How your high school affects your chances of UC Admission: The better the school, the worse your chances.

[Anonymous]

May not be same OOS. My DD goes to UCLA from a top NJ private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UC's are explicit in how they assess applicants. It isn't just about who has the absolute highest GPA. There are 13 areas they are look into including:

Quality of the academic performance relative to the educational opportunities available in the student’s high school

Identification by UC as ranking in the top 9 percent of the student’s high school class (eligible in the local context, or ELC)

Academic accomplishments in light of a student’s life experiences and special circumstances, including but not limited to: disabilities, low family income, first generation to attend college, need to work, disadvantaged social or educational environment, difficult personal and family situations or circumstances, refugee status or veteran status

Location of a student’s secondary school and residence

UC's are intended to serve the entire state, not just affluent areas. Anyone can transfer into a low performing school and then boost their chances of going to a top UC. Families rarely do this because the trade off isn't worth it.

My son was waitlisted for UC San Diego, which was his top choice. Am I bitter about it? No. He went to a high ranking high school that was really competitive. Most of the students had parents who had at least a college degree, while many had graduate or professional degrees. There was a specialized STEM program that was pretty amazing. He was at a really long medical appointment with a specialist and the doctor came in and saw the lab write up he was working on. She was amazed and couldn't believe he had that opportunity because she said it was something that she did in college because few high schools have that type of lab equipment and it was an advanced technique. A resident came into the room and was also surprised (and luckily helped my son finish his homework!).

He got into all the next lower ranked UC's - Irvine, Davis, Santa Barbara so he had plenty of choices. He is at one of them and is loving it. He has done really well his first three semesters in all his pre-med classes because he was so well prepared. It is a great environment for him and he doesn't find it as cut throat as going to a competitive high school. Meanwhile good friends who did slightly better and are at UCSD and UC Berkeley in pre-med really do not like how the classes are curved and they are competing against the very tippy top students. So in the end he has ended up with a better college GPA, got into a lab, has a better social life.

His younger sibling goes to a public school that is really low ranked but has a good sports program he participates in. He has classes with long term substitutes who often know nothing about the subject, many teachers are brand new teachers, the school looks physically run down, there are fights and limited honors/AP classes. Teachers just turn on videos instead of teaching, look away when kids spend all class periods on their phones, and do nothing when half the class cheats. His honors chemistry class did a lot of coloring pages. The labs were cancelled because the teacher said too many kids were out of control and couldn't be trusted. There is no AP biology or AP chemistry at his school so it isn't like someone will figure out no one is learning. He will probably get admitted to a top UC but he has vocalized having doubts about how he is going to graduate college because he says he hasn't really learned much in high school.

This is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is wrong how the UC's choose their students. UCSD shows us that while mistakes can happen, the primary driver of the UC should be to help marginalized groups succeed in college. The UC's do need more funding as they are navigating a large shortfall and California's budget deficit is unsustainable.

Stop stealing tax payers' money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:May not be same OOS. My DD goes to UCLA from a top NJ private school.

Makes sense. Top UCs are a very opaque process for top Bay Area and LA metro kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is wrong how the UC's choose their students. UCSD shows us that while mistakes can happen, the primary driver of the UC should be to help marginalized groups succeed in college. The UC's do need more funding as they are navigating a large shortfall and California's budget deficit is unsustainable.

That’s what their community colleges are for! It’s such a mismatch of resources to have a top college teach kids elementary/middle school math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if they do 9th-11th at a strong school and then transfer to a weak school?

Won’t work. Has to be at least two years. System actually works to discourage those moves.

Plus the fact that it would be absolutely awful to uproot a senior and plop them down elsewhere - whether a good school or a bad one. Were you never a kid???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is why so many californians head east to schools...they don't want to deal with an equity driven approach to admissions. a top student at lynwood knows this, hence why so many lynwood grads are found at ivy pluses, non UC t20 and t50

We have friends whos kids got into Cornell and Rice but not the top UCs. They both said they would have preferred their kid had gotten into one of the top UCs and stayed instate. The kids do apply.

Asian kids apply. Kids from the public schools as well. UMC white kids mostly head to privates if they go to a good private high school.

If you look at Harvard Westlake data - around 280 kids applied over 3 years to Berkeley and 75 got in but most who got in had a high gpa. So assuming 25 per year. Of that about 12 attended. So 50% of those who got in attended, its not like kids are not applying or getting in from top private schools.

[Anonymous]

Most high achieving California students apply to the UCs and there is a leg up for those from socioeconomic disadvantaged high schools and, as a percentage, more kids from these schools or with a compelling story likely get in. Students from private schools and UMC schools do get in but for the top UCs, they need to be the top of the class as they are competing against their peers. This is hardly surprising as UCLA and Cal are top 20 schools. UCSD, Irvine and Davis top 30ish. The private school kids (some already on the East Coast for boarding school though residents of California) and rich kids (particularly with legacy status) have been applying and going to East Coast private schools for decades. This isn’t new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:May not be same OOS. My DD goes to UCLA from a top NJ private school.

What are her stats? What other top options did she have? In MoCo, it seems those getting in Berkeley also got offers from HYPSM or CalTech. UCLA may be slightly “lower” at Penn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UC's are explicit in how they assess applicants. It isn't just about who has the absolute highest GPA. There are 13 areas they are look into including:

Quality of the academic performance relative to the educational opportunities available in the student’s high school

Identification by UC as ranking in the top 9 percent of the student’s high school class (eligible in the local context, or ELC)

Academic accomplishments in light of a student’s life experiences and special circumstances, including but not limited to: disabilities, low family income, first generation to attend college, need to work, disadvantaged social or educational environment, difficult personal and family situations or circumstances, refugee status or veteran status

Location of a student’s secondary school and residence

UC's are intended to serve the entire state, not just affluent areas. Anyone can transfer into a low performing school and then boost their chances of going to a top UC. Families rarely do this because the trade off isn't worth it.

My son was waitlisted for UC San Diego, which was his top choice. Am I bitter about it? No. He went to a high ranking high school that was really competitive. Most of the students had parents who had at least a college degree, while many had graduate or professional degrees. There was a specialized STEM program that was pretty amazing. He was at a really long medical appointment with a specialist and the doctor came in and saw the lab write up he was working on. She was amazed and couldn't believe he had that opportunity because she said it was something that she did in college because few high schools have that type of lab equipment and it was an advanced technique. A resident came into the room and was also surprised (and luckily helped my son finish his homework!).

He got into all the next lower ranked UC's - Irvine, Davis, Santa Barbara so he had plenty of choices. He is at one of them and is loving it. He has done really well his first three semesters in all his pre-med classes because he was so well prepared. It is a great environment for him and he doesn't find it as cut throat as going to a competitive high school. Meanwhile good friends who did slightly better and are at UCSD and UC Berkeley in pre-med really do not like how the classes are curved and they are competing against the very tippy top students. So in the end he has ended up with a better college GPA, got into a lab, has a better social life.

His younger sibling goes to a public school that is really low ranked but has a good sports program he participates in. He has classes with long term substitutes who often know nothing about the subject, many teachers are brand new teachers, the school looks physically run down, there are fights and limited honors/AP classes. Teachers just turn on videos instead of teaching, look away when kids spend all class periods on their phones, and do nothing when half the class cheats. His honors chemistry class did a lot of coloring pages. The labs were cancelled because the teacher said too many kids were out of control and couldn't be trusted. There is no AP biology or AP chemistry at his school so it isn't like someone will figure out no one is learning. He will probably get admitted to a top UC but he has vocalized having doubts about how he is going to graduate college because he says he hasn't really learned much in high school.

Please don’t confuse people with real world experience. At my son’s HS, UC admissions are pretty straightforward. Top 5% for Cal and UCLA, for example. Top 5% to Top 15% for UCs other than Santa Cruz and Merced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is why so many californians head east to schools...they don't want to deal with an equity driven approach to admissions. a top student at lynwood knows this, hence why so many lynwood grads are found at ivy pluses, non UC t20 and t50

We have friends whos kids got into Cornell and Rice but not the top UCs. They both said they would have preferred their kid had gotten into one of the top UCs and stayed instate. The kids do apply.

Asian kids apply. Kids from the public schools as well. UMC white kids mostly head to privates if they go to a good private high school.

If you look at Harvard Westlake data - around 280 kids applied over 3 years to Berkeley and 75 got in but most who got in had a high gpa. So assuming 25 per year. Of that about 12 attended. So 50% of those who got in attended, its not like kids are not applying or getting in from top private schools.

I assume those who got in also had offers from HYPSM or CalTech or at least mid-tier Ivies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UC's are explicit in how they assess applicants. It isn't just about who has the absolute highest GPA. There are 13 areas they are look into including:

Quality of the academic performance relative to the educational opportunities available in the student’s high school

Identification by UC as ranking in the top 9 percent of the student’s high school class (eligible in the local context, or ELC)

Academic accomplishments in light of a student’s life experiences and special circumstances, including but not limited to: disabilities, low family income, first generation to attend college, need to work, disadvantaged social or educational environment, difficult personal and family situations or circumstances, refugee status or veteran status

Location of a student’s secondary school and residence

UC's are intended to serve the entire state, not just affluent areas. Anyone can transfer into a low performing school and then boost their chances of going to a top UC. Families rarely do this because the trade off isn't worth it.

My son was waitlisted for UC San Diego, which was his top choice. Am I bitter about it? No. He went to a high ranking high school that was really competitive. Most of the students had parents who had at least a college degree, while many had graduate or professional degrees. There was a specialized STEM program that was pretty amazing. He was at a really long medical appointment with a specialist and the doctor came in and saw the lab write up he was working on. She was amazed and couldn't believe he had that opportunity because she said it was something that she did in college because few high schools have that type of lab equipment and it was an advanced technique. A resident came into the room and was also surprised (and luckily helped my son finish his homework!).

He got into all the next lower ranked UC's - Irvine, Davis, Santa Barbara so he had plenty of choices. He is at one of them and is loving it. He has done really well his first three semesters in all his pre-med classes because he was so well prepared. It is a great environment for him and he doesn't find it as cut throat as going to a competitive high school. Meanwhile good friends who did slightly better and are at UCSD and UC Berkeley in pre-med really do not like how the classes are curved and they are competing against the very tippy top students. So in the end he has ended up with a better college GPA, got into a lab, has a better social life.

His younger sibling goes to a public school that is really low ranked but has a good sports program he participates in. He has classes with long term substitutes who often know nothing about the subject, many teachers are brand new teachers, the school looks physically run down, there are fights and limited honors/AP classes. Teachers just turn on videos instead of teaching, look away when kids spend all class periods on their phones, and do nothing when half the class cheats. His honors chemistry class did a lot of coloring pages. The labs were cancelled because the teacher said too many kids were out of control and couldn't be trusted. There is no AP biology or AP chemistry at his school so it isn't like someone will figure out no one is learning. He will probably get admitted to a top UC but he has vocalized having doubts about how he is going to graduate college because he says he hasn't really learned much in high school.

This self-awareness is important. Too many kids in his situation didn’t know how unprepared they’re and ended up getting burned pretty bad in a top college.

But if you are like the majority of students at the poor school, you have no idea you aren't getting a good education. My younger son only realizes because he saw how much homework my older son was assigned and how rigorous the grading system was. At the younger son's school students in AP classes get A's but then get 1 and 2's on AP tests. At my older son's school kids get B's and C's in AP classes and 4's and 5's on AP tests.

My younger son's Alg. 2 honors class was taught by a sub the last three months of school when the teacher went on maternity leave. The sub was an music major and joked about having to retake the one required math class to graduate college. My older son's class around half the class had already gone through the exact curriculum in the summer and done all the problems so it was their second time through taking the class.

Younger son's APUSH class at poor school they just watch the AP videos in class, then watch Heimler's videos with fill in guided notes and take all all the online practice tests. You could keep retaking tests until you got 100%. His AP teacher is new and doesn't want parent or admin complaints that kids aren't passing. Younger son's APUSH final was a re-take of the study guide multiple choice test they were given to study. The school pushes kids who don't even want to take APUSH into the class so they can brag they have a lot of students taking AP classes. It waters down the class for the top students in the poor school.

Older's son's APUSH class at rigorous school involved long lectures, surprise quizzes, essays (DBQ's & LEQ's) and NO retakes or test corrections. The history teacher has been teaching AP history for over 25 years. His teacher doesn't agree with the APUSH changes 10 years ago that de-emphasized memorizing facts and dates. He requires his students to still memorize endless facts and details from the textbook as well as being able to write essays. The final was three parts. An hour long LEQ based essay, an hour long multiple choice test from past AP tests, and an hour of pure memorization involving writing very quickly pages of information such as 1) write the first 20 us presidents in chronological order 2) Write the first 15 Amendments 3) Write 7 major effects of the Great Awakening 4) Write 5 causes and 5 effects of how the French and Indian War transformed colonial relations in North America. There were 20 fact topics they were given to memorize. They needed to show up with 20 blank pages of lined paper one for each fact topic. He ended up with a B+ in the class and a 5 on the APUSH test.

It is crazy to think these are both public schools in CA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is why so many californians head east to schools...they don't want to deal with an equity driven approach to admissions. a top student at lynwood knows this, hence why so many lynwood grads are found at ivy pluses, non UC t20 and t50

We have friends whos kids got into Cornell and Rice but not the top UCs. They both said they would have preferred their kid had gotten into one of the top UCs and stayed instate. The kids do apply.

Asian kids apply. Kids from the public schools as well. UMC white kids mostly head to privates if they go to a good private high school.

If you look at Harvard Westlake data - around 280 kids applied over 3 years to Berkeley and 75 got in but most who got in had a high gpa. So assuming 25 per year. Of that about 12 attended. So 50% of those who got in attended, its not like kids are not applying or getting in from top private schools.

I assume those who got in also had offers from HYPSM or CalTech or at least mid-tier Ivies?

Most of the kids from our OOS public school who get into Cal and UCLA have a 4.0 UW GPA. Scores don't matter because the UCs are test blind. One student was rejected Cornell ED, was set to attend UCLA on May 1, but got off the waitlist at Vanderbilt and then got off the waitlist at Brown so the student is now at Brown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is why so many californians head east to schools...they don't want to deal with an equity driven approach to admissions. a top student at lynwood knows this, hence why so many lynwood grads are found at ivy pluses, non UC t20 and t50

We have friends whos kids got into Cornell and Rice but not the top UCs. They both said they would have preferred their kid had gotten into one of the top UCs and stayed instate. The kids do apply.

Asian kids apply. Kids from the public schools as well. UMC white kids mostly head to privates if they go to a good private high school.

If you look at Harvard Westlake data - around 280 kids applied over 3 years to Berkeley and 75 got in but most who got in had a high gpa. So assuming 25 per year. Of that about 12 attended. So 50% of those who got in attended, its not like kids are not applying or getting in from top private schools.

I assume those who got in also had offers from HYPSM or CalTech or at least mid-tier Ivies?

Yes so the statistics are skewed because everyone who gets into a top private school through an early application then withdraws their UC application in Dec or Jan. because the UC's don't release decisions until March.

[Anonymous]

College isn’t the right path for everyone, and earning a degree doesn’t always guarantee meaningful results. For many, it consumes resources without providing real value, and schools often end up exploiting taxpayer funding. When will we hold the public sector accountable for this?