<p>The official title for UC’s holistic admissions policy is: Comprehensive Review. But, cynics call it compassionate review. :D</p>
<p>Best of luck to your son, Lucy. But, as big a fan as I am for the UCs, I would (almost) never recommend someone pay OOS fees to attend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. It’s very frustrating. I would say that it feels like the whole system could well fail us, but someone would then tear my head off about how I’m whining and entitlement-minded. So I’ll just think it quietly to myself. 
</p>
<p>I am wondering what UC mid-tier yield will be like with the new policies. Will the students who are being accepted able to afford UC prices? Will there be more UCs drawing from their immediate geographic areas, as students save money by living at home?</p>
<p>Lucy, examples of personal challenge are listed on the webpage I linked for tokenadult a few posts ago, under the description of the point categories.</p>
<p>Cute reply, SlitheyTove. As to your last paragraph, I wonder similarly. This is an experiment, and too experimental for my tastes. But need-based money is mostly plentiful for UC students, and yield has remained high recently and historically.</p>
<p>I feel grateful that I have enrolled my last D in college & don’t have to be concerned about Solving for an Unknown in this department.</p>
<p>slithely:</p>
<p>Personally, I think the changes are much ado about nothing. It’s really an extension of UC equivalent of, “Build It and They Will Come” policy. Since few want to attend Merced (Doh!), let’s lower standards and hope that some marginal candidates might show up. </p>
<p>The focus is on the big two flagships, and teh others will have a small trickle down effect as a handful of “preferrred” students matriculate to Cal and UCLA displacing students to the mid-tier who then displaces to the lower tier. EXCEPT, I’m guessing that most of those will reject the lower tier and opt for a juco instead (with hopes of transferring into the Pac 10).</p>
<p>Further, UC just assumes that kids who have not taken Subject Tests really would prefer a UC but they just forgot about the test requirement( that has been around for at least 40+ years). Dropping the ST’s will make the eligible pool larger but doesn’t mean that “they will come.” UC finaid stinks for the really poor (zero efc means $9 in self-help) so kids will still opt to commute to their local Cal State instead of traveling to a UC (Merced?).</p>
<p>Just my $0.02.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t underestimate the effect of this.
JMO.</p>
<p>blue, perhaps I misunderstand you. It sounds as if you believe that the motivation for the new admissions policy is to populate UC Merced?</p>
<p>^^nah,I just think filling up Merced is a byproduct. The goal is clearly stated by BOARS. </p>
<p>My point was that, just as UC had no clue on what would happen when they built Merced, and when the forced a change to the SAT, they have no clue on what will happen when they drop the subject tests (do they really believe that that every 3.0+ student wants to attend a UC)…Build It and They Will Come! (or, more accurately, lower standards and they will come…)</p>
<p>I understand the politics extremely well. But since this is the largest (and arguably best) RESEARCH university system in the country, I would hope that they would base decisions on research.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think the bigger issue for your son was his GPA. GPA is worth 4500 points on the UCSD scale compared to a maximum of 300 points for community service. Grades plus test scores (7700 points) is the cake in this process. Things like leadership and community service are just a little frosting to pretty things up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…But their significance is in the many tight races between/among those GPA’s and test scores, when those fall on similar axes. The “frosting” + the challenges + special talents + academic development programs + the value-added “add’l a-g courses” (or any combination thereof) are often the deal-breakers for the most desired campuses. </p>
<p>Families applying to Ivies whine a lot about lack of transparency in <em>private</em> school admissions. Other than opening files to public view, I think posting points for categories (i.e., UC) is about as transparent as the public can expect in college admissions. This is why I am against the recent changes. When there are fewer quantitative measures, there is potential for reduced credibility in the process. In addition, when a layer of mystery is added, it encourages additional or irresponsible numbers of applications, which also affects decisions, as committees try to outguess student preferences & sincerity.</p>
<p>I kept telling my son he didn’t have a “stellar” transcript (GPA). His friends (what do they know?) thought that a 33 Act would get him anywhere. Obviously, not so.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree that the “frosting” makes or breaks the deal among students who all have high points from GPA+SATs. But if a large chunk of academic points are missing at the outset due to undistinguished grades and/or test scores, then all that frosting won’t help. The number of frosting points available are insufficient to close the gap. Or stated another way, Great Cake + Mediocre Frosting is a much stronger applicant than the other way around.</p>
<p>which is sooo much different than in real life.</p>
<p>For those of you wondering, this is what makes up “Comprehensive Review” for the UC schools:</p>
<p>[University</a> of California - Admissions](<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/ucal/admissions/general_info/uc_reviews/freshman_app.html]University”>http://www.ucop.edu/ucal/admissions/general_info/uc_reviews/freshman_app.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What isn’t included in this review process are any recommendations from teachers. It is the missing piece in UC admissions.</p>
<p>^^^but that description does exclude the designated points by campus which some of us referenced earlier. (Interesting addition of the secondary school location, though, which many people forget does figure into ultimate admissions distribution.)</p>
<p>Each school has their own method for awarding those “points”, so it makes it even more complicated for students to know when they are applying for admissions to one of those UC schools.</p>
<p>It is easy to figure out minimum eligibility for a student with the UC “points” calculator based on grades and test scores…but the rest of the process is highly subjective. </p>
<p>The Master Plan for CA state colleges and universities is here:</p>
<p>[Major</a> Features of the California Master Plan for Higher Education](<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mpsummary.htm]Major”>Major Features of the California Master Plan for Higher Education)</p>
<p>With Comprehensive Review, there is the ability to manipulate those numbers outside of the original intent of this plan. </p>
<p>Changes were made to the SAT, which ended up being the new SAT, based on the UC President’s recommendation that UC no longer use this for admissions. </p>
<p>Back in 2001, UC said that the SAT II is a better predictor of success in college. </p>
<p>Now, UC says that they would like to drop the SAT II from admissions requirements, largely because many students don’t know to take them.</p>
<p>[UC</a> panel seeks to drop extra SAT tests from admission requirements - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/16/local/me-subject16]UC”>SAT subject tests may be dropped by UC)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So let me get this straight - the student has achieved, in test scores, in grades, in AP classes, and honors classes, they have exceptional leadership and involvement ability, etc. But somehow, there are all these counselors all over the state of California to blame for not informing students that they have to take this test, and that is why students aren’t getting admitted to UC? </p>
<p>Sorry folks, but this rings shallow. </p>
<p>What does the UC system want, then? They have reinvented this wheel way too many times for my personal taste in less than a decade, and I don’t think it is about making a stronger admitted class. It is social engineering by way of college admissions. </p>
<p>The new thing down the UC pike is that they would like to lower admissions standards. Less guarantee of admissions to the top students, more opportunities for lesser qualified students to gain access to the admissions process. For those cynical, like me, it also means that more numbers of college applications will make these schools even MORE SELECTIVE. </p>
<p>[University</a> of California OKs a ‘Radical’ Admissions Change - The Paper Trail (usnews.com)](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/2/5/university-of-california-oks-a-radical-admissions-change.html]University”>http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/2/5/university-of-california-oks-a-radical-admissions-change.html)</p>
<p>Tell me why this is a good thing? Lower the qualifications, make it that much more competitive on admissions for those top students. How does this meet the mandate of California, or help those students in this state?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there are too many tests. Once most colleges started accepting the ACT + Writing in lieu of SAT’s, then it simply became one more set of unneeded and EXPENSIVE tests. (When you start adding all the testing fees together it adds up)</p>
<p>My daughter had ELC status (top 4% GPA) so she was guaranteed admission to the UC’s and had priority consideration at most campuses. She had to provide SAT II scores in her senior year, but there really wasn’t a suitable test to take in any subject she had completed. So to satisfy the UC’s, she signed up to take the US History SAT II, when she hadn’t yet taken US History at her high school. Not to worry: I did the math online and told her that as long as she scores something like 350 on the test she had enough “points” when added in to her other SAT scores & combined with her GPA.</p>
<p>It was a total waste of time for my d. to take those tests. Without that requirement she could have skipped SATs altogether, and simply submitted the ACT everywhere. </p>
<p>I’m glad for the sake of future students if the UC system is backing off somewhat from its long-term practice of subsidizing the College Board.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with you, Calmom. I think there is entirely too much testing, as well.</p>
<p>I would just like UC to admit how much it costs to apply to these colleges. It is a staggering amount of money for kids to pay out, especially to boost scores, or meet these requirements. There is something of an incestuous relationship that UC has with College Board, in my opinion. </p>
<p>My issue is that the rules keep relaxing on admissions for the schools in the state that SHOULD be admitting the most qualified applicants. If that is what UC wants to do, I wish they would be more honest about this. </p>
<p>What really concerns me is that the standards are changing, and that it will be even harder for most kids to get into the UC system than ever before.</p>
<p>So Santa Cruz doesn’t have that hot a reputation? It’s so beautiful there!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with the new standards at all. The UCs (at least UCLA and Cal, anyway), were becoming magnets for, accessible only to, numbers drones. I think it is a good thing that admissions standards will more closely resemble those of the Ivies, for example, where any student who has something amazing to offer will have a shot at admissions, whether they scored a 750 on a SAT II or not.</p>
<p>I agree with Endicott, UC Santa Cruz is beautiful. They also have an extremely strong program in astronomy/astrophysics, with eminent faculty in that field; they manage Lick Observatory and share time (and management) at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii. I’m not as familiar with the other programs, but think there are probably some other stand-outs.</p>