pingpong2 said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Price aside, USC is pretty great these days. I saw an article in the Chron I think that showed the acceptance rate into various UC's from CA high schools last year. What was interesting, and I think telling, is that UCLA had a lower acceptance rate, but Cal had a higher enrollment rate across the board. Mission High in SF had the highest acceptance rate into Cal - 40% which is wacky.

---

Last year, UCLA had an 8.7% acceptance rate, and of those accepted, 52% elected to enroll at UCLA.

Last year, UC Berkeley had an 11.7% acceptance rate, and of those accepted, 45% elected to enroll at Cal.

UCLA is a much more popular option these days, but I don't think it's necessarily because Cal is doing anything wrong (well, other than the continued employment of Jim Knowlton). I think it's just the reality of California's population dynamics, where 2/3 of the state's population is down south. That's why you see UCSD and UCI being so popular these days too.

As for USC, I see that the cheaters continue to sort of "fudge" the admissions data. They just reported a 9.2% acceptance rate for the class entering this Fall, and as usual, didn't report that another 1,400 kids are entering "Spring semester admits," boosting their overall acceptance rate to 11%. I hope they get their lunch money stolen in the B1G, and I hope it snows on them every time they play football in November in the midwest.

Good luck to SCT on your kid's Berkeley application! Nothing like having a kid go to Cal to rekindle one's love affair with ol' alma mater.

---

UCLA is in a much more desirable area. Academically, it's neck and neck (though Cal still wins on brand recognition). However, for 18 year olds, Westwood (and LA) is far more attractive than Berkeley and the East Bay. The campus is also nicer/newer, it's safer, and there's just more stuff to do down there than up here.

---

I haven't been there in a while, doesn't the campus area empty out on the weekends?

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Price aside, USC is pretty great these days. I saw an article in the Chron I think that showed the acceptance rate into various UC's from CA high schools last year. What was interesting, and I think telling, is that UCLA had a lower acceptance rate, but Cal had a higher enrollment rate across the board. Mission High in SF had the highest acceptance rate into Cal - 40% which is wacky.

---

Last year, UCLA had an 8.7% acceptance rate, and of those accepted, 52% elected to enroll at UCLA.

Last year, UC Berkeley had an 11.7% acceptance rate, and of those accepted, 45% elected to enroll at Cal.

UCLA is a much more popular option these days, but I don't think it's necessarily because Cal is doing anything wrong (well, other than the continued employment of Jim Knowlton). I think it's just the reality of California's population dynamics, where 2/3 of the state's population is down south. That's why you see UCSD and UCI being so popular these days too.

As for USC, I see that the cheaters continue to sort of "fudge" the admissions data. They just reported a 9.2% acceptance rate for the class entering this Fall, and as usual, didn't report that another 1,400 kids are entering "Spring semester admits," boosting their overall acceptance rate to 11%. I hope they get their lunch money stolen in the B1G, and I hope it snows on them every time they play football in November in the midwest.

Good luck to SCT on your kid's Berkeley application! Nothing like having a kid go to Cal to rekindle one's love affair with ol' alma mater.

---

UCLA is in a much more desirable area. Academically, it's neck and neck (though Cal still wins on brand recognition). However, for 18 year olds, Westwood (and LA) is far more attractive than Berkeley and the East Bay. The campus is also nicer/newer, it's safer, and there's just more stuff to do down there than up here.

---

Westwood has safety issues as well, especially at times with gangs. Less of an issue since UCLA has dramatically increased student housing campus adjacent. So much so the UCLA guaranties housing, and with additional food options, undergrads don't even have to venture into Westwood. The biggest issue Cal faces in the lack of student housing anywhere remotely near campus.

Admittedly, UCLA also has a weather advantage.

---

The average 18 yr old is going to pick the area of Westwood over Berkeley, I get that. But Berkeley/Bay Area is still a pretty great place... with some pretty good weather. And there are going to be some who prefer it over LA.

I would be curious to get some real data as to whether or not they actually have more spots than before reserved for applicants from California. I am fine with some OOS and INTL kids getting accepted, but if we're talking about similar academic profiles, the vast, vast majority should be from here.

---

Yes, which is why UCLA grads tend to be so average and Cal grads above average: self selection.

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

Interestingly enough, I feel like Berkeley High School comes closest to that description. Most schools with robust class and extracurricular offerings are much more socio-economically (if not also racially) homogenous.

Big C said:

---

CarmelBear said:

---

FWIH, lots of OOS kids getting in this year. I'm sure there's no correlation with the state 38 billion deficit. None at all.

---

I thought that they were starting to take fewer out-of-state kids lately, as the public sent UC the message that they should absolutely be prioritizing students from California. No?

---

The World just reported on this today:
https://theworld.org/stories/2024-03-29/international-students-weigh-hurdles-and-successes-studying-us

Oh and good luck to everyone here waiting with baited breath! Man, I have such fond memories of the day I learned my kid got into Cal. What a feeling!

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

100%. I have taught at two such large, diverse public high schools (both California Distinguished Schools in the greater Bay Area) and it is a good experience for the kids. They have plenty of chances to take honors and AP classes with the "academic" kids, but also plenty of chances to brush shoulders with kids from all walks of life. The end result is positive.

OTOH, the high school I went to and the high school my kids go / will go to is a smaller "academic" school. The advantage is that everybody gets swept along with the tide (into college). However, there can be a sense of entitlement that you wouldn't believe, along with a lack of empathy for people who are different from them (especially financially).

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

100%. I have taught at two such large, diverse public high schools (both California Distinguished Schools in the greater Bay Area) and it is a good experience for the kids. They have plenty of chances to take honors and AP classes with the "academic" kids, but also plenty of chances to brush shoulders with kids from all walks of life. The end result is positive.

OTOH, the high school I went to and the high school my kids go / will go to is a smaller "academic" school. The advantage is that everybody gets swept along with the tide (into college). However, there can be a sense of entitlement that you wouldn't believe, along with a lack of empathy for people who are different from them.

---

Oh yes, to a T

CalVC2 said:

---

She got into the production program. But also just found out she got into NYU Tisch for the same thing, so we'll see which direction she takes!

---

Both are great programs and have great alumni networks. Comes down to NY vs LA. Can't really lose either way.

I am really happy this guy is going away. I've worked in tech for almost 30 years and the industry is now flooded with "leaders" like SBF ----- self-important, know-it-all arrogant turds surrounded by armies of wall street / ivy league types trying to make a fast buck. Everything is overhyped, integrity isn't very high and there's little understanding of business fundamentals like fraud, or the concept of cash and treasury management as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank. A lot of them are focused on their personal brand, getting PR for DEI or jockeying for a slot at a Ted talk. And then, most of the younger VCs that empower them have no clue how computers, the Internet or mobile phones work at the most basic level.

This sentencing plus the harsher, Darwinistic economic environment and Big Tech layoffs are great developments.

SBGold said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Thursday is the big day. For long time readers you know I have been hoping SCT Jr. gets in. UCI and UCSB so far (as well as Reed. WL at UCD, UCSD and Harvey Mudd). The kids (cause they are uber) exploited a glitch in the system and he has a Cal ID number which is supposedly a very good sign. College admission Astrology indeed.

---

Waiting but not expecting it. Waitlisted at Davis and UCSB and not in at UCLA. She's gotten waitlisted at many other schools. In at McGill, Colgate, Indiana (Kelley Business), Udub and Wake Forest. Not sure at all where she should go.

Ivies I think come out on Thursday though I don't sense much interest from her.

---

McGill is a fantastic school. It also opens opportunities in Montreal and Toronto and other parts of Canada and makes it a whole lot easier to get Candian citizenship if so desired.

CarmelBear said:

---

My oldest is at USC film school. He chose USC over Cal which didn't initially sit well. But yeah -USC has been great. And he's working 12 hour days in his major. It's not a cake walk. But he loves it.

---

I mean for film school it makes sense.

CalVC2 said:

---

She got into the production program. But also just found out she got into NYU Tisch for the same thing, so we'll see which direction she takes!

---

Congrats. That's an impossible decision as Tisch is an incredible in an incredible city.

I'm now OOS and it's been a weird ride for my daughter. She got an early action admit to UVA and a spring admit to UNC, one by one the UCs came in and all were acceptances UCD, UCSC,UCSD & UCSB.

Then UCLA waitlisted her and SC (where she has legacy via two grandparents) noted her family connections in Her rejection letter.

Total pins and needles Thursday…possibly more for me than her. Cal said Yes! and we were over the moon. Now it's down to Cal vs. UVA, it's going to be tough, UVA is a very pretty campus and she loved it.
Fingers Crossed on her eventual choice.

pingpong2 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Price aside, USC is pretty great these days. I saw an article in the Chron I think that showed the acceptance rate into various UC's from CA high schools last year. What was interesting, and I think telling, is that UCLA had a lower acceptance rate, but Cal had a higher enrollment rate across the board. Mission High in SF had the highest acceptance rate into Cal - 40% which is wacky.

---

Last year, UCLA had an 8.7% acceptance rate, and of those accepted, 52% elected to enroll at UCLA.

Last year, UC Berkeley had an 11.7% acceptance rate, and of those accepted, 45% elected to enroll at Cal.

UCLA is a much more popular option these days, but I don't think it's necessarily because Cal is doing anything wrong (well, other than the continued employment of Jim Knowlton). I think it's just the reality of California's population dynamics, where 2/3 of the state's population is down south. That's why you see UCSD and UCI being so popular these days too.

As for USC, I see that the cheaters continue to sort of "fudge" the admissions data. They just reported a 9.2% acceptance rate for the class entering this Fall, and as usual, didn't report that another 1,400 kids are entering "Spring semester admits," boosting their overall acceptance rate to 11%. I hope they get their lunch money stolen in the B1G, and I hope it snows on them every time they play football in November in the midwest.

Good luck to SCT on your kid's Berkeley application! Nothing like having a kid go to Cal to rekindle one's love affair with ol' alma mater.

---

UCLA is in a much more desirable area. Academically, it's neck and neck (though Cal still wins on brand recognition). However, for 18 year olds, Westwood (and LA) is far more attractive than Berkeley and the East Bay. The campus is also nicer/newer, it's safer, and there's just more stuff to do down there than up here.

---

Westwood has safety issues as well, especially at times with gangs. Less of an issue since UCLA has dramatically increased student housing campus adjacent. So much so the UCLA guaranties housing, and with additional food options, undergrads don't even have to venture into Westwood. The biggest issue Cal faces in the lack of student housing anywhere remotely near campus.

Admittedly, UCLA also has a weather advantage.

---

Gangs? Westwood? That's like saying Palo Alto around campus has gang problems. I'm not ever sure I've ever heard of anyone ever associate Westwood with gangs, especially north of Wilshire.

---

I assume you mean East Palo Alto. The gang problem was bad in the 80s and early 90s, and also in the early 2010s. Moreover one shootout that became known as the "Shooting that Killed Westwood " altered the way gangs are prosecuted forever (and for the worse according to civil rights activists).

Just some of the many articles around the internet:

https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-night-westwood-died-and-crime-in-cities/

The Legacy of a Slaying : Westwood Gang Shooting Alters Public Attitudes, Police Tactics

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-09-11-me-1492-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-09-11-me-1492-story.html

https://newsantaana.com/more-bad-news-for-dtsa-westwood-never-recovered-after-a-gang-shooting-in-1988/

---

Ah, I was not familiar with the state of Westwood about...35 years ago.

---

They had issues starting around 2010-5. Lot's of places got shuttered and crime spiked. Westwood property owners/merhants formed a business improvement district, toimprove maintenance security in the village with help of Yaroslavsky, who pressured LAPD into a major police prescence paid for by the District. Google the Daily Bruin (you can't link their articles)

---

Huh, I lived in Westwood from 2011-2016 and I don't recall hearing or seeing any of that…

---

Did you work in the Village or read the Daily Bruin? The fact that you didn't hear about it and lived somewhere in Westwood may not be all that helpful.

Was involved in development/lease work in that era and crime in Westwood Village was definitely a big issue. Ever ask yourself why those commercial vacancies in the Village didn't go away after the end of the Great Recession?

Grigsby said:

---

SBGold said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Thursday is the big day. For long time readers you know I have been hoping SCT Jr. gets in. UCI and UCSB so far (as well as Reed. WL at UCD, UCSD and Harvey Mudd). The kids (cause they are uber) exploited a glitch in the system and he has a Cal ID number which is supposedly a very good sign. College admission Astrology indeed.

---

Waiting but not expecting it. Waitlisted at Davis and UCSB and not in at UCLA. She's gotten waitlisted at many other schools. In at McGill, Colgate, Indiana (Kelley Business), Udub and Wake Forest. Not sure at all where she should go.

Ivies I think come out on Thursday though I don't sense much interest from her.

---

McGill is a fantastic school. It also opens opportunities in Montreal and Toronto and other parts of Canada and makes it a whole lot easier to get Candian citizenship if so desired.

---

Canada has a big brain drain problem with its doctors as the salaries are a lot higher in the US.

McGill has several things going for it, it is located in the safest large city in North America (important for a coed), and it still maintains a campus life despite being in the middle of downtown Montreal (right at the foot of Mount Royal Park). It is also a very international campus with world class academics and good food. It is also a relatively cheap city (compared to Vancouver, NYC etc).

The weather there is brutal though, especially if you're not used to it. It can be fun however if you are into winter sports, slopes are an hour away and there is night skiing.

Grigsby said:

---

CalVC2 said:

---

She got into the production program. But also just found out she got into NYU Tisch for the same thing, so we'll see which direction she takes!

---

Congrats. That's an impossible decision as Tisch is an incredible in an incredible city.

---

thank you, we were pleasantly blown away when both came in positive as the results of her non film school apps (ie UC system apps) were much more all over the map.

There's a lot of chatter about USC being more commercial with NYU being more artistic, but not sure that's true. At this point, it's more of a SoCal v NYC; College atmosphere v not that, but being in an amazing City; even weather vs seasons, etc. High quality problem, but as you say, no obvious answer.

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

Sounds like a Harvard Westlake-type school. Several suidices the past couple years…insanely sad

CalBearinLA said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

Sounds like a Harvard Westlake-type school. Several suidices the past couple years…insanely sad

---

My kids went to Mission San Jose in Fremont, 14 years ago. At the time it had the highest test scores of any open enrollment public school in the country. Mostly kids of Chinese and Indian immigrant Silicon Valley engineers. Super competitive.

wifeisafurd said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Price aside, USC is pretty great these days. I saw an article in the Chron I think that showed the acceptance rate into various UC's from CA high schools last year. What was interesting, and I think telling, is that UCLA had a lower acceptance rate, but Cal had a higher enrollment rate across the board. Mission High in SF had the highest acceptance rate into Cal - 40% which is wacky.

---

Last year, UCLA had an 8.7% acceptance rate, and of those accepted, 52% elected to enroll at UCLA.

Last year, UC Berkeley had an 11.7% acceptance rate, and of those accepted, 45% elected to enroll at Cal.

UCLA is a much more popular option these days, but I don't think it's necessarily because Cal is doing anything wrong (well, other than the continued employment of Jim Knowlton). I think it's just the reality of California's population dynamics, where 2/3 of the state's population is down south. That's why you see UCSD and UCI being so popular these days too.

As for USC, I see that the cheaters continue to sort of "fudge" the admissions data. They just reported a 9.2% acceptance rate for the class entering this Fall, and as usual, didn't report that another 1,400 kids are entering "Spring semester admits," boosting their overall acceptance rate to 11%. I hope they get their lunch money stolen in the B1G, and I hope it snows on them every time they play football in November in the midwest.

Good luck to SCT on your kid's Berkeley application! Nothing like having a kid go to Cal to rekindle one's love affair with ol' alma mater.

---

UCLA is in a much more desirable area. Academically, it's neck and neck (though Cal still wins on brand recognition). However, for 18 year olds, Westwood (and LA) is far more attractive than Berkeley and the East Bay. The campus is also nicer/newer, it's safer, and there's just more stuff to do down there than up here.

---

Westwood has safety issues as well, especially at times with gangs. Less of an issue since UCLA has dramatically increased student housing campus adjacent. So much so the UCLA guaranties housing, and with additional food options, undergrads don't even have to venture into Westwood. The biggest issue Cal faces in the lack of student housing anywhere remotely near campus.

Admittedly, UCLA also has a weather advantage.

---

Gangs? Westwood? That's like saying Palo Alto around campus has gang problems. I'm not ever sure I've ever heard of anyone ever associate Westwood with gangs, especially north of Wilshire.

---

I assume you mean East Palo Alto. The gang problem was bad in the 80s and early 90s, and also in the early 2010s. Moreover one shootout that became known as the "Shooting that Killed Westwood " altered the way gangs are prosecuted forever (and for the worse according to civil rights activists).

Just some of the many articles around the internet:

https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-night-westwood-died-and-crime-in-cities/

The Legacy of a Slaying : Westwood Gang Shooting Alters Public Attitudes, Police Tactics

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-09-11-me-1492-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-09-11-me-1492-story.html

https://newsantaana.com/more-bad-news-for-dtsa-westwood-never-recovered-after-a-gang-shooting-in-1988/

---

Ah, I was not familiar with the state of Westwood about...35 years ago.

---

They had issues starting around 2010-5. Lot's of places got shuttered and crime spiked. Westwood property owners/merhants formed a business improvement district, toimprove maintenance security in the village with help of Yaroslavsky, who pressured LAPD into a major police prescence paid for by the District. Google the Daily Bruin (you can't link their articles)

---

Huh, I lived in Westwood from 2011-2016 and I don't recall hearing or seeing any of that…

---

Did you work in the Village or read the Daily Bruin? The fact that you didn't hear about it and lived somewhere in Westwood may not be all that helpful.

Was involved in development/lease work in that era and crime in Westwood Village was definitely a big issue. Ever ask yourself why those commercial vacancies in the Village didn't go away after the end of the Great Recession?

---

I lived over on Montana, but spent a lot of time in Westwood Village. I never really noticed the vacancies; they must have done a pretty good job covering it up. To me the area seemed pretty safe, but then again, my point of reference was Telegraph and southside...

calumnus said:

---

CalBearinLA said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

Sounds like a Harvard Westlake-type school. Several suidices the past couple years…insanely sad

---

My kids went to Mission San Jose in Fremont, 14 years ago. At the time it had the highest test scores of any open enrollment public school in the country. Mostly kids of Chinese and Indian immigrant Silicon Valley engineers. Super competitive.

---

Both me and my brother went to MSJ. I'd say "the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school" is a bit of an exaggeration, unless something has changed in the past 20 years. That said, I think it's accurate to say that for the top 50 students, getting into Cal or UCLA was the minimum expectation, but to be fair at the time it was a reasonable expecation, back when acceptance rates were in the 20-30% range. Nowadays...maybe not so much.

pingpong2 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

CalBearinLA said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

Sounds like a Harvard Westlake-type school. Several suidices the past couple years…insanely sad

---

My kids went to Mission San Jose in Fremont, 14 years ago. At the time it had the highest test scores of any open enrollment public school in the country. Mostly kids of Chinese and Indian immigrant Silicon Valley engineers. Super competitive.

---

Both me and my brother went to MSJ. I'd say "the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school" is a bit of an exaggeration, unless something has changed in the past 20 years. That said, I think it's accurate to say that for the top 50 students, getting into Cal or UCLA was the minimum expectation, but to be fair at the time it was a reasonable expecation, back when acceptance rates were in the 20-30% range. Nowadays...maybe not so much.

---

With a lot of competition and pressure to be one of those Top 50 students, right? You got into Cal, you were one of the 50, so maybe you didn't know what it was like for the other kids. They were probably suffering in silence, putting up a brave face.

It only got more competitive in the decades after you left.

calumnus said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

CalBearinLA said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

Sounds like a Harvard Westlake-type school. Several suidices the past couple years…insanely sad

---

My kids went to Mission San Jose in Fremont, 14 years ago. At the time it had the highest test scores of any open enrollment public school in the country. Mostly kids of Chinese and Indian immigrant Silicon Valley engineers. Super competitive.

---

Both me and my brother went to MSJ. I'd say "the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school" is a bit of an exaggeration, unless something has changed in the past 20 years. That said, I think it's accurate to say that for the top 50 students, getting into Cal or UCLA was the minimum expectation, but to be fair at the time it was a reasonable expecation, back when acceptance rates were in the 20-30% range. Nowadays...maybe not so much.

---

With a lot of competition and pressure to be one of those Top 50 students, right? You got into Cal, you were one of the 50, so maybe you didn't know what it was like for the other kids. They were probably suffering in silence, putting up a brave face.

It only got more competitive in the decades after you left.

---

Funnily enough, my class rank was 150ish out of 400. To be in the top 50 you basically needed a 4.0, considering they have 30-40 valedictorians every year.

AUOso said:

---

I'm now OOS and it's been a weird ride for my daughter. She got an early action admit to UVA and a spring admit to UNC, one by one the UCs came in and all were acceptances UCD, UCSC,UCSD & UCSB.

Then UCLA waitlisted her and SC (where she has legacy via two grandparents) noted her family connections in Her rejection letter.

Total pins and needles Thursday…possibly more for me than her. Cal said Yes! and we were over the moon. Now it's down to Cal vs. UVA, it's going to be tough, UVA is a very pretty campus and she loved it.
Fingers Crossed on her eventual choice.

---

I've attended both. Loved them both. Cal is way better overall though. Run, don't walk, to Cal

Cal88 said:

---

Grigsby said:

---

SBGold said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Thursday is the big day. For long time readers you know I have been hoping SCT Jr. gets in. UCI and UCSB so far (as well as Reed. WL at UCD, UCSD and Harvey Mudd). The kids (cause they are uber) exploited a glitch in the system and he has a Cal ID number which is supposedly a very good sign. College admission Astrology indeed.

---

Waiting but not expecting it. Waitlisted at Davis and UCSB and not in at UCLA. She's gotten waitlisted at many other schools. In at McGill, Colgate, Indiana (Kelley Business), Udub and Wake Forest. Not sure at all where she should go.

Ivies I think come out on Thursday though I don't sense much interest from her.

---

McGill is a fantastic school. It also opens opportunities in Montreal and Toronto and other parts of Canada and makes it a whole lot easier to get Candian citizenship if so desired.

---

Canada has a big brain drain problem with its doctors as the salaries are a lot higher in the US.

McGill has several things going for it, it is located in the safest large city in North America (important for a coed), and it still maintains a campus life despite being in the middle of downtown Montreal (right at the foot of Mount Royal Park). It is also a very international campus with world class academics and good food. It is also a relatively cheap city (compared to Vancouver, NYC etc).

The weather there is brutal though, especially if you're not used to it. It can be fun however if you are into winter sports, slopes are an hour away and there is night skiing.

---

Yeah, she's not been in that weather before. It would be good to get out of the Cal/Bay Area bubble though, college is good for that. And she does ski well so there is that. I'd enjoy that myself on visits also. And trips to Quebec City would not be bad either.

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Grigsby said:

---

SBGold said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Thursday is the big day. For long time readers you know I have been hoping SCT Jr. gets in. UCI and UCSB so far (as well as Reed. WL at UCD, UCSD and Harvey Mudd). The kids (cause they are uber) exploited a glitch in the system and he has a Cal ID number which is supposedly a very good sign. College admission Astrology indeed.

---

Waiting but not expecting it. Waitlisted at Davis and UCSB and not in at UCLA. She's gotten waitlisted at many other schools. In at McGill, Colgate, Indiana (Kelley Business), Udub and Wake Forest. Not sure at all where she should go.

Ivies I think come out on Thursday though I don't sense much interest from her.

---

McGill is a fantastic school. It also opens opportunities in Montreal and Toronto and other parts of Canada and makes it a whole lot easier to get Candian citizenship if so desired.

---

Canada has a big brain drain problem with its doctors as the salaries are a lot higher in the US.

McGill has several things going for it, it is located in the safest large city in North America (important for a coed), and it still maintains a campus life despite being in the middle of downtown Montreal (right at the foot of Mount Royal Park). It is also a very international campus with world class academics and good food. It is also a relatively cheap city (compared to Vancouver, NYC etc).

The weather there is brutal though, especially if you're not used to it. It can be fun however if you are into winter sports, slopes are an hour away and there is night skiing.

---

Yeah, she's not been in that weather before. It would be good to get out of the Cal/Bay Area bubble though, college is good for that. And she does ski well so there is that. I'd enjoy that myself on visits also. And trips to Quebec City would not be bad either.

---

McGill is connected with underground tunnels and connects to Montreal Underground City,at 12 square miles, the largest in the world. So you can avoid the cold. The only issue is the months of lack of sunlight.

calumnus said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Grigsby said:

---

SBGold said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Thursday is the big day. For long time readers you know I have been hoping SCT Jr. gets in. UCI and UCSB so far (as well as Reed. WL at UCD, UCSD and Harvey Mudd). The kids (cause they are uber) exploited a glitch in the system and he has a Cal ID number which is supposedly a very good sign. College admission Astrology indeed.

---

Waiting but not expecting it. Waitlisted at Davis and UCSB and not in at UCLA. She's gotten waitlisted at many other schools. In at McGill, Colgate, Indiana (Kelley Business), Udub and Wake Forest. Not sure at all where she should go.

Ivies I think come out on Thursday though I don't sense much interest from her.

---

McGill is a fantastic school. It also opens opportunities in Montreal and Toronto and other parts of Canada and makes it a whole lot easier to get Candian citizenship if so desired.

---

Canada has a big brain drain problem with its doctors as the salaries are a lot higher in the US.

McGill has several things going for it, it is located in the safest large city in North America (important for a coed), and it still maintains a campus life despite being in the middle of downtown Montreal (right at the foot of Mount Royal Park). It is also a very international campus with world class academics and good food. It is also a relatively cheap city (compared to Vancouver, NYC etc).

The weather there is brutal though, especially if you're not used to it. It can be fun however if you are into winter sports, slopes are an hour away and there is night skiing.

---

Yeah, she's not been in that weather before. It would be good to get out of the Cal/Bay Area bubble though, college is good for that. And she does ski well so there is that. I'd enjoy that myself on visits also. And trips to Quebec City would not be bad either.

---

McGill is connected with underground tunnels and connects to Montreal Underground City,at 12 square miles, the largest in the world. So you can avoid the cold. The only issue is the months of lack of sunlight.

---

Ironically, there is plenty of sunlight in the winter months up there and across the Ice Belt, usually with dry cold weather. Winters in Montreal or NYC have a lot more sun than in Paris, London or Seattle. The bright sunny days after a good snowstorm are spectacular there. The locals, other northerners and Scandinavians will tell you that the key to getting through winters there is to have the right clothing, with winter boots and parkas.

I have two nephews attending/having attended college in Montreal at McGill and Universite' de Montreal, both loved it. In winter they go on weekend ski trips piling up into AirBnB cottage rentals, also Boston and NYC are long weekend roadtrips.

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Grigsby said:

---

SBGold said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Thursday is the big day. For long time readers you know I have been hoping SCT Jr. gets in. UCI and UCSB so far (as well as Reed. WL at UCD, UCSD and Harvey Mudd). The kids (cause they are uber) exploited a glitch in the system and he has a Cal ID number which is supposedly a very good sign. College admission Astrology indeed.

---

Waiting but not expecting it. Waitlisted at Davis and UCSB and not in at UCLA. She's gotten waitlisted at many other schools. In at McGill, Colgate, Indiana (Kelley Business), Udub and Wake Forest. Not sure at all where she should go.

Ivies I think come out on Thursday though I don't sense much interest from her.

---

McGill is a fantastic school. It also opens opportunities in Montreal and Toronto and other parts of Canada and makes it a whole lot easier to get Candian citizenship if so desired.

---

Canada has a big brain drain problem with its doctors as the salaries are a lot higher in the US.

McGill has several things going for it, it is located in the safest large city in North America (important for a coed), and it still maintains a campus life despite being in the middle of downtown Montreal (right at the foot of Mount Royal Park). It is also a very international campus with world class academics and good food. It is also a relatively cheap city (compared to Vancouver, NYC etc).

The weather there is brutal though, especially if you're not used to it. It can be fun however if you are into winter sports, slopes are an hour away and there is night skiing.

---

Yeah, she's not been in that weather before. It would be good to get out of the Cal/Bay Area bubble though, college is good for that. And she does ski well so there is that. I'd enjoy that myself on visits also. And trips to Quebec City would not be bad either.

---

McGill is connected with underground tunnels and connects to Montreal Underground City,at 12 square miles, the largest in the world. So you can avoid the cold. The only issue is the months of lack of sunlight.

---

Ironically, there is plenty of sunlight in the winter months up there and across the Ice Belt, usually with dry cold weather. Winters in Montreal or NYC have a lot more sun than in Paris, London or Seattle. The bright sunny days after a good snowstorm are spectacular there. The locals, other northerners and Scandinavians will tell you that the key to getting through winters there is to have the right clothing, with winter boots and parkas.

I have two nephews attending/having attended college in Montreal at McGill and Universite' de Montreal, both loved it. In winter they go on weekend ski trips piling up into AirBnB cottage rentals, also Boston and NYC are long weekend roadtrips.

---

My son has 4 or 5 friends going to McGill (French school kids from Berkeley). They love it and it is relatively inexpensive. But it is cold. And they feel like you need a car there (Don't ask me why but they say the kids all go away for the weekends).

Concordtom Jr #4 (and 1st to apply) got in.
Now what??

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Thursday is the big day. For long time readers you know I have been hoping SCT Jr. gets in. UCI and UCSB so far (as well as Reed. WL at UCD, UCSD and Harvey Mudd). The kids (cause they are uber) exploited a glitch in the system and he has a Cal ID number which is supposedly a very good sign. College admission Astrology indeed.

---

Niece in San Diego with 4.3 GPA did not get into any UC, even Santa Cruz. She was offered substantial financial aid at Oregon and Oregon State so they are going up this weekend to check out both campuses.

---

My first three kids all had straight As and high SATs and the college admissions process made no sense to me at all.

Nobody should take these things seriously, I've come to believe. It's random in large part.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Good luck to all!

---

Yup, it sounds like everyone has kids with very good options. Time to congratulate them for inheriting such great brains!

---

Thx.
Can I take any credit for that?
Or maybe my posting history here disqualifies me.
It's okay, you can be a judge.

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

100%. I have taught at two such large, diverse public high schools (both California Distinguished Schools in the greater Bay Area) and it is a good experience for the kids. They have plenty of chances to take honors and AP classes with the "academic" kids, but also plenty of chances to brush shoulders with kids from all walks of life. The end result is positive.

OTOH, the high school I went to and the high school my kids go / will go to is a smaller "academic" school. The advantage is that everybody gets swept along with the tide (into college). However, there can be a sense of entitlement that you wouldn't believe, along with a lack of empathy for people who are different from them (especially financially).

---

Athenian?

concordtom said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

100%. I have taught at two such large, diverse public high schools (both California Distinguished Schools in the greater Bay Area) and it is a good experience for the kids. They have plenty of chances to take honors and AP classes with the "academic" kids, but also plenty of chances to brush shoulders with kids from all walks of life. The end result is positive.

OTOH, the high school I went to and the high school my kids go / will go to is a smaller "academic" school. The advantage is that everybody gets swept along with the tide (into college). However, there can be a sense of entitlement that you wouldn't believe, along with a lack of empathy for people who are different from them (especially financially).

---

Athenian?

---

? ? ? ? ? ?

concordtom said:

---

Concordtom Jr #4 (and 1st to apply) got in.
Now what??

---

Congrats! Go Bears!

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

100%. I have taught at two such large, diverse public high schools (both California Distinguished Schools in the greater Bay Area) and it is a good experience for the kids. They have plenty of chances to take honors and AP classes with the "academic" kids, but also plenty of chances to brush shoulders with kids from all walks of life. The end result is positive.

OTOH, the high school I went to and the high school my kids go / will go to is a smaller "academic" school. The advantage is that everybody gets swept along with the tide (into college). However, there can be a sense of entitlement that you wouldn't believe, along with a lack of empathy for people who are different from them (especially financially).

---

Athenian?

---

? ? ? ? ? ?

---

Athenian is a private school in Diablo / Alamo. My son is heading to HS next year and was considering it. BTW, they have an absurdly low admit rate to Cal.

did a lookup of Fall 23 acceptance rates into Cal for all the schools he and his classmates were choosing from (except east coast boarding), they were all making decisions the last week.

17% - College Prep - this was suprising as it's considered the rigorous school
30% - Head Royce
8% - Athenian
14% -De La Salle
15% - Campolindo
20% - Acalanes
22% - Miramonte
14% - San Ramon Valley

My takeaway was private school didn't have a statistical impact on getting into Cal, except for Head Royce.

95bears said:

---

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

The Mission High School article from the SF Comical is in line with UC Berkeley's stated institutional priorities for undergraduate enrollment. Cal has a task force in place to apply for the "Hispanic Serving Institution" ("HSI") designation by 2027. The designation means that 25% or more of enrolled undergraduate students are members of the Latinx/Chicanx community.

As of now, 6 of the 9 UC undergraduate campuses already have received the HSI designation, and the other 3 campuses -- UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD -- are in the process of trying to achieve the designation.

https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/task-forces/hispanic-serving-institution-task-force

---

If you want your kid to get in to Berkeley, sending them to a highly competitive high school is the toughest route. The best route is to excel in a rural public high school where few apply.

---

I don't think you're actually advocating for this, but I think there's something to unpack here. The name on the degree is just a proxy for the skills and traits employers and grad schools are looking for, but it is not a 1:1.

Students in those rural (or poor performing urban) settings have to deal with all the distractions and disadvantages that come with it (disinterested peers, gangs, chaotic drug use, violence, lack of academic resources/challenging classes, minimal cultural stimulation etc.). It really isn't easy to succeed academically in that environment. At a challenging high school they'll at least get into some reputable college, have the academic skills to succeed there, have a leg up with interfacing with professors and eventually employers, have a peer group pushing them to succeed, etc.

The kid who went to a competitive high school, and only went to UCSC or similar, but got a 3.7, has multiple internships, figured out how to network (learning through their ambitious peers, or networking through their peers parents' or schools' circles) has a huge leg up in life on the kid who went to a lower performing high school, gets overwhelmed by the rigor at Berkeley, gets a 2.7, spends the summer making up classes, feels alienated by their ambitious peers at Cal and also by their hometown friends, who they are increasingly less able to relate to.

---

My "actual" preference is large, diverse public high schools that have a full slate of AP classes and extracurriculars, where your child can have a cohort of high achieving college bound friends, but also know and be friends with people who are headed to the military, CC, minor league baseball, plumbers, auto mechanics, hair dressers, kids who become digital nomads or even end up in prison. It gives kids a better perspective about life, society…reality.

My kids went to a school where the kids all thought your life was over if you didn't get into a Top 10 school out of high school. It is not realistic. Far too much stress, anxiety and depression, competitiveness, bullying, lack of compassion, even suicide and self-mutilation.

---

100%. I have taught at two such large, diverse public high schools (both California Distinguished Schools in the greater Bay Area) and it is a good experience for the kids. They have plenty of chances to take honors and AP classes with the "academic" kids, but also plenty of chances to brush shoulders with kids from all walks of life. The end result is positive.

OTOH, the high school I went to and the high school my kids go / will go to is a smaller "academic" school. The advantage is that everybody gets swept along with the tide (into college). However, there can be a sense of entitlement that you wouldn't believe, along with a lack of empathy for people who are different from them (especially financially).

---

Athenian?

---

? ? ? ? ? ?

---

Athenian is a private school in Diablo / Alamo. My son is heading to HS next year and was considering it. BTW, they have an absurdly low admit rate to Cal.

did a lookup of Fall 23 acceptance rates into Cal for all the schools he and his classmates were choosing from (except east coast boarding), they were all making decisions the last week.

17% - College Prep - this was suprising as it's considered the rigorous school
30% - Head Royce
8% - Athenian
14% -De La Salle
15% - Campolindo
20% - Acalanes
22% - Miramonte
14% - San Ramon Valley

My takeaway was private school didn't have a statistical impact on getting into Cal, except for Head Royce.

---

In the Piedmont area Head Royce is not considered that strong a private school anymore. My sense is that it is easier to get into Cal from schools that are not as rigorous because if you have what a UC is looking for overall you can stand out more there. Would be interesting to see how O'Dowd ranks as well.