Again, you are proving the point that people look to race and ethnicity first, rather than other characteristics. It would not be surprising if those schools’ locations resulted in a disproportionate percentage of students aiming for CS and engineering majors, which are filled to capacity and more selective and many UCs and some CSUs.
The UCs and CSUs are limited in the number of in-state students they can handle due to the need for a subsidy of their tuition. Want to increase the number of in-state students? Advocate for that along with greater state subsidy, paid for by either higher taxes or reduction of other state spending or both.
Semi joking here - may be we need a more efficient tax, may be some CA parents can choose to be in the out of state applicant pool, forfeit their instate status and pay out of state tuition if admitted for the first n years of enrollment.
Geography, gold, and the need for labor to build the Western part of an intercontinental railroad. It had nothing at all to do with the University of California.
I’m actually doing the opposite with what you quoted. All bay area schools with different socioeconomic and ethnic makeups but all have UC admissions under the state averages for the top UCs. The common thread isn’t race it is bay area.
Regarding ethnicity and race; whether we like it or not, think that it is valid or not the current reality of thinking is that discrimination based on race is thought to be an issue. When people can pull up examples like Lynbrook and Mission the examples reinforce those biases and predilections and that isn’t good hence the need for better clarity into the admissions criteria and process.
Agreed, it is a better path than one which is generating the issues that the current one is causing. I’d still like better clarity into the admissions process as well.
That is actually an interesting proposition. What would the uptake be for a section of unsubsidized or lesser subsidized slots? Give in state residents the option of opting into the same pool as OOS/International students. why not?
Nothing at all to do with UCs? Really? I think you may be drastically underestimating how many families have initially come to California from around the US and world for a UC education, then stayed.
UC has a ton to do with that. I came to CA for a UC (as a grad student). As did my husband, his brother, his uncle, his former roommate, several other friends, etc etc etc. Lots of people come to California for the UCs, and stay (and pay taxes).
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.
The process has changed. You don’t have to like it. I think CC is a great place for people who share a collective experience. There is really no need to argue because none of us control the process and have zero control over how things go.
We just share the experience.
If your kid didn’t do well in this current cycle and have younger kids who will go through this in the upcoming years, please please re evaluate their path.
The examples of Lynbrook and Mission cut against what you are suggesting. In 2023, 90% of Mission students who applied to UCs were accepted to at least one. 80% of the Lynbrook students who applied to UCs were accepted to at least one. Lynbrook’s numbers are above, but Mission had 47 kids accepted to UCLA and 37 kids accepted to UCB. Both represent 10%+ of the applicants.
Besides, UC does not consider race in admissions. Not sure that the UCs need to change their admissions just because some refuse to believe this.
The examples of Mission and Lynbrook fully support what I have said. I am not sure about your data source but here are the Fall 2023 numbers pulled from the actual University of CA/Dept of Education sources using the SF Chronical tools
Mission
UCB: 39 of 90 43%
UCLA: 12 of 77 16%
UCI: 37 of 69 54%
UCD: 54 of 91 59%
All far above the state averages
Lynbrook
UCB: 26 of 344 8%
UCLA: 27 of 365 7%
UCI: 43 of 363 12%
UCD: 89 of 358 25%
All below to far below the state averages
The level of contrast between the results of these two schools is pretty stark and made even starker when you add in that the capped GPAs of the Lynbrook kids was typically 0.1 to 0.15 or more higher than the Mission kids for both applications and admits. Unweighted wasn’t available but is likely an even wider gap.
I’m not sure why you keep going back to consideration of race, I’ve never said that the UC system does. I’ve just pointed out that people could (and some will) draw that conclusion if they look at data such as this. People believe that Harvard discriminated against Asian applicant even though Harvard won that suit.
I do very much believe that the systems needs some changes, otherwise I fear that there will be a ‘race by proxy’ suit somewhere down the road because groups like SFFA are trying to find a way to bring one.
You are right, things like major selection can skew things and it does when it comes to Lynbrook. However, Lynbrook was only an example.
I also pointed out that the same results hold across public and private schools in the bay area.
Prospect High School and Archbishop Mitty are a economically and racially balanced public and a traditional larger catholic school respectively both located within a few miles of Lynbrook. Neither would be expected to be overbalanced towards engineering/CS yet both significantly trail the state acceptance averages for the top UCs while also having significantly higher GPAs.
I don’t think you can really compare one school’s acceptance rate to UCB against another without considering major. Perhaps one school had more applicants to more competitive majors than the other? I’m not sure you can really draw any conclusions based on limited data and a very small sample size.
I’m not really sure what you are asking but if you are asking why I expect them to not be overbalanced towards engineering/CS like Lynbrook it is because their demographics are relatively inline with typical bay area high schools in more economically diverse districts.
Stats are 2023, Lynbrook San Jose and Mission San Jose. Both schools did extremely well with regard to admissions to UCs. What stands out at these these schools - and what distorts the percentages - is how many are applying to the top UCs.
Lynrook’s class size is 445, yet 385 students applied to UCLA. 385 apps to a single school! That’s over 85% of the class applying to one of the most selective public institutions in the country! These are not typical numbers. They are extreme outliers. And over 40% of the seniors are gunning for CS or engineering.
So when you have almost the whole class applying to the top UCs, and a significant portion are all gunning for the most competitive majors, then it obviously the acceptance rate is going to be reflect these factors.
What I keep coming back to, and what you don’t seem to want to consider, is that UCs want to spread representation out over all high schools in the state, and that means a policy decision to focus admissions on the top students from each high school. The top students. Not the top 385 students. That means at schools with high concentrations of excellent students, some will get left out.
That’s not some nefarious plot, it is the well known policy goal for a state supported institution.
