I believe there is another CC thread where that conversation is allowed to take place.
1 Like
Your bold face statement should be changed to something like “believe that their child is deserving of UCB or UCLA admission”. It is not that hard to get into a UC if you are willing to go to UCM or UCR.
3 Likes
But at some point it’s not just about percentage but sheer number of students. When you have several hundred students applying, the percentage will go down as the number of students is similar or higher than other high schools in the state.
Also, I thought it had been established that many were applying to CS? If so, isn’t even the percentage accepted well within state averages? Please correct me if I am mistaken about that.
They do say that geographic location is a factor in admissions. If you want to see how that plays at, then they make all of that data available. On the UC website, they also state: “Close to 90 percent of UC undergraduates are California residents. They are a vibrant and diverse group, encompassing the cultural, racial, socioeconomic and geographic richness of our state.”
So I think they are pretty clear about trying to represent the state in admissions.
1 Like
The CSUs are formulaic like apparently some posters prefer. However, some of them, like CPSLO and SDSU, are not transparent about the formulae and historical thresholds, so an improvement at those campuses would simply be to publish the formulae and historical thresholds (like SJSU does).
Disclaimer: all kids that got into SLO are deserving, 100%.
I don’t like it at all, no matter what the stat criteria is. It feels like a random number generator chooses set numbers from set stat thresholds. So many students are stat qualified, nothing to distinguish them.
Interesting angle. I did not run for all campuses, but here is a look at the number of UCB admits in 2023 for some of the High Schools mentioned, plus a few other high performers in the area:
eta: 69! - Lowell (San Francisco)
57 - Monta Vista
48 - Los Altos
47 - Saratoga
39 - Mission (San Francisco)
39 - Palo Alto / “Paly”
39 - Cupertino
37 - Mission San Jose (Fremont)
35 - Gunn
33 - Mitty (private)
27 - Mountain View
26 - Lynbrook
23 - St. Francis (private)
13 - Bellarmine (private/boys)
9 - Prospect
To drive this point home, around 10% of the entire senior class at Mission San Jose was accepted UCLA. That is not out of just those who applied, that is out of the entire senior class! That is an excellent result for any school.
It seems an unreasonable and unsupported expectation to believe that more than 10% of the senior class at any school should receive admission to UCLA.
2 Likes
I’m not cherry picking anything, I am answering questions using very sophisticated selection techniques like “what are the high schools located closest to Lynbrook?” Or “What does another high school in the same district look like?” I also used “@mtmind pulled up Mission San Jose, let’s take a look”. The point is that it isn’t hard to find examples, and this highlights the challenge. They are more representative than they should be.
And there are many on CC would argue with you that your statement while true is fundamentally unfair for a state college if the kids are better qualified. I am not arguing that, but many would feel that “geography” shouldn’t be a deciding factor.
Ex post facto information tells you the results, it doesn’t provide any insight into the process and how it works. You are correct in that the results over the past 20 years or could further indicate to these groups that things have been stacked against them.
Now you are being unserious. ELC as it is currently designed is unserious. It is merely virtue signaling as any of the student eligible would have been an auto admit if they just checked the box and added a bit of money to the application fees. It offers these students nothing of value. If you were paying attention awhile back in this thread, I suggested that some changes to ELC could help.
I agree that this is a fundamental problem because people want to assume that students are treated and evaluated independently on their merits and not within the context of broader policies.
However, the state has broader priorities and goals which extend beyond any individual student or school as they should. So improved transparency is needed regarding the goals, the importance of achieving them and what that means in terms of admissions. What it means is that it won’t feel fair to everyone, and they shouldn’t be afraid of saying so.
If you really wanted to highlight the importance of these goals within the context of the 13 factors, they would be stack listed in the order of importance. If that was honestly done Geography and representative composition would rank above GPA. It would be a start, but I do not think that the UC system wants those optics so we remain in the place where we are.
2 Likes
I’m not asking to have that conversation; I’m answering a question in the context of why I think that the UC admissions system needs to evolve.
The private high schools listed are Catholic, so their college applications and matriculations may have some skew toward Catholic colleges and universities.
But if “better qualified” is defined solely on stats, then it wouldn’t be holistic admissions and the UCs are VERY clear that they use a holistic model with not one but thirteen criteria, including geography. They are upfront about this. They are not trying to hide it from anyone.
2 Likes
Schools close to Lynbrook share the same characteristics of Lynbrook, and these characteristics make your methodoligy misleading. You choose schools where virtually entire class applies to UCLA, then complain that only a low percentage is admitted. It is stacking the deck.
Exactly. And this is what is driving the hostility and anger. Not that the system is opaque. It is the belief that the students who attend South Bay schools like Mission/Lynbrook/etc. are better than the students from across the state and more deserving of admission to UCLA and Berkeley, and therefore UCLA should fill itself up with kids from select, elite schools, at the expense of the students at every other school in the state.
Results over the past 20 years provides a wealth of insight of how the system works. It tells parents that their student doesn’t have much of a chance unless they have done well relative to their peers at their high school.
Setting your inappropriate insult aside, the ELC is a strong indication of what the UC values and how it views applicants. Kids are reviewed in the context of their high school. Do well in the context of your your high school and your odds are greatly improved. Not near the top of your class, then your odds are greatly diminished. As UC explains, they consider “location of your secondary school and residence.”
2 Likes
There is one thread and only one thread in which race and admissions can be discussed. Since this thread isn’t it, I’ve deleted several posts.
If you are not yet a member of the Politics Forum and wish to join, follow the instructions here.
1 Like
It might help if the relative weight of those supposed 13 factors were identified.
So maybe geography 20%, low income, 15%, club leadership 10%, gpa 10% or whatever the actual allocation is
2 Likes
Yes, I included them only because Mitty (Catholic) had been raised for comparisons earlier in the thread, and I wanted to provide a bit broader look at what is happening at privates.
oops: meant this to reply to @ucbalumnus
1 Like
A few more . . .
Harvard-Westlake 25
Polytechnic (La Canada) 11
College Prep 11
Stanford Online 14
canyon crest 43
Long Beach poly 43
1 Like
I’m sure I’m repeating myself, but there are many, many high performing students who have accepted or seriously considered their ELC spot and would disagree that it is “nothing of value.”
Hmmm. “Want to assume…” 
And who defines “merits?” If families have a different idea of “merits”, that’s on them for not doing some basic research to learn that the UCs value more than GPA and rigor.
3 Likes
Thank you to @mtmind for linking the University of California admission criteria. I have to admit after reading through the links, I am confused on why so many parents are unclear on the criteria.
Disagree with the criteria? Ok. But it isn’t unclear.
As someone who is not a California resident, it seems beyond clear that having as many California students as possible get a spot at a UC is the mission. Getting California students to a specific university is not the mission.
8 Likes
Exactly. And they do a pretty good job of it, imo.
Any why should it be? All of the UCs are excellent, top 100 ranked schools. Every one of the campuses will give you an excellent education at a reasonable cost. Guaranteed admission to the top 9% is a wonderful thing. Having an entire other system of CSUs with their strengths, locations, and reasonable costs - even better. As a California resident, I think the state does a truly impressive job by making higher education accessible to pretty much every student who wants it. No small feat in a state with the population size we have. And then they have a whole financial system in place to provide (quite generous!) aid to those in need to make it financially possible. But people still complain because of one or two campuses that are hard to get admitted to. There is so much value here, though, so many opportunities for education. I personally love that about California and wouldn’t trade our system of UCs and CSUs (and even the CCCs with the TAG program) for any other model. Just my opinion as a state resident.
8 Likes
UC Merced is ranked #60 according to USNWR. UC Riverside is ranked #76 and UCSC is ranked #82.
Those are the lowest ranked UC’s and appear to me to represent “good value.” Speaking as a CA resident with one child at SLO.
6 Likes