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

[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.

More Harvard-Westlake kids attend Michigan than Berkeley in a typical year. Comparing With Lynbrook, an Asian majority Bay Area public with similar stats to Harvard-Westlake. Over the past three years 1100 kids applied to Berkeley, 105 were admitted and 70 enrolled. Pretty big difference.

[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.

More Harvard-Westlake kids attend Michigan than Berkeley in a typical year. Comparing With Lynbrook, an Asian majority Bay Area public with similar stats to Harvard-Westlake. Over the past three years 1100 kids applied to Berkeley, 105 were admitted and 70 enrolled. Pretty big difference.

Private school kids are less price-sensitive than public school kids, and therefore more likely go OOS.

This is true everywhere, all the time. It’s not some new, UC-specific phenomenon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad that in California, high-achieving students often have to leave the state to find fair educational equity.

Despite the claims in this thread, the vast majority of California teens stay in state. We even have data on this. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/cgr.asp

According to this, only 14.2% of CA students who completed HS in 2023 attended a college in another state.

Please don’t believe everything you hear on Fox News or Facebook groups. At my child’s affluent public school, about 2/3rds of the students stay in California.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad that in California, high-achieving students often have to leave the state to find fair educational equity.

Despite the claims in this thread, the vast majority of California teens stay in state. We even have data on this. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/cgr.asp

According to this, only 14.2% of CA students who completed HS in 2023 attended a college in another state.

Please don’t believe everything you hear on Fox News or Facebook groups. At my child’s affluent public school, about 2/3rds of the students stay in California.

The majority, almost 60%, of high school kids are Latino. Only 25% of them meet even basic proficiency on state math tests and only 38% meet basic proficiency on the English state test. This is the real challenge for CA. There are tons of kids who should be repeating high school and then doing a year or two at community college before going to college. They fail out of the UCs or get shuffled into an easy major scraping by with a 2.0. It’s extremely expensive as these kids rely on full rides or loans to cover housing which is expensive at all UCs.

UCs are research and scholarly institutions. They don’t really teach undergraduates let alone provide remedial education. It’s a terrible environment for these kids and no they don’t blossom. They do stay in California.

Affluent white and asian students are more apt to go out of state as they know UC doesn’t want them and they can afford it. UM
C and MC white and Asian students will do community college and TAG or TAP to get into as transfers to the top 5.

[Anonymous]

Notorious. Shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More Harvard-Westlake kids attend Michigan than Berkeley in a typical year. Comparing With Lynbrook, an Asian majority Bay Area public with similar stats to Harvard-Westlake. Over the past three years 1100 kids applied to Berkeley, 105 were admitted and 70 enrolled. Pretty big difference.

Private school kids are less price-sensitive than public school kids, and therefore more likely go OOS.

This is true everywhere, all the time. It’s not some new, UC-specific phenomenon.

This is true to a point. Many doughnut hole families in places like Lynnbrook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad that in California, high-achieving students often have to leave the state to find fair educational equity.

Despite the claims in this thread, the vast majority of California teens stay in state. We even have data on this. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/cgr.asp

According to this, only 14.2% of CA students who completed HS in 2023 attended a college in another state.

Please don’t believe everything you hear on Fox News or Facebook groups. At my child’s affluent public school, about 2/3rds of the students stay in California.

The majority, almost 60%, of high school kids are Latino. Only 25% of them meet even basic proficiency on state math tests and only 38% meet basic proficiency on the English state test. This is the real challenge for CA. There are tons of kids who should be repeating high school and then doing a year or two at community college before going to college. They fail out of the UCs or get shuffled into an easy major scraping by with a 2.0. It’s extremely expensive as these kids rely on full rides or loans to cover housing which is expensive at all UCs.

UCs are research and scholarly institutions. They don’t really teach undergraduates let alone provide remedial education. It’s a terrible environment for these kids and no they don’t blossom. They do stay in California.

Affluent white and asian students are more apt to go out of state as they know UC doesn’t want them and they can afford it. UM
C and MC white and Asian students will do community college and TAG or TAP to get into as transfers to the top 5.

White and Asian students stay in-state too. UCs are highly desirable and very popular in California, as are a few of the Cal States.

[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.

I agree. Most people who complain about this are parents whose child wasn’t admitted to schools that they think they should have been and blame admissions for how they choose students. Does anyone really think that colleges should admit only using the highest GPAs, AP test scores and SAT scores?

[Anonymous]

Nothing new, this is known for years which is why some of us don't choose the "best" high schools as no one cares where you go to high school and college is more important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

High school isn’t for everyone but we still try to ensure we have an educated society by graduating as many students as possible.

I don’t understand how you’ve decided that college isn’t for everyone and are wasting resources. Education is never wasted even if a student doesn’t end up graduating. BU has a general education program for students who need extra support. I know more than a few learning disabled girls who went there because the parents wanted them educated. Even though they had no intention of working outside of the home the degrees had plenty of value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

High school isn’t for everyone but we still try to ensure we have an educated society by graduating as many students as possible.

I don’t understand how you’ve decided that college isn’t for everyone and are wasting resources. Education is never wasted even if a student doesn’t end up graduating. BU has a general education program for students who need extra support. I know more than a few learning disabled girls who went there because the parents wanted them educated. Even though they had no intention of working outside of the home the degrees had plenty of value.

Then pay for the education yourself.

[Anonymous]

It makes no sense for parents to sponsor tax to the schools simply will not take the kids or take the kids for any BS reasons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. Most people who complain about this are parents whose child wasn’t admitted to schools that they think they should have been and blame admissions for how they choose students. Does anyone really think that colleges should admit only using the highest GPAs, AP test scores and SAT scores?

Of course schools are not for education right? Why increase their thinking abilities. Let dumb be dumber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It makes no sense for parents to sponsor tax to the schools simply will not take the kids or take the kids for any BS reasons

Those kids may not be accepted at the top tier universities in CA, but there are MANY campuses in the state that would most likely accept them. Why does it have to be Cal / UCLA or bust?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes no sense for parents to sponsor tax to the schools simply will not take the kids or take the kids for any BS reasons

Those kids may not be accepted at the top tier universities in CA, but there are MANY campuses in the state that would most likely accept them. Why does it have to be Cal / UCLA or bust?

Refund tax
Even for the subpar K-12.