UC San Diego -- or Prostitute College

Parents Forum
181

<p>Zoosermom, I don’t read The Nation, so upon that subject I have no opinion. I read enough of the NRO, frequently enough, not to find in its contents a detachment from reality and a naivete not surprising…only that it manifests in a different manner than usual.</p>

<p>CalMom, you are spot on about following passions. However, while that helps, that is not always sufficient, particularly with the large public schools such as the UC’s, which, despite some nods to “holistic” evaluation, are more numbers driven than many colleges. I suggest that anyone trying to get a handle on college admissions start not with looking at the positives of their candidate but at the profiles of those who are rejected from X, Y, Z schools. It should be sobering. I would also be wary of projecting your son’s experiences from several years ago upon the current admissions conditions; demographic pressures from the Baby Boom echo are having a cascade effect all down the line and that effect isn’t expected to peak for another 2-4 years depending on which demographer you believe. </p>

<p>In terms of toughness to get into, UCSD is closer to UCLA and Berkeley than the others, though your point about non-science majors having a better shot may have some merit.</p>

<p>Here’s a deconstruction of part of the article.</p>

<p>

Okay, fine. Take your dim view. You’re entitled. Scores generally don’t get you admitted. But they do get you into the pool. Don’t want to play the game that way? Fine. But don’t complain if such mediocre scores are held against the applicant. The “we take a dim view” [of multiple SAT attempts] is a weak whitewash, an attempt to use an assumed moral superiority to wave away criteria that would damage other applicants.

Again, the excuses. She never took the class. Ridiculous, because she reads a lot, but she took it a second time (thank goodness for the relaxed moral superiority about multiple test attempts!). The scores are adequate–nothing better–in terms of UC admissions. It’s a good thing the applicant had compensating factors, like the independent study of Russian, and that she was given credit for it: a lot of applicants have the passions, dedication to academics and/or EC’s, <em>and</em> the grades <em>and</em> the test scores. But apparently the writer thinks that poor darling’s individual attributes are all that matters.

Nothing wrong with a 4 but look at the excuses again. <em>Two</em> AP tests! Six hours of test-taking! Only at ten-minute bathroom break! Of course, colleges don’t know, or care about that! </p>

<p>Wow, wouldn’t it be truly awful if many took three, four, or five AP tests? And under the same onerous conditions? And wouldn’t it be better if the colleges knew about this?</p>

<p>Oh…wait…they do, they do, and they do. But poor darling rejectee deserved a better look, don’t you think?</p>

<p>

Well, darling rejectee’s record <em>isn’t</em> dazzling but her teachers all love her and that should trump everything. It’s just a shame that the UC system is too impersonal to accommodate that. If only I could have had a word with the Right People, they would have seen that darling rejectee is one of the Right People too.</p>

<p>Feh.</p>

182

<p>Xiggi is right and I was wrong. I should not have taken offense to what was posted to me. As a new person, I should have taken my lumps and been patient. I sincerely apologize.</p>

183

<p>TheDad you are missing the point. The UCs are not looking at the individual students at all - they are not concerned with who deserves to get in. That is not the point. The UCs are trying to fulfill their social mission - the whole reason they were set up. The purpose of the UCs is to create a population of people who will be most useful to the State of California. California needs educated leaders from all sections of the community to make the state a decent place to live and to attract capital expenditure from the commercial sector. It is for this reason that californians choose to spend 50% of the total tax take on education. To the UC way of thinking once you get the minimum UC requirements you are good enough to get in - thats the 2.8 weighted GPA and minimum SAT. Beyond that they look at the social makeup of the state. The Russians are a growing segment of the population that may be unrepresented in the UC undergratuate body so they look at thier application pool for people with those skills. That person gets chosen rather than someone else with superior skills who may be too similar to the current undergrad body. UCs place a very high value on the diversity of their graduates, which is appropiate considering the diversity of the State of California and their function as a Public University. Fairness and the deserving nature of the applicants doesnt even come into it.</p>

184

<p>I’ve posted this in other threads but I recommend reading the Hout Report for some very interesting insight into freshman admissions at UC Berkeley.
This link is to the May, 2005 press release about the report. Scroll to bottom of article and you’ll find a link to a PDF file of the complete report. It’s long but fascinating reading for anyone who applied – or plans to apply–to UC Berkeley.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/05/16_hout.shtml[/url]”>http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/05/16_hout.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>While other UCs may use a different process all UCs have to conform to state law and the demands of the UC Regents. The Hout Report was the result of the accusation by one of the UC Regents that Berkeley was admitting applicants with lower stats over applicants with higher stats as some kind of secret affirmative action program (which would be in violation of Prop. 209). The Hout report refutes that allegation and shines a bright light on the admissions process in general.</p>

185

<p>“Fairness and the deserving nature of the applicants doesnt even come into it.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=160315[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=160315&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

186

<p>Chiming in from the San Diego region here. When I read the title to this thread, I had to click on it. . .with UCSD in our backyard and many of our top local high school students attending, I was all set to read about UCSD becoming the hotbed of prostitutes-in-training. Alas–that honor still resides with UCLA & USC (just kidding!!!).</p>

187

<p>La Jolla Village Drive and Gilman might not generate the kind of traffic Los Angeles does. :)</p>

188

<p>I can’t believe you are all still discussing this, but pleased that you remain interested. So, a couple of clarifications:</p>

<p>I listed all the stats and details in that L.A. Times piece because what’s the point of writing about the process if you’re going to withhold the exact information the reader wants to know? “The Dad” saw this as making excuses, but probably most people realize I was just describing the situation.</p>

<p>As one example, two AP history tests on the same day are indeed unusual. A teacher emailed me after the op-ed appeared to say that very few students take AP US Hist and AP Euro the same year, which is why the College Board scheduled them on the same day. So, she added, colleges do “know and care about all that,” and probably gave Maia extra points for doing well on them. (The school could – and should – have allowed a lunch break though.)</p>

<p>I’m sorry if anyone feels insulted at my “dim view” of $2,000 private tutoring sessions etc., but one reason for this dim view is that not everyone can afford them and I don’t see why helping make the playing field even more uneven is such a wonderful thing. Funny that someone who dislikes National Review and its readership of mean old elitist Republicans should object to that.</p>

<p>Now I understand that if you live in a rich area of town and your kid goes to a prestigious private school, you may be at a disadvantage if you opt out – I guess it’s like not having a swimming pool in an area where most everyone does. But Maia goes to a big urban L.A. public school and her old private school was, frankly, rather declasse. So we were lucky in that we never felt that pressure. Again, though, it’s funny that the pro-private-tutoring “TheDad” thinks that, as an NRO columnist, I must be disconnected from reality. </p>

<p>But speaking of reality, a bigger reason for my dim view is that in real life you don’t get private tutoring sessions and multiple do-overs whenever you try something difficult. I wanted Maia to get into college – wherever that was, and we were quite prepared for her to go to community college for a year or two and then transfer (thus saving a lot of money!) – without special help, and without a huge amount of parental fretting and hovering.</p>

<p>And I do believe such time and money can be better spent on other things. Maia has loved her LA City College Russian (and Psychology) classes. She did not love all the test-prep stuff in high-school. I quite understand that.</p>

189

<p>

Xiggi, I think you miss the point of what “campus enrollment goals” means. </p>

<p>It means that UCSD want requisite numbers of students to fill all the different majors offered. They don’t want more science students than their already crowded lecture halls can accommodate, and they don’t want their tenured Russian studies professors sitting around with nothing to do. They don’t want to shut down their art department for lack of students, nor do they want their university orchestra to go without an oboist. So just like every other college, admissions is determined in a way that ensures a good distribution of interests and talents. </p>

<p>Maia obviously had the requisite point count. How she got it, I don’t know. I don’t know whether UCSD caps the GPA and/or if the accord all college courses a weighted GPA. It may be that by the UCSD calculation, Maia’s GPA was a lot better than the 3.8 her mom guessed based on the high school transcript. Her strong SAT II scores clearly compensated for the weaker SAT I’s. Under comprehensive review, there are lots of brownie points to be had for “showing initiative” and going beyond what your high school offers to get an education. Again, those college courses help, a lot. </p>

<p>Maia got into UCSD by a completely fair and even handed process. She was assigned a point score and then the ad com looked to see how many Russia majors slots they needed to fill. Good news, plenty of space for more Russian studiers! Some other kid with a higher score than Maia applied to be a biology major. Unfortunately, UCSD already has too many bio majors. More applicants than spots reserved – hence bio majors need even bigger scores. </p>

<p>Again: “enrollment goals” is the key concept.</p>

190

<br>

<br>

<p>Sure it would. I drive through there every day. It’s a big traffic bottleneck and provides all kinds of “opportunities.” Or at least the beggars think so. That area is a major magnet for people holding up cardboard signs to the passing traffic.</p>

191

<p>“Xiggi, I think you miss the point of what “campus enrollment goals” means.”</p>

<p>Calmom, no disagreement from my part here! I do not know what the term means -in the exact context of UCSD. For the record, I am far from being an expert on the UC admissions and only know what I can read on their website or in the UCOP and Regents public reports. In the past, I have been very critical of points-based systems of admissions. I know you mentioned having no interest in reading my past posts, but I have been pretty consistent about this personal viewpoint. </p>

<p>Also, please realize that I am NOT trying to establish that Maia does not deserve admission at UCSD. My issue with her was merely related to the comments she wrote about the people who decided to reject her. Nothing more! I have said many times that it is impossible to pinpoint why some students are rejected and others admitted. None of us has the benefit of reading ALL the files facing the adcoms. So, who am I to voice an opinion about the chances of a candidate, especially after the fact that she WAS admitted at UCSD. </p>

<p>This said, I believe that it is interesting to reconcile various stories. The UCSD documents and the Regents reports are pretty clear that cutoff are established and that a numerical scale based on 12 elements is used in admissions. I do not think that students would report conversations about exact cutoff numbers if said numbers did not exist. </p>

<p>I do not think we will ever know how the numbers are assigned, but I think that it should be pretty easy to establish if a point system with a cutoff is used or not.</p>

192

<p>Thanks, Xiggi, for digging that up. As you can see, UCSD has a “formula” - with 7700 of a possible 11,100 points reserved for grades and test scores, and a “cut-off” of 7421. (Davis has a similar published formula. Other schools have not chosen to publish how they crunch the UC criteria.) Maia’s grades + SAT yield less than 6,000 points on the UCSD scale (GPA * 1000 + SAT & 2 SATII’s * 80%. UC weighting produces at most a 0.4 bump in GPA.) Most of the extra point categories shouldn’t apply: she can’t be ELC because she was never a Junior; I seriously doubt that she comes from a poor or uneducated family or attends a bottom 20th high school or participated in one of the pre-college programs targeted at lower economic students; in 3 years she probably did not accumulate the number of college prep courses which provide a potential extra 500 points; all you’re left with is a maximum of 1400 “personal achievement” points. Like I said before: I don’t actually see how you can get to admission from Maia’s qualifications as reported under the UCSD formula. (And for those of you who think that the UC minimum standards have any relevance to admission to UCSD, consider this: if you’re not from a low income family/first to college/ghetto school/dead parents background, you can max out every other non-academic category and you’ll still fall short of the cutoff unless you exceed the UC minimums by a wide margin.) </p>

<p>I don’t have an axe to grind. I’m not unhappy with UC admissions in any way, either in general or with regard to any specific admissions decision. But many people are. These aren’t private schools, they are publicly funded universities. And the parents of kids with 2100 SAT’s and 4.0 GPAs who are rejected from Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD - as many are every year - get really exercised when they hear about some kid with a 3.5 and 1700 SAT’s gets in. (They usually suspect racial preference, and scream to high heaven about it.) UC constantly has to justify its admissions policies, and every year defends them by pointing out that grades, first, and test scores next, are the primary factors in admission to the most selective campuses. (And yes, I have sons, nephews and nieces who have all gone through the process in recent years, who have collectively been accepted and rejected to all UC campuses except Merced and Riverside.)</p>

<p>There are exceptions to the basic academic requirements: recruited athletes at some schools. I wouldn’t be surprised if Russian language proficiency and study might be another, as I said in my first post. I’ve got no beef with either. But I am concerned with the casual attitude expressed by Maia’s Mom, Calmom, and JLauer that a BWRK with the kind of academic qualifications listed for Maia has a “reasonable” chance of being admitted to UCLA or UCSD - or UCSB, Davis or Irvine. Unless they can hit a home run (or maybe speak fluent Russian) or are some other kind of special superstar they don’t. And it’s a disservice to the parents of current high school students to lead them to think otherwise.</p>

<p>Prostitute school, anyone? It was <strong><em>that close</em></strong> for Maia - and she appears to be an unusually spunky and talented girl.</p>

<p>Calmom - everything you say is true at private colleges - you’ve done your homework there. But it’s not true at UCSD. There have been two exhaustive studies of UC admissions in the past four years. The nature of the process - the number of people performing the application review, what they look for, what helps, what is irrelevant, has been reported in detail - particularly for UCSD and Berkeley. The process is pretty transparent at this point. I know, you’ve already opined that the UC’s must lie about the grades and test scores of their freshman classes, so it’s a small step to assuming that they lie about their admissions process, but I cling to the naive belief that they basically do what they say they do - and it’s not what you think.</p>

193

<p>

Bullfeathers. The subtext is “these are perfectly good scores, how could she have been rejected?” In the article, you whine about the results, your daughter whines about the results. Tree/apple.

The History exams may be scheduled on different days but the cold hard fact is that many students will have two AP exams on the same day. A review of the AP schedule will confirm that.

The writer either did not read carefully or is being disingenuous in shifting objections. My citation of your “dim view” was in response to the assumed moral superiority–which you confirm below–in not taking the SAT’s more than once. You are perfectly within your rights to take your dim view. But you appear to want your cake and eat it, too, thus whining when the admissions system didn’t give the results your daughter wished. It’s pretty simple: if you don’t like the rules, don’t engage in the process. If you do engage in the process, don’t expect the process to work as you would have it, not as it is.

No sale. Fwiw, my daughter went to public school K-12. As for private tutoring, people are free to do so or not. I would never glance askance at anyone who decided not to use tutoring, whether for financial or philosophical reasons. We were able to do so and, given the “arms race” competition, we chose to. However, if we had not, I would not have whined about people who did. And fwiw I was almost finished with the article when I looked up to see the NRO by-line. I had already concluded that it was a bit of whiney self entitlement, written by a demonstrably whiney mom and a daughter who thought she was just-too-good-to-be-rejected; the by-line merely provided the “oh, so that’s it” moment of epiphany. If anyone wants to see some people with some serious grounds for disappointment, there are any number of threads here on CC in the next few days where students with absolutely amazing profiles–including intellectual passion and amazing EC’s–are being rejected from very good colleges.

Shrug. If that’s the moral posture anyone wishes to adopt, they’re free to do. But then don’t whine about the results. There are certainly any number of counter-examples where coaching or multiple attempts–see also, if at first you don’t succeed…–are valid and happen.

Congratulations. Fwiw, I think very few people “enjoy” test prep.</p>

194

<p>Kluge, you raise a good point: I’d like to know where CalMom thinks UCLA lies about grades/test scores. I’ve talked to a fair number of people connected with UCLA over the years, both formally and informally, plus I’ve got a pretty good idea of the profiles of the kids admitted from D’s public high school…the entire picture is pretty consistent. </p>

<p>And, as has been pointed out, the UC minimum standards have nothing to do with the odds of admissions to the top and even the “middle” schools. The last time I read the UCLA Admissions web page it even said so, barely buried between the lines. </p>

<p>I once spoke with an admissions officer who told me about how they [at least then] were making their first cuts. The methods may seem arbitrary but they have to begin whittling down somewhere and many fine applications folders got tossed quickly. UCLA receives more than 40K apps and admits just a little under 10K applicants. The <em>second</em> 10K of applicants is statistically indistinguishable from the first.</p>

<p>Coureur: it would seem to be dubious to go to such a college when there are so many freelancers. But maybe one goes for the sake of knowledge, not the vocational rewards.</p>

195

<p>

Kluge, no one said that UCLA was anything but a long shot. UCSD is different – I know a bunch of kids who were rejected by UCSB and accepted by UCSD. And Sluggbugg’s son who has a terrible GPA but good test scores was rejected by Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara, but accepted at Davis. It just doesn’t work in a straight line hierarchy from most selective to least selective.</p>

<p>Also, you failed to account for Maia’s extra course work - she has a bunch of high school credits from 8th grade, including AP English, and all those college courses – so she does exceed A-G requirements and her recalculated GPA may be higher than her mom estimated. I don’t even have a clue what my daughter’s UC GPA is – it is not the same as the high school transcript. So I think you may really be underestimating her point count. </p>

<p>And I absolutely stand by my assertion that UCSD was totally, completely reasonable for Maia. Also, I have now decided retrospectively that NYU and Barnard were totally reasonable options for my daughter with her 1220 SAT. We win. You can’t prove us wrong. “Reasonable” doesn’t mean sure thing, but it means at least “good shot” – and here are the example of two girls with quirky profiles who got in. </p>

<p>Now maybe its just the Russian thing. I don’t know. </p>

<p>I did build my daughter’s college list with the idea that her Russian study was a hook. For all the most selective colleges, I researched their Russian departments – I counted up how many tenured profs they had, how many other faculty. I looked to see if they had invested money in Russian Studies centers. I checked data to see how many students were awarded degrees in Russian from each college every year. I found statistics about how many students were enrolled in first year Russian, and how many were in 2nd year Russian, and how many were studying year 3 or above. I looked for patterns and figured out which colleges have big departments but few students. I clipped the article from the Yale Daily News about how they only had one Russian major and needed more - see: <a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=24067[/url]”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=24067&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This wasn’t a strategy or a trick. My daughter didn’t go off to Russia hoping to boost chances to get into college. Its just that when it was time to build her college list, I asked myself what was the most unique and outstanding quality that my daughter had that colleges might be interested in. If she had really high test scores in addition to grades, maybe I wouldn’t have bothered. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case, so I had to look for something else. </p>

<p>If my daughter gets into Berkeley this week, then most assuredly it will have to be the Russian. Nothing else will account for it with her test scores. If she gets into Brown, then it will be a miracle. But probably a Russian miracle. </p>

<p>Obviously there must be dozens or hundred of other possible hooks that would apply to different students. My son did pretty well applying to liberal arts colleges with prodominantly female enrollment and being really strong in math & sciences. The UC system may be more formulaic, but it is not blind to its own institutional needs. There’s a fudge factor in the definitions used for comprehensive review, and numbers can be nudged up when they want a student badly enough.</p>

196

<p>Getting into UCSD is a good feat. But a previous poster mentioned that the Russian program doesn’t seem particularly developed as of yet. Good grades at a school like UCSD could very well be looked on kindly if the OP’s daughter should want to transfer in a couple years.</p>

<p>I am surprised that UCSD was able to “pick out” a passionate Russian learner from the mass of applications it receives. The way the school has portrayed its admissions process (quite a bit by the numbers), there doesn’t seem to be a way for them to give a boost to liberal arts majors. </p>

<p>Perhaps there is a division of apps into science/math vs. liberal arts piles before the process gets too far along.</p>

197

<p>For anyone who thinks this subject is new:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=21705&page=1&pp=15[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=21705&page=1&pp=15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

198

<p>ellemenope- it is NOT by the numbers. It goes by a system called “comprehensive review”. Every applicant to the UC system files a single application in which they provide a 3-part, 1000 word personal statement. Every college READS those statements and uses the information in those statements to support determinations for adding extra points (as UCSD does), or just as a more general gut-level sense factor (as many other campuses do). </p>

<p>The three questions that are asked are as follows:

This is the part where Maia probably told them about how she got interested in studying Russian and started taking college courses.

Don’t know about Maia, but this is the part where my daughter wrote about all her dance training and her interest in choreography.

OK, maybe Maia wrote here about the turmoil she endured as result of having a mother who wrote for the National Review and revealed intimate details of her life to the world at large. At my urging, this is the part where my own daughter explained why she didn’t have any math past algebra II (blaming it on the foreign exchange and scheduling difficulties at her high school). </p>

<p>This is the process by which ALL applicants are judged. They read it. In fact I believe Berkeley has 2 readers for every single statement, I don’t know about other campuses. I’m not saying they enjoy reading it, but they definitely DO read it and whatever the kid says is considered against the 12 comprehensive review criteria. </p>

<p>Also, back on the main application form for every campus, the student had to select a major for each campus applied to. Its o.k. to choose “undeclared” but you do have to choose something. So when all the data goes to the campus, one of the first things they see is the major. San Diego has a bunch of college, with college-specific programs, so that info is probably also readily available.</p>

199

<p>Calmom,</p>

<p>Berkeley has at least two readers for every statement and sometimes a third. Also, this is a link to a Daily Cal article from 2003 – what’s interesting is that it has a copy of the sheet the readers use when reviewing an application </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=13511[/url]”>http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=13511&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

200

<p>“ellemenope- it is NOT by the numbers. It goes by a system called “comprehensive review”.”</p>

<p>And what is the outcome of the comprehensive review? A score! </p>

<p>Step V – Computing a Comprehensive Review Score</p>

<p>Eligible applicants will be assigned a comprehensive review score by totaling the scores from each category listed in steps 1 through 4. Eligible applicants are then ranked based upon that assigned score. Applicants with the strongest combination of academic, personal characteristics and achievement factors will be admitted in sufficient numbers to meet campus enrollment goals.</p>