Guessing not a native Californian.
The young kids in our orbit do NOT call it “xxxx”. (I can’t even type the word. 
)
Be sure to note geography as well… as our “under 25 crowd” here is as puzzled by that term as I am!
1 Like
Not written by, or performed by, a native Californian.
Yeah that’s how it sounds to me too… Ouch, my ears! 
1 Like
Based on my report, those older ( over 30) and natives do not in the bay area. Younger mixed groups of transplants ( recent college grads relocated there) do use the term-maybe not for long?
This mistakenly assumes that the UCLA isn’t admitting students who are excellent academically. It is.
It also narrowly defines the quality of the institution based on minute differences in the supposed academic qualifications in the students. This, IMO, is a mistake.
Under a broader understanding, UCLA’s admissions policies enhance the quality of the institution.
See for example the Chetty Study on College Mobility.
Among “Elite” schools:
- UCLA admits the highest percentage of low and middle income students by a significant margin.
- Despite CAs pockets of extreme wealth, UCLA has the lowest median parental income, again by a significant margin.
- UCLA is first among elite schools in the “Overall Mobility Index.”
It seems like UCLA is doing a tremendous job of allowing access to a quality education for even lower SES students who are qualified, and that IMO makes it a even more of an excellent PUBLIC institution, not less of one.
4 Likes
All for those measures of “top” as I have said before. Just clarify what measure you are using to define “top”. UCSC is top is some ways too. Great.
which some poster here is already saying are not as good as kids from certain area HS…
I don’t see these as mutually exclusive. There are plenty of students in the pool so that both can be achieved.
2 Likes
Well, we don’t know if their academic strength is or is not, right? Maybe the other 12 factors compensated. Maybe they are weighed equally. Who knows.
Now you are just arguing against yourself.
3 Likes
The post to which you are responding didn’t use the word “top” and the Chetty study defines its terms. Sorry the word “top” offends you, but I am not here to for picayune debate.
1 Like
You seem upset that I am pointing out the obvious. You have no idea why the current class was selected based on some unknown application of 13 criteria, but assume for some reason they are all academically excellent. No, they are all considered adequate. Some may be excellent, some may not be. Why does that bother you?
Might I remind members of the forum rules: “Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others."
and
“College Confidential forums exist to discuss college admission and other topics of interest. It is not a place for contentious debate. If you find yourself repeating talking points, it might be time to step away and do something else… If a thread starts to get heated, it might be closed or heavily moderated.”
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/guidelines
I’ve put the thread on slow mode for the moment.
There are many rankings worldwide, not just USNWR, that rate universities on a variety of factors. The UCs seem to perform pretty well, especially the most holistic one, UCB. If anything, USNWR seems to underrate UCB relative to other ranking systems.
Of course. And most rankings are based on grad school, anyway. And many people dont care about such things anyway.
There is life beyond academics. But it is nonsensical to think the class isnt altered by the use of 13 criteria of unknown weight
It is equally “nonsensical” to assume that because UC considers factors in addition to grades, that the accepted students aren’t excellent.
3 Likes
No one that I know from teenagers to old people call it “Cali.” Even the young tech workers who workout in the gym that are from other parts of the US, Europe or elsewhere don’t use “Cali”.
5 Likes
The use academic criteria. Along with other criteria. Holistic review was introduced by the UCs in 2001 - almost 25 year ago. Has UCLA’s reputation slid? Seems like we would have noticed that by now. Instead, we see record high applications and record low acceptance rates. So I’m not seeing too much evidence of a slide in prestige as a result of the introduction of nonacademic factors.
I would say the same for UCB. Has it significantly lost any prestige since the introduction of holistic review, i.e. nonacademic factors?
Blame LL Cool J for that 
1 Like
Let’s move on from the Cali discussion