Should the UC System adopt a college admission model similar to the Texas College System?

[mtmind]

Sorry, but I don’t think it putting your spin on my post makes it “more accurate.”

[roycroftmom]

UC admissions officers really are not making a determination of who the “top” students are-no AO is, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. They are determining who meets institutional priorities and is likely to adequately perform, and accepting a subset of that.
AOs are not some supreme judge of talent or character, and priorities reflect that-not necessarily the " top" student, however defined.

[tamagotchi]

I am having trouble connecting some of the discussion in this thread to the subject of the thread, which is, “Should the UC System adopt a college admission model similar to the Texas College System?”

@mtmind

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.

Isn’t that what the TX system does, too (except that it is more explicit in the system)?

@roycroftmom

More accurate to say good or adequate students from each high school. An acceptable goal for a state school.

I believe you are in TX, is that correct? Is this your opinion of your own state’s college admissions system?

[CCC4]

@roycroftmom

More accurate to say good or adequate students from each high school.

I get the point you are trying to make, but it just comes off as dripping with elitism, not to mention insulting to all the students. UCLA and UCB are not consistently ranked as high as they are because the students are just “good” or “adequate.” California has a tremendous number of really strong students.

[roycroftmom]

Of course it does. It also has far too many strong students that won’t get admitted to UCLA, and that in no way means they are not " top" students in at least some sense, just that they didnt fit the priorities and there wasnt room. Quite likely many of those rejected are more “top” in some ways than those admitted. Such is life. Rejection doesn’t mean not “top”, nor does acceptance necessarily “top”.
Yes, that is exactly how I think of the UT system.
Good and adequate students from each high school. Not necessarily the “top” , but some might be. That is fine.
Not odd here to have kids accepted to Harvard but not make the UT cutoff. Different priorities.

[tamagotchi]

@roycroftmom

Good and adequate students from each high school. Not necessarily the “top” , but some might be. That is fine.
Not odd here to have kids accepted to Harvard but not make the UT cutoff. Different priorities.

Of course Harvard is using holistic admission with its own institutional priorities. And that is fine, too.

It’s difficult to define which students are TRULY the “top” independent of stats… but I am not sure that “getting admitted to Harvard” proves that a student is the “top” (and presumably “should have been admitted” to any other school, if they really wanted top students).

[ucscuuw]

@tamagotchi

Of course Harvard is using holistic admission

It’s amazing how many of the top students as deemed by Harvard just so happen to be legacy and donor kids. It’s all a giant coincidence.

[mtmind]

@tamagotchi

Isn’t that what the TX system does, too (except that it is more explicit in the system)?

Yes. (But the UCs are also pretty explicit that this is what is happening.).

No doubt the same supposed discrepancies happen in Texas when virtually everyone from a single high performing school applies to UT. Fortunately for CA students, there are plenty of other terrific UC options that are available, which is why 90% of the students from Mission were admitted and 80% from Lynbrook.

[roycroftmom]

The difference is that the kids at top public high school in Texas ( as determined by their academic scores only) already know they won’t be admited to UT if outside the top 6% rank, but will pursue other good options, and frankly don’t take the rejection as personally. Harvard might want them, even if UT can’t.
The issue with the UC schools seems to be the difference between expectations and experience. Kids at top SF high schools expect to get in, and don’t, to UCLA or whatever. The Texas kids largely know the public outcome by junior year. I can’t think of any school where most apply to UT-they wouldnt bother if rank was too low

[Aimlesscat1]

@mtmind

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.

OK, this helps, the school that I used as the counterpoint to Lynbrook is Mission HS in San Francisco. Mission San Jose is an East Bay HS (Fremont).

@mtmind

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.

Yes, Lynbrook is an outlier and that has been said multiple times and I have tried to draw the conversation away from Lynbrook using other examples; I even pulled the data from the two high schools closest to Lynbrook (Prospect (Public) and Mitty (Catholic) for additional data points. Nothing really changes if you substitute other schools.

@mtmind

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 aren’t as far off as you might think. Lowell (from the movie Try Harder) is above 70% and quite a few other schools public and private are as well. Above 50% is common.

@mtmind

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

I don’t see a nefarious plot. I have mentioned multiple times that I support these policies. It feels like you are focusing on only the part of the conversation. I came from an under resourced rural environment and I know firsthand the challenges that the students face.

My issue isn’t the goals, it is how we currently get there. The system is opaque in a way that feels patently biased to multiple groups. When certain groups feel that things are stacked against their race, or other groups opt out of applying because they feel that things are ‘rigged’ you aren’t in a healthy state no matter how laudable the goal.

It would be more honest if the system came right out and told applicants that our first priority is representation from all corners of the state in relative proportion to population. And, within that objective we look to achieve a class which is broadly representative of the demographics of the state. We then consider applicant academic accomplishments within the bounds of these primary goals. If this is what CA wants to achieve, they should say it. Many people and groups wouldn’t like it, but it would be more transparent.

[CCC4]

@Aimlesscat1

When certain groups feel that things are stacked against their race, or other groups opt out of applying because they feel that things are ‘rigged’ you aren’t in a healthy state

I’ve been trying to follow this angle to your argument for the pasts couple days. You’ve used Lynbrook (Cupertino), Mission (SF), Prospect (Saratoga), and Mitty (San Jose private) as examples. You’ve pointed out that they have various attributes - public/private, more/less homogenous economic/racial demographics. In other words, they are not common in these respects.

So a group like SFFA could sue the UCs based on what? That some Bay Area schools have better/worse admit rates than others? What would the complaint allege as the reason for this?

[mtmind]

@roycroftmom

The difference is that the kids at top public high school in Texas ( as determined by their academic scores only) already know they won’t be admited to UT if outside the top 6% rank, but will pursue other good options, and frankly don’t take the rejection as personally. Harvard might want them, even if UT can’t.
The issue with the UC schools seems to be the difference between expectations and experience. Kids at top SF high schools expect to get in, and don’t, to UCLA or whatever. The Texas kids largely know the public outcome by junior year. I can’t think of any school where most apply to UT-they wouldnt bother if rank was too low

Would prefer a system where a much lower percentage of kids get into a top public university provided they know they probably won’t get in? As opposed to a system where top kids have a much better chance of getting into one of a selection of top universities, but with a bit more uncertainty?

90% of Mission San Jose applicants were accepted to a top 100 university. Not 6% or 10%.

[CCC4]

@roycroftmom

The difference is that the kids at top public high school in Texas ( as determined by their academic scores only) already know they won’t be admited to UT if outside the top 6% rank

While technically true, I think @ucbalumnus has already made an excellent point with respect to this.

@ucbalumnus

The Texas system uses class rank (not grades directly), which can get political within schools or school districts in Texas, and can incentivize cutthroat competition within schools as well as students and parents trying to game the rank system in their schools.

[mtmind]

You keep cherry picking examples with the same or similar demographics and issues as Lynbrook. They are not representative. At any school where almost the entire class applies to UCLA, most of the students will not get in, no matter their qualifications. If kids apply from the bottom three quartiles of the class, they won’t get in.

@Aimlesscat1

The system is opaque in a way that feels patently biased to multiple groups.

It is ironic that you say there is a lack of tranparency, when we can go back and pull up the detailed admission records from every high school in the state going back 20 years for applicants, admission, and enrollment, broken down further by, gender, grade point, transfer or freshman, etc. It’s not “opaque” just because many choose to ignore the information.

@Aimlesscat1

It would be more honest if the system came right out and told applicants that our first priority is representation from all corners of the state in relative proportion to population.

I’m not sure how many ways the UCs could say this. At some point one has to conclude that certain segments of society just don’t want it to be the case.

Local guarantee (ELC) | UC Admissions.

[ucbalumnus]

@Aimlesscat1

It would be more honest if the system came right out and told applicants that our first priority is representation from all corners of the state in relative proportion to population.

Would you prefer a stricter version of such, like in Texas (as the title of the thread mentions)?

[CCC4]

@mtmind

It is ironic that you say there is a lack of tranparency, when we can go back and pull up the detailed admission records from every high school in the state going back 20 years for applicants, admission, and enrollment, broken down further by, gender, grade point, transfer or freshman, etc. It’s not “opaque” just because many choose to ignore the information.

I believe this is the fundamental problem. So many families with high-performing students ASSUME their student will get into UC-x without doing any kind of homework before application season. That is not the fault of the University of California.

[CCC4]

Of course, if the UC did adopt a published x% auto-accept like UT, it might “solve” some of the dramatic neighborhood bunching that occurs in the Bay Area. There may then be a flight to less competitive schools.

And, real estate values in the super high-performing areas may drop.

[mtmind]

I agree, but think it is even more than that. So many families believe that their child is deserving of UC admission no matter what the UCs tell them and whether they have researched it or not.

It is about what they think the policies should be, rather than what they are.

[pashtun]

I think the UC system has it down pretty good. They may need to add SAT/ACT back into the mix, but the Essays add huge value to the process. Some of the CSU’s have an aweful application process. I can see Cal Poly SLO changing their process the way things are going.