” of local government property taxes that is unlikely to be repaid. By relying on illegal mechanisms and fund shifts, this budget resembles a Ponzi scheme that the League of California Cities condemns in the strongest possible terms.</p>

<p>The classic Ponzi scheme works on the "rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" principle. Money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses. Meeting in secret, the Big Five have put together a state budget that relies on unconstitutional seizures of local taxpayers’ funds or “loans” from local taxpayers to finance today’s state operating expenses. This recipe for disaster passes off responsibility for repayment or complying with future court orders to reimburse local governments to future governors, legislatures and taxpayers.</p>

<p>As they have in the past, courts are expected to enjoin the state from implementing its unconstitutional raids of local gas tax, public transit and redevelopment funds. Further, given California’s negative fiscal outlook, the League believes it is illusory to maintain that the state will be in a position to repay the “borrowed” property tax funds in a few years.</p>

<p>League President and Rolling Hills Estates Mayor Judith Mitchell reacted strongly to the budget proposal. “Cities across the state have suffered deep revenue losses and acted responsibly to cut spending by laying off staff, shutting public facilities, and eliminating programs. While some at the state level will try to pass this proposed state budget off as a major breakthrough, city leaders know it only passes the buck and the problem to the future. As an elected official who took an oath to protect and defend the state constitution, I am embarrassed that any state officials would propose a blatantly unconstitutional budget that promises to fail within weeks of its adoption.”</p>

<p>“This budget proposal is a reckless Ponzi scheme because it depends on unconstitutional seizure of billions in local revenues that the voters dedicated to specific purposes and questionable borrowing provisions,” said Chris McKenzie, League executive director. “It also puts government’s most important responsibility—protecting public safety—at risk because it takes local property tax revenues that should be used to patrol the neighborhoods of the cities of California and to respond to the many fire, police and emergency medical calls that cities in California receive. We have assured state officials we will see them in court the day after a budget is signed if it contains illegal provisions.”</p>

<p>Established in 1898, the League of California Cities is a nonprofit statewide association that advocates for cities with the state and federal governments and provides education and training services to elected and appointed city officials.</p>

<p>in the midst of all this chaos, I hope our politicians can find some good solutions, both money-wise and for education...</p>

<p>I was planning to take a bit of a break from a very difficult 10th-11th grade period.. i seriously worked my @ss off, taking the hardest classes i could possibly take and getting A's in all of 'em. crap... right when i thought the hardest part would be over. bye bye free/leisure time.</p>

<p>thank you all for the heads up.. i guess it'll help me form a better decision.</p>