It’s not just CA. Most states that have highly selective colleges use a holistic admission system that considers more than just stats. This often makes it difficult to predict who will be accepted/rejected based on stats.
1 Like
This isn’t true. California has clearly defined standards and pathways for guaranteed admission into the UC system, into the CSU system, and into (and out of) the CCC system. The fact that UC has a number of great universities (including those universities often maligned here) is a plus, not a minus
They have the reasonable certainty that they will have a California public education available to them. It may not be at their first choice campus. This is really not that different from state flagships that have satellite campuses where some accepted students will be routed. There is a California public college option for just about every California student, and with a generous system of need-based aid. I think all of this is highly relevant as taxpayers are getting maximum access to public in-state education. But like anywhere else, colleges with a 10% acceptance rate are reaches for all, but the UCs range from about 10% acceptance to an approx 80% acceptance rate. And then there are CSUs on top of that with almost the same range. And there the TAG program so you can start at a CC and have GUARANTEED admission to a UC. Yes, again, your top choice campus may be a reach because, in California, the top publics are also T20 universities (on some lists at any rate). But if you look beyond the T20s, you’ll see a lot there, and so much of this is very much accessible to most in state students. And predictably so.
Edited to add: There is also the top 9% guarantee where every student in the top 9% is guaranteed a UC admission. Yes, it won’t be Cal or UCLA, but still, it is a (predictable) guaranteed UC education.
2 Likes
True. But I wasn’t talking about them.
Also, what is ALDC?
A = recruited Athletes
L = Legacy
D = Dollars, or Development or children of major Donors
C = Children of faculty
1 Like
Based on a Google search, it is the Abby Lee Dance Company, which was featured prominently on Dance Moms 
1 Like
If those options were truly valued by Cali parents ( and it is the same in most other states), then no one would be stressed about college admissions there. Given that many are stressed, it appears they do not consider the alternatives offered appealing.
I think every state has some type of public education for residents available to all citizens in-state. Many do not care for the different paths.
Their chance will be ZERO if they don’t try.
1 Like
More to the point, outcomes used to be less arbitrary. With my eldest (2018), it was clear who was going to get into top and mid ranking UCs, who was borderline and who wouldn’t. And amongst the top 20-30 kids in the class, most felt the result was fair (even though some were disappointed because their ECs or their test scores weren’t good enough to get into their dream school). With my youngest (2023), no one really felt confident about which UCs they should apply to (so more kids wasted money on safety applications to low ranking UCs and CSUs) and I felt there was more complaining at the actual outcomes (especially from parents of boys who seem to be faring worse in UC admissions).
Of course this is in a not particularly high ranking public school which has not historically had much success with top privates and has a lot of donut hole parents who want their kids to go to UCs. Anecdotally I heard a lot more complaints back in 2018 from rich Palo Alto parents whose kids had less success at top UCs than at comparably ranked private schools who like well taught full pay students. They probably still complain…
2 Likes
I think this is such an interesting point and is worthy of further exploration. On the one hand, we have a lot of experts trying to persuade students and parents that “where you go is not who you’ll be”; the importance of fit; that many CEOs came from state schools; that we should ignore rankings and cast a wide net when it comes to college. I agree with all of that, by the way.
But then Chetty comes out with a study that says that elite schools make a difference, particularly for lower-income/disadvantaged students, and that a person is more likely to reach the 1% income bar if they went to an “elite” college. This study is basically saying that attending a highly selective/rejective school really does matter and we need to level the playing field so that more students from different backgrounds have access (thus an increase in test optional and the importance of context, etc.).
With admit rates at <5%, clearly most people won’t attend an elite school and even those admitting <20% are still rejecting 4/5 students. Plenty of 1%ers didn’t go to Ivy+ (or even the tier directly below), even if those schools are disproportionately represented in the 1% income bracket. It seems to me that given these dismal admit rates (not to mention the “hooked” student advantage which makes admission a little less impressive), I would think that the perception of what’s a “good college” is already expanding and will continue to do so. Will it really matter that much where you went to college in 10 years? Does it even matter that much now?
It just seems like we’re hearing two contradictory things at once: “Don’t just focus on elite colleges,” and “Attending an elite college is a game-changer and we need to do all we can to level the playing field and increase access for the sake of social mobility.”
Which is it?
6 Likes
But that was precisely the point of my original post on this topic - if you cast a net wider than the T20 the process becomes significantly less stressful.
This is what I said and this holds true. If you want only Cal or UCLA - which are T20 schools on some such lists and have acceptance rates comparable to T20 schools - then, sure, everyone’s chances of admissions are low. If you try for a Cal and a Santa Cruz and a Davis and a Merced, then you have excellent chance for admission to at least one (and if you’re in the top 9% of students, you have guaranteed admission to one o those). All of these schools are T100 - they are great schools. But if your personal cutoff is T20 instead of T100, then sure, you may have a problem and things may seem very stressful and uncertain.
That is precisely the problem with a fixation on T20 schools, whether in California or in the Northeast or wherever.
3 Likes
Elite influencers (journalists, commentators, etc) are very good at expressing their “luxury beliefs” of do as I say, not as I do. Every time they persuade someone else not to “focus on elite colleges” it reduces the competition for their own kids…
2 Likes
Around here, it is the same people saying where you go to school doesn’t matter AND that legacy admissions need to be abolished to keep the playing field level for top schools. I think most of the people arguing contradictory points don’t even realize they are doing it.
At the end of the Varsity Blues documentary/reenactment on Netflix, a lady who is an ‘expert’, towards the end of the program, says that where you go to school doesn’t matter. We go through an hour plus learning about the “largest of its kind” federal prosecution and then we get told that it doesn’t matter. I guess our tax dollars were wasted with this massive prosecution.
Every thinking person knows that where you go to college/university has the potential to matter, just like how SAT scores matter. Both on this site and elsewhere, parents of kids who didn’t get in to top colleges/universities are the most vocal group. They want to convince others that MIT & Princeton don’t offer benefits that Cal Poly & Alabama don’t offer because they are trying to convince themselves.
9 Likes
At the risk of drifting WAY off topic…How are we defining “game-changer”?
If it’s this - reaching the 1% - then I’m not sold on the whole premise. How many people truly aspire to being in the top 1%? Financial security, sure. Excessive wealth? Yes, some certainly seek it. Do most people really? I don’t know. I never did - heck, I work in the nonprofit sector, so I clearly never prioritized making big bucks. I am aware that some people do prioritize this, but is it really common and should it be used as a measure of success for the general population? And I will add that I myself was a first gen/low-ish income college student. I did not attend an elite college. And, yes, I am not even close to the top 1%. But I consider myself reasonably successful professionally and solidly middle class, which is more than my parents were. So what should other FGLI students generally be aspiring for? How high is the bar and is it defined solely by income level?
3 Likes
And you’ve spent $280, when if the outcomes were clearer (you knew Cal was not going to happen, or you knew Davis was essentially certain), you’d spend half that. Back in 2018 that was perfectly reasonable as an approach: my S applied to just Berkeley and UCLA, my D applied to UCSB and UCI (the two decent dance programs) and Berkeley and UCLA (as academic backups). All with predictable results (Regents at UCSB and UCI, both admitted to UCB and UCLA). That’s simply no longer feasible.
On other threads parents bemoan the stress for their kids of writing so many more applications (and yes I know that at the UCs it’s just paying more money). Let’s acknowledge that encouraging students to apply to their “dream” schools regardless of test scores has negative externalities.
2 Likes
Yes, this is true, although fee waivers are available for those who are lower income so hopefully the fee isn’t a true barrier for most, especially the FGLI applicant. For others, unfortunately, it is the cost of the college application process and holds true whether you are applying for multiple colleges through the UC app or the common app. If you want a sure thing without spending the money, then you can apply to Merced and/or Riverside and be relatively assured that your dart will hit a bullseye without spending money that might essentially be “wasted” on an unsuccessful bid for a college with a significantly lower acceptance rate.
1 Like
McGill, Toronto, and UBC are much larger relative to Canada’s population than the most desired universities in the US are relative to the US population. So they are not trying to select from an overflow of applicants with academic credentials pressed up on the ceiling.
Also, they do not require external standardized tests for domestic applicants. High school courses are standardized at the provincial level, often with standardized exams for part (not all) of the grade. So high school courses and grades are considered more trustworthy and consistent there.
2 Likes
California’s large population compared to the size of the state universities does make the most desired state universities more selective.
If, instead of the current 9 UC campuses, there was one UC the size of the current 9 put together, it would not have to be that selective. In many other states, the ratio of flagship students to population would be more similar to that hypothetical.
3 Likes
I love what you wrote here and I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees deep contradictions both on this board, and from parents in the wild who, out of one side of their mouth say that success is defined broadly and there are lots of paths to success…buuuut for their little genius, no other college will do but the tippy top universities.
What I think underlies much of the debate is that there is broad disagreement about the point of college. My own view–which informs my belief on everything from test scores to grading to access–is that the mission of college is first and foremost to educate students in their chosen area of study. A byproduct of that education is social mobility and increased opportunity (defined broadly to include financial, career/professional, life satisfaction, impact, etc.).
I do not think the mission of a college is to shape their admissions or curriculum in order to increase social mobility by lowering standards, eliminating data like test scores, ensuring that all kids pass or graduate, give As to anyone who does the minimum, or even to provide remediation for students who enter unprepared. Given the thousands of colleges in this country, there will be options for students at all levels of preparedness, and colleges that provide different levels of rigor. A student’s job is to find the college that’s right for them, not ask the college to make the institution right for the student.
I think we’re asking colleges to solve a problem of educational inequity that starts long before kids submit a college application or take the SAT.
10 Likes
I have not seen that contradiction. Most of the parents who believe no colleges but the tippy top will do for their kids aren’t the same ones who say they believe that success is broadly defined and doesn’t necessarily entail tippy top schools (by way of USNews).
Can you provide some examples of those contradictions?
6 Likes