Unit2Sucks;459382 said:

---

This is nuts! Talk about an arms race. My fear for the UCs generally is that we're forcing top students like your daughter to go to private schools which can offer much more attractive merit-based financial aid packages.

Law school is a different beast, but I know multiple people who chose SC over UCLA because SC throws money at kids (in large part) to keep them from choosing UCLA, and with escalating costs - I don't blame them. When I went to law school not so long ago, in-state tuition at the UCs was something like 1/3 of private school tuition ($10k vs. $30k). Now, it's only about $3k cheaper ($41k vs. $44k).

---

When I started at Boalt in the late 80's, tuition was $2,600 PER YEAR! My last year, the tuition doubled to over 5k, but it was still one of the best deals in the nation. From what I hear of the prices now for both undergrad and graduate school, I don't know how parents manage it.

Yes the overall state population has increased. But what you and Crimson are not taking into account are higher family incomes. 25+ yearsa go when I graduated from HS, my HS sent 20 kids to Berkeley. It was right around 3% of the graduating class. I recently visited my local HS (I live in the same district) and talked with the college placement folks. They nicely provided me with the breakdown of where last year's senior class went. They sent 23 kids to Berkeley, which was actually 4% of the graduating class (adjusting for the smaller class size). But what was notable at the top of the class was how many kids went to Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford. Back in my day no one went there. One kid went to Furd from the year prior to mine. Now 1-2% of the class goes there. Add in the kids that go to highly ranked privates like Northwesten, Columbia and U of Chicago and it was pretty clear to me that a LARGER % of the graduating class goes to top ranked universities. Higher family incomes have opened up more options. Those are the numbers. Those are the facts.

Overall the statistics I saw also showed that a greater % of HS grads went straight to four year universities. But I did see one indicator that perhaps showed some of the angst that parents/grads feel. Back in my day lots of kids went the Cal State route. Cal State Chico, Hayward, San Jose and San Diego were all well represented. If you were ranked in the 50-80th percentile in your graduating class, Cal State was the path you took. But amongst today's seniors, not so. There were maybe 5 kids (<1%) total that went to those schools from last year's list. Cal State is now seen as de classe. The pressure is on, rightly or wrongly, for kids in that group to avoid falling into the Cal State basket. So where do those kids go? In my school district, the big favorites are U of Oregon, U of Arizona and Arizona State. U of Oregon was the third most popular destination (after Cal and UCLA) with over 3% of the class heading off to be Ducks. Again it is the combination of higher family incomes (allowing families to pay out of state tuition whereas in the last generation this was less acceptable), and the pressure to get into a brand name school (which evidently Cal State doesn't have).

But as far as Berkeley goes, I've seen the figures and the benchmarks really haven't changed. Sure they are high. Mighty high. But I think the big difference is the pressure placed on kids in the top half of their graduating classes, but not the top 5-10% or so, to land big acceptance letters. Cal State isn't good enough for them anymore (or perhaps more accurately not good enough for their parents). Realistic or not, this is where the great increase in application numbers is coming from. But if you are in the top 3% of your graduating class, than you have a very good chance of getting into Cal. If you are in top 5%, you've got a decent shot. If you want to instead claim that the competiton is so fierce that only the top 1% get in, go ahead - it certainly does make our legacy degrees look better. But I think that perception, which does get transmitted to our kids, just freaks them out. Besides, it's just not true.

Cal84;459409 said:

---

Well I'm pretty certain that he'd rather take SAT prep classes than dig ditches on the weekends for money. Which is what I did. Every generation looks a little different than the one before it. This generation spends more time on academics, but less time on other, more tedious activities. Your argument basically boils down to today's teenager having a worse quality of life than the teens had 20 years ago. And I don't think that computes. Your standard SAT prep class is all of 20 hours. Taken once over a four year HS career. 20 years ago maybe half the teens in the school district I lived in worked twice that many hours every month in fast food/retail. Today in the exact same school district, kids turn their noses up at those kind of jobs. The only people that will take them are immigrants and senior citizens.

Bottom line, I see what my kids do and they get just as much goof off time as I did back in the day. But if you want to persist in your belief that life for today's teen is so much worse than it was in the last generation, go ahead. I just think that pressing that view on teens makes them overstress and get anxious far more than is necessary.

---

Sorry, but your mentality sounds like the streotypical parent that had to walk uphill twice to work in 5 or 100 degree temperatures in "his day."

The point I was making is that the "absolute bar" for admittance has increased for Cal and other elite universities. SAT scores are higher, GPAs are higher, activities/accomplishments have increased and admittance rates have gone DOWN b/c of increased apps. How has the absolute bar not gone up? You are arguing that it's the "same" type of overachiever that gets into Cal. I am not completely disagreeing, but my point is that the top 3% or 2% or 1% has to do a lot more "work/studying/activities" to get there.

I hate when people use anecdotal evidence and extrapolate, but that's what I am going to do. I mentioned my nephew. His schedule is booked pretty much 6.5 days a week with classes, school work, music practice, volunteer acitivites, etc. The kid is up at 6am and goes to bed at 11pm and just about everything in-between has to do with the end game of getting into Stanford/Harvard/Cal. That might be easier than digging a ditch or working at a fast food retail restaurant (I worked in my family's retail business which sucked), but that is not my point. My point is that you have to work harder and more at your application metrics to stay in the top 1, 2 or 3% of your school, state or nation. That is fact.

I've already addressed the higher SAT and GPA scores. A kid in the top 3% of SAT scores from an earlier era would still score in the top 3% in SAT scores today. People have NOT gotten smarter. They simply score better because they know the system better. They know how to game it and they know how to prepare for it.

Your argument that "preparing for it" somehow makes it much tougher would hold some weight - except for one fact. The standard of living for people (including teens) is better today than it was 25 years ago. You know why my kid chose to volunteer at an orphanage rather than going skiing? Because he likes it. Half the stuff kids do today to buff their resume or applications is fun. Yeah, FUN. The experience of working overseas, volunteering or becoming an expert at a musical instrument is actually incredibly gratifying - it's not just dirty work to fluff out a printed app/form. Our children do have a better standard of life than we did 25 years ago, and that puts paid the claim that they have it tougher.

The only substantive portion of the "it's tougher to get into a top university" argument is the lower admittance rates. But as I said, this is overwhelmingly due to increased applications from teens pressured by their parents to "hit one out of the park". A student at the 80th percentile in his class has virtually no chance to get into Berkeley, and didn't 25 years ago either. But these days he'll apply. Does that make getting into Berkeley more competitive? I suppose it depends on how you define "competitive". I'll use a college football analogy. If the BCS decided tomorrow that all FCS football teams would also be eligible for selection into the 10 spots in BCS bowls, would it make it more "competitive" to get into a BCS bowl? I'd argue, NO. Sure the admittance rates would go down. But to the Florida, Ohio State, and Oklahomas of the world, nothing has changed.

Berkeley does NOT accept the top 3% of each HS. What ELC (Eligibility in Local Context) says is that you are guaranteed admission to A campus, not necessarily to the campus of your choice, if you are in the top 4% of your HS. Basically this means Davis and Riverside send you letters saying you can go there and have whatever you want. You still have to be apply to Berkeley and hope to be admitted.

wifeisafurd;459372 said:

---

matters if my cousins are any indicator. Cal is considered a great school, but who wants to spend time in a "dump" (their words) like the city of berkeley, when you can live in Westwood or La Jolla. Apparantly, for purposes of getting into grad school, there is not that much difference coming from UCLA, UCSD or Cal. That was not the case in the stone age, when I graduated from Cal.

---

I know some professors at Harvard who would disagree with you. And I know some law school admissions offices that would not put a Berkeley degree on a par with one from UCLA or UCSD.

Cal84;459771 said:

---

I've already addressed the higher SAT and GPA scores. A kid in the top 3% of SAT scores from an earlier era would still score in the top 3% in SAT scores today. People have NOT gotten smarter. They simply score better because they know the system better. They know how to game it and they know how to prepare for it.

Your argument that "preparing for it" somehow makes it much tougher would hold some weight - except for one fact. The standard of living for people (including teens) is better today than it was 25 years ago. You know why my kid chose to volunteer at an orphanage rather than going skiing? Because he likes it. Half the stuff kids do today to buff their resume or applications is fun. Yeah, FUN. The experience of working overseas, volunteering or becoming an expert at a musical instrument is actually incredibly gratifying - it's not just dirty work to fluff out a printed app/form. Our children do have a better standard of life than we did 25 years ago, and that puts paid the claim that they have it tougher.

The only substantive portion of the "it's tougher to get into a top university" argument is the lower admittance rates. But as I said, this is overwhelmingly due to increased applications from teens pressured by their parents to "hit one out of the park". A student at the 80th percentile in his class has virtually no chance to get into Berkeley, and didn't 25 years ago either. But these days he'll apply. Does that make getting into Berkeley more competitive? I suppose it depends on how you define "competitive". I'll use a college football analogy. If the BCS decided tomorrow that all FCS football teams would also be eligible for selection into the 10 spots in BCS bowls, would it make it more "competitive" to get into a BCS bowl? I'd argue, NO. Sure the admittance rates would go down. But to the Florida, Ohio State, and Oklahomas of the world, nothing has changed.

---

Eh, I'm not really buying your argument cal84. By sheer numbers, if more applications are received and the admission rate still stays the same - it is still more competitive based on the number of applicants. Thus, it is harder to get into UC as a percentage of the number of applications received.

I think we also have to understand that not all high schools are the same. Your old high school may still be sending 3-4% of the senior class to Cal - but what about the high school on the other side of the tracks that doesn't send any? Moreover, what about high schools that do not offer full AP level curriculum/classes?

Additionally, as this has not been mentioned yet is minority enrollment. The University strives to admit a student population that is representative of the population of the State. However, this is not occurring. Rather several years ago UCLA only had 21 African-American admissions to its freshman class. While recruitment and outreach has increased that number, it still is alarmingly low. Many students of color with academic achievement are simply going to universities that are offering financial incentives.

Philly1121 and iVinshe, I'll respond to both your posts here, since it's somewhat related.

These numbers come from the University of California (click thru to admission guidelines): http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/freshman/index.html

and the state of California: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/EnrGradDrop.asp

For entering class of Fall 2010, the University of California admitted 150,365 applicants that were residents of the state of California. Not all of those enrolled, but every one of those was admitted onto one of the UC campuses. That is from amongst approximately 390,000 CA HS graduates (the state only provides a number of 383K for the prior year, but 390K is a good estimate given the lack of growth in numbers for the 2009 class cohort).

That means that 38.5% of CA HS graduates received a UC admissions letter. An admission letter that said "yes". As a total of all CA HS graduates, that figure drops to 31.5% because of the large number of CA HS students that did not graduate. But as I mentioned above, those students aren't really in the hunt for UC admission, they're the equivalent of FCS teams in the hunt for a BCS bowl bid if the NCAA were to open up its requirements. And what about Berkeley? Cal gave "yes" admission letters to 2.9% of CA HS graduates. Yeah, it might not be 3%. But it's pretty damn close.

EDIT: For the Berkeley numbers I combined admissions for Fall and Spring

I tracked down the application figures for the entire UC system.

http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2011/fall_2011_applications_table2.2.pdf

What is interesting to me is that Cal 6th among the UC schools for in-state applications (LA, SD, SB, Irvine and Davis are ahead). But Cal is first among OOS and international applications, slightly ahead of UCLA and well ahead of everyone else.

As has been said in this thread, self selection and staying close to home have to be major drivers of this, obviously it's not academic reputation when davis and irvine gets more in state applications than Cal.

Cal84;459936 said:

---

Philly1121 and iVinshe, I'll respond to both your posts here, since it's somewhat related.

These numbers come from the University of California (click thru to admission guidelines): http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/freshman/index.html

and the state of California: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/EnrGradDrop.asp

For entering class of Fall 2010, the University of California admitted 150,365 applicants that were residents of the state of California. Not all of those enrolled, but every one of those was admitted onto one of the UC campuses. That is from amongst approximately 390,000 CA HS graduates (the state only provides a number of 383K for the prior year, but 390K is a good estimate given the lack of growth in numbers for the 2009 class cohort).

That means that 38.5% of CA HS graduates received a UC admissions letter. An admission letter that said "yes". As a total of all CA HS graduates, that figure drops to 31.5% because of the large number of CA HS students that did not graduate. But as I mentioned above, those students aren't really in the hunt for UC admission, they're the equivalent of FCS teams in the hunt for a BCS bowl bid if the NCAA were to open up its requirements. And what about Berkeley? Cal gave "yes" admission letters to 2.9% of CA HS graduates. Yeah, it might not be 3%. But it's pretty damn close.

EDIT: For the Berkeley numbers I combined admissions for Fall and Spring

---

Your numbers look off--I think your numbers include multiple applications and admissions per person. According to UC, in 2009 they only received 81,113 applications (including out of state) and only admitted 69,105. LINK That would be 18% of your 383K except that it includes out of state applicants and admits. As recently as 2004, UC found that only 12.5% of California grads are UC eligible, which is line with the Master Plan, and only 7-8% of California public high school graduates applay and are admitted.

ColoradoBear1;459975 said:

---

I tracked down the application figures for the entire UC system.

http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2011/fall_2011_applications_table2.2.pdf

What is interesting to me is that Cal 6th among the UC schools for in-state applications (LA, SD, SB, Irvine and Davis are ahead). But Cal is first among OOS and international applications, slightly ahead of UCLA and well ahead of everyone else.

As has been said in this thread, self selection and staying close to home have to be major drivers of this, obviously it's not academic reputation when davis and irvine gets more in state applications than Cal.

---

Thanks for the stats on the link, CB. UC Berkeley (and to some extent UCLA) has a great academic reputation both OOS and internationally. This recognition has increased over the last 20-30 years. The competition from OOS and international students for Cal spots has increased greatly. I think I even read recently that Birgineau wanted to admit more OOS (and international) students b/c of the budget crisis since the fees are a lot greater for OOS.

This is more quantitative data that backs-up it is more difficult/competitive to get into Cal than 20 years ago. Similar number of spots, more applicants from CA and more importantly, more qualified applicants from OOS and internationally. (I doubt very many, if any, non high-achieving OOS or international students are going to apply to Cal for sh*ts and giggles.)

84, this is definitely not like opening up the BCS bowl games to FCS teams. The better analogy is opening up the Pac12 championship to other BCS conferences/teams.

>I think your numbers include multiple applications and admissions per person

I didn't quote application data. The admissions data comes straight from UC. You can make the claim that UC didn't purge that data from multiple admits, but that still leaves the cruz of my argument intact - 2.9% of CA HS grads got admitted to Berkeley (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/campuses/files/berkeley.pdf). In fact even that's a bit of an underestimate. Keep in mind that Cal HS grads actually get two shots at getting into Cal. First as a HS senior and second after 2 years at a higher educational institution - the chance to apply as a transfer. Such transfer admits are not uncommon. Again straight from UC, an amount equal to another 0.8% of CA HS grads (I'm assuming 390K CA HS grads) come into Berkeley as transfers (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/campuses/berkeley/transfer-profile/index.html). So overall, you are looking at 3.7% of CA HS grads being accepted into Berkeley. Yes, it's still a very tough hurdle. But it looks pretty darn similar to what existed previously.

>According to UC, in 2009 they only received 81,113 applications (including out of state) and only admitted 69,105

Actually the data you quote excludes out of state data. Out of state and international apps/admits would beef up those numbers. Doesn't matter though - relative to our discussion on admission into Berkeley, the numbers line up as I laid them out.

Cal84;459771 said:

---

I've already addressed the higher SAT and GPA scores. A kid in the top 3% of SAT scores from an earlier era would still score in the top 3% in SAT scores today. People have NOT gotten smarter.

---

What would be the end all to this argument is not SAT scores, but SAT percentile. SAT's were also re-centered in the mid 90's so you can't directly compare pre and post re-centering. If people are coached, that would show up in the raw scores but the percentile would be unbiased.

Not sure where to find any of this information, but without it, these arguments are not convincing either way.

As you say, people are not getting smarter, but they also aren't getting dumber. So when there is a growth of CA population from 23 million in 1980 to 37 million in 2010 and there isn't that growth in slots at Cal, I would find it hard to believe that it isn't harder to get into Cal now.

The only way for Cal to be the same to get into now is if students that get into Cal chose to go to other schools now at a higher rate that the did back then. I don't know if I buy the notion that enough people that get into Cal but choose to go to the Ivy's has a large impact - I'm sure at the richer HS, yes that could, but overall the cost of college has gone up far quicker than the median income. However, maybe the rise of UCSD and UCLA have given excellent students options other than Cal? But again, if kids are choosing to attend schools closer to home or any other non-academic reason, why do we really care about application numbers and yields?

And it would be refreshing for CA high school students if it were actually not any harder to get into a big time UC. Not sure that is the case now... and it definitely won't be in the next decade the way CA budgets are going.

Cal84;460063 said:

---

>I think your numbers include multiple applications and admissions per person

I didn't quote application data. The admissions data comes straight from UC. You can make the claim that UC didn't purge that data from multiple admits, but that still leaves the cruz of my argument intact - 2.9% of CA HS grads got admitted to Berkeley (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/campuses/files/berkeley.pdf). In fact even that's a bit of an underestimate. Keep in mind that Cal HS grads actually get two shots at getting into Cal. First as a HS senior and second after 2 years at a higher educational institution - the chance to apply as a transfer. Such transfer admits are not uncommon. Again straight from UC, an amount equal to another 0.8% of CA HS grads (I'm assuming 390K CA HS grads) come into Berkeley as transfers (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/campuses/berkeley/transfer-profile/index.html). So overall, you are looking at 3.7% of CA HS grads being accepted into Berkeley. Yes, it's still a very tough hurdle. But it looks pretty darn similar to what existed previously.

>According to UC, in 2009 they only received 81,113 applications (including out of state) and only admitted 69,105

Actually the data you quote excludes out of state data. Out of state and international apps/admits would beef up those numbers. Doesn't matter though - relative to our discussion on admission into Berkeley, the numbers line up as I laid them out.

---

The numbers show that from 1989 to 2009 the number of applicants to Berkeley have increased 134%, from 16,262 to 38,007 but the number of acceptances have only increased 38%, from 6,536 to 9,005.

What the numbers don't show is that this increase in competition for spots has lead to an "arms race" among applicants. When I applied to Cal for Fall of 1980, there was one UC application and you listed your campus preferences in order. There was no essay. It was pretty much a formula based on grades and test scores. I did not know anyone who took an SAT prep course (the industry was in its infancy). We just showed up on a Saturday morning and took the test. The night before my friends and I did what we usually did on a Friday night, we partied. No one had "coaches" help them with their applications. You just filled it out and sent it in and hoped you got your first choice but were prepared to be "redirected" to your second choice.

Having seen my kids go through the process I can tell you the amount of stress now is light years ahead of what it was when I applied.

Well, it's like I said before - a lot of the stress is self-manufactured, or rather parent manufactured and pressed onto the kids. The FCS/BCS analogy I used earlier is really the easiest one to see. Except that unlike CFB, the "arms race" as you put, or the "stress manufacturing" as I describe it isn't happening so much amongst the Texas/USC/Ohio States of our teens as it is amongst the kids ranked in the 50-80th percentiles. It's these kids who are being told by their parents that they must get into a top university and that SJSU just doesn't cut it anymore. It's as if the NCAA allowed FCS schools to compete for the 10 BSC bowl bids and the AD's of all those FCS schools suddenly demanded that their FB coaches get into one of the BCS bowls. It's terribly unrealistic and forces unnecessary angst on these kids.

And besides, unlike CFB, these kids do get multiple second chances. The chance to transfer into Berkeley after two years is just one. Frankly the more important one is grad school. LOTS of kids will eventually graduate from Berkeley with even better degrees that that BA/BS you and I got. And guess what? Most of those kids will not have gotten into Berkeley as undergrads!

Bottom line I feel is this: our job as parents is to give our kids the tools and aids necessary to succeed. Beyond that, it's up to them. We can't get them into Berkeley, that's their task - if they want to go for it. The helicoptering parents of today sometimes forget that. And as far as stress goes, it's our job to make them feel less stress. Not more.

Well if someone wants to look up SAT data, I'm sure it would be available for the past five years or so, but I'm not certain that's a definitive answer given the longer time frame of the discussion at hand.

But I'll leave you with one final thought. I take all the claims that it is harder or more competitive to get into universities and turn them on their head. You see, if that was really the case then it MUST be that fewer (as a %) of the population is getting a higher education. But we clearly know this is NOT true. Over the last 25 years, this country's population has steadily shown an increase in the % of people who have 4 year degrees. We also see a steady increase in the % with graduate degrees. More heuristically, I think we've all seen that the population as a whole is more "educated" that it was 25 years ago - however you may define that term. That is NOT the sign of a system where educational opportunities are becoming more limited. Quite the reverse.

Cal84;460123 said:

---

Well, it's like I said before - a lot of the stress is self-manufactured, or rather parent manufactured and pressed onto the kids. The FCS/BCS analogy I used earlier is really the easiest one to see. Except that unlike CFB, the "arms race" as you put, or the "stress manufacturing" as I describe it isn't happening so much amongst the Texas/USC/Ohio States of our teens as it is amongst the kids ranked in the 50-80th percentiles. It's these kids who are being told by their parents that they must get into a top university and that SJSU just doesn't cut it anymore. It's as if the NCAA allowed FCS schools to compete for the 10 BSC bowl bids and the AD's of all those FCS schools suddenly demanded that their FB coaches get into one of the BCS bowls. It's terribly unrealistic and forces unnecessary angst on these kids.

And besides, unlike CFB, these kids do get multiple second chances. The chance to transfer into Berkeley after two years is just one. Frankly the more important one is grad school. LOTS of kids will eventually graduate from Berkeley with even better degrees that that BA/BS you and I got. And guess what? Most of those kids will not have gotten into Berkeley as undergrads!

Bottom line I feel is this: our job as parents is to give our kids the tools and aids necessary to succeed. Beyond that, it's up to them. We can't get them into Berkeley, that's their task - if they want to go for it. The helicoptering parents of today sometimes forget that. And as far as stress goes, it's our job to make them feel less stress. Not more.

---

Agree with all that, but just wish my daughter had been able to go to Cal like she has wanted since a toddler. She grew up going to Cal games, loves hanging out in Berkeley and just wanted to sit in the student section and do card stunts--something not part of the UC San Diego experience. She is really smart and worked hard--had great test scores, grades etc. so her admission wouldn't have been a question in the past.

Nothing wrong with UCSD! And nothing wrong with transferring from UCSD to Berkeley after a couple of years either!!

Cal84;460130 said:

---

But I'll leave you with one final thought. I take all the claims that it is harder or more competitive to get into universities and turn them on their head. You see, if that was really the case then it MUST be that fewer (as a %) of the population is getting a higher education. But we clearly know this is NOT true. Over the last 25 years, this country's population has steadily shown an increase in the % of people who have 4 year degrees. We also see a steady increase in the % with graduate degrees. More heuristically, I think we've all seen that the population as a whole is more "educated" that it was 25 years ago - however you may define that term. That is NOT the sign of a system where educational opportunities are becoming more limited. Quite the reverse.

---

This makes no sense at all. We are talking about UC Berkeley, not about any other UC or any university or 4 year college. I, and I think most others, were not asserting that it's more competitive overall, but it's more competitive to get into CAL now versus 20 years ago. That's it. Given all the data produced in this thread, both anecdotal and ACTUAL STATS from UCB, how can you argue it is not more competitive to get into Cal?

I can almost guarantee it is the same for Harvard and Stanford. Especially now that both schools have offered free tuition for any HHs earning less than $100K (and obviously a limit on assets as well). Elite schools attract the best from around the world, more so now than ever. A big part is the growth in 2nd and 3rd world economies. Now, the best from China, India, etc. are applying to US undergrads and graduate programs in much higher numbers than ever before. The slots available are not growing at the same rate, thus a more competitive playing field.

As I mentioned earlier, your analogy is off base. These new CA, OOC and international applicants to UCB are not the "FCS" teams, but they are oftentimes on par if not "better" (in terms of application metrics) than those of us that got in 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Again, I am talking about UCB, not any other UC or CA university.

You can certainly raise your kids any way you want, but so can my brother and his wife for their kids. And they have educated my nephews and niece that it is extremely competitive to get into an elite school like Stanford or UCB. And in their opinion (backed up with some of the data presented above and a lot more since they actually have a kid going thru the process), it is a LOT tougher than when they got in and went to Stanford for undergrad. I agree that you should not put undue stress or pressure on your kids, but realistically representing the competitive nature of admissions into an elite school will help in setting the correct expectations (e.g., top 3% of your school, a 4.0 and a high SAT will NOT guarantee a spot).

calumnus;460134 said:

---

Agree with all that, but just wish my daughter had been able to go to Cal like she has wanted since a toddler. She grew up going to Cal games, loves hanging out in Berkeley and just wanted to sit in the student section and do card stunts--something not part of the UC San Diego experience. She is really smart and worked hard--had great test scores, grades etc. so her admission wouldn't have been a question in the past.

---

Exactly. I just read your post after posting mine above. As 84 said, nothing wrong with UCSD (a great education and La Jolla is sweet) and she can still root for Cal since her old man went there and UCSD doesn't have a FBS team.

I actually think you are helping your child by letting him/her know how much more competitive it is to get into Cal than back in the day. It sets realistic expectations and really highlights what an accomplishment it is if he/she gets accepted.

68great;459911 said:

---

I know some professors at Harvard who would disagree with you. And I know some law school admissions offices that would not put a Berkeley degree on a par with one from UCLA or UCSD.

---

Interesting. I talked to a Boalt Admissions officer a few years back. He told me, and I quote, "A 4.0 at CSU Hayward is better than a 3.8. Undergrad is the same everywhere you go. We're not impressed by the school."

I was kind of floored.

grandmastapoop;460159 said:

---

Interesting. I talked to a Boalt Admissions officer a few years back. He told me, and I quote, "A 4.0 at CSU Hayward is better than a 3.8. Undergrad is the same everywhere you go. We're not impressed by the school."

I was kind of floored.

---

This is a direct result of a well known controversy from Boalt about 10 years ago where admissions "weighed" undergraduate GPAs based on the institutions they came from. See http://articles.latimes.com/1997/nov/27/news/mn-58146

There was a huge outcry following this and essentially Boalt officials have been forced to take a 180. Secretly, I still believe their biases prevail quite strongly. I don't believe a 3.8 in History at CSU Hayward is taken the same as a 3.8 from a Math major at MIT, no matter how vehemently Boalt officials will state it.

wifeisafurd;459372 said:

---

Apparantly, for purposes of getting into grad school, there is not that much difference coming from UCLA, UCSD or Cal.

---

Well, arguably this is true down to Montana State University. Grad school admission is a very different business than undergrad admission. I will say that while grad school admissions may not favor a Cal degree over a UCSD degree, going to Cal will give you a serious advantage in other (more important) areas of admission if you know what you are doing.

calumnus;459220 said:

---

Not true. The population has grown but the size and number of the schools has not grown appreciably. There is an arms race for the top schools. Everyone takes SAT prep now. My oldest daughter had excellent grades (4.0+) from one of California's top rated high schools, great SAT scores (over 2100), lots of AP classes and extra-curricular and summer college prep programs (with letters of rec from a professor at UCSD and from Columbia saying she was #1 in her class at Columbia's summer science program), was a National Merit and National Achievement (for top African American scholars) finalist and did not get into Cal (her dream school since a kid, my fault) and only got into UCSD on appeal (though she did get multiple unsolicited scholarship offers from privates and out-of-state publics).

---

i think i was a part of the last stupid/lazy class to get into ucsd.. i graduated high school with a 3.3 gpa.. 1320/1600 sat and 1700/2100 on the sat 2's.. 1 ap class and zero activities.. everyone i knew in my class were around the 3.0-3.5 gpa range and 1100-1400 sat and 1500-1800 sat 2's..

when my friends and i became sophomores we were shocked that the incoming freshman class were already halfway through their freshman credits (didnt know it was possible..).. majority had 4.0+ gpas and 1300 and 1800 were the low end sat scores plus held some office position in high school as well..

my friends and i thanked the powers that be for letting us be born a year early as we munched on our humongous california burritos from el cotixan.. if your daughter is still at ucsd and havent discovered the joys of el cotixan, you must let her know.. cheap huge mexican food open 24 hours.. there are several but i always liked the one on genesee next to circle k..

Cal84;460123 said:

---

Well, it's like I said before - a lot of the stress is self-manufactured, or rather parent manufactured and pressed onto the kids. ...It's these kids who are being told by their parents that they must get into a top university and that SJSU just doesn't cut it anymore....
And besides, unlike CFB, these kids do get multiple second chances. The chance to transfer into Berkeley after two years is just one. Frankly the more important one is grad school. LOTS of kids will eventually graduate from Berkeley with even better degrees that that BA/BS you and I got. And guess what? Most of those kids will not have gotten into Berkeley as undergrads!

Bottom line I feel is this: our job as parents is to give our kids the tools and aids necessary to succeed. Beyond that, it's up to them. We can't get them into Berkeley, that's their task - if they want to go for it. The helicoptering parents of today sometimes forget that. And as far as stress goes, it's our job to make them feel less stress. Not more.

---

Cal84;460130 said:

---

...But I'll leave you with one final thought. I take all the claims that it is harder or more competitive to get into universities and turn them on their head. You see, if that was really the case then it MUST be that fewer (as a %) of the population is getting a higher education. But we clearly know this is NOT true. Over the last 25 years, this country's population has steadily shown an increase in the % of people who have 4 year degrees. We also see a steady increase in the % with graduate degrees. More heuristically, I think we've all seen that the population as a whole is more "educated" that it was 25 years ago - however you may define that term. That is NOT the sign of a system where educational opportunities are becoming more limited. Quite the reverse.

---

First, it appears that you now acknowledge there is more stress on today's youth (which you previously denied) but now you claim that it is either "self manufactured or parent manufactured." Why wouldn't parents want their children to have the best education possible? Why wouldn't students want that as well?

Second, you point out the increased numbers going to college, but much of this increase is due to the tremendous growth of the campuses of the Cal State system (which, as you pointed out, students do not want to attend). One example is Cal State Northridge which was highly respectable 20-35 years ago (often inaccurately rumored to be on the verge of conversion to UC) but which in the past 15 years has watered down their admissions so that 60% of the freshman class is required to take remedial courses in math and/or English because they do not meet relatively modest CSU standards. Of course, a good (B+ or better) student would not view attending such a school as an acceptable option, meaning this "opportunity" does not lessen the stress a serious high school student faces.

Third, much of the increase is due to the explosion of pseudo ("for profit") colleges that didn't exist 15 years ago, let alone 25-30: Kaplan, National, Phoenix, California International, Westwood, etc., that will take anyone, regardless of GPA, with or without a high school diploma. Again, the presence of these education factories does not diminish the stress on a serious high school student.

Fourth, thirty years ago a student with a 3.1 or better GPA could attend all but one or two UCs regardless of SAT, the exception being Cal and Davis (though in the late '60's early '70's Santa Cruz was impacted due to popularity). Even Southern Branch would accept any student who met UC qualifications. Today, the only campuses which get students "redirected" are Riverside and Merced, which, though they provide a quality and prestigious education, lack many of the amenities of the others.

Fifth, sure, one can go to a community college for two years and then transfer to a UC (indeed, that route is easier), but that is little consolation for the student who at 18 feels a compulsion to get away from parents and home and who worked hard to achieve "good" (B+ or better) grades along with participating in a panoply of activities, etc. 30 years ago, the C students attended what were then known as JCs; thus, this option is not very attractive to students with better grades and therefore does not reduce their stress.

Finally, AP courses are stressful. Perhaps too much. 20-30 years ago, there were limited offerings and a student would take one or two, maybe three at most, during his entire high school career. Now, students are taking several each year because higher ranked colleges want to see rigor. Certainly, students should challenge themselves, but making high school students as young as 14 take college-level classses (for which they may not yet have sufficient maturity) is adding stress. High schools used to be self-contained communities with their own newspapers and cultural amenities (concerts, shows, etc.) Today, the top students are taking too many AP classes to the detriment of once thriving programs in journalism, music, drama, etc. A generation ago, almost every high school had a weekly newspaper (I know of one that had a daily paper) which everyone read, today schools are lucky to have a monthly paper that is hardly noticed. (And we wonder why journalism is a failing industry.)

We are robbing the high school generation of its youth. They have work much harder to get into colleges that were taken for granted 25 years ago, let alone the more prestigious ones such as Cal. Ironically, all of this effort and sacrifice are not translating to job opportunities four years later.

calumnus;459220 said:

---

Not true. The population has grown but the size and number of the schools has not grown appreciably. There is an arms race for the top schools. Everyone takes SAT prep now. My oldest daughter had excellent grades (4.0+) from one of California's top rated high schools, great SAT scores (over 2100), lots of AP classes and extra-curricular and summer college prep programs (with letters of rec from a professor at UCSD and from Columbia saying she was #1 in her class at Columbia's summer science program), was a National Merit and National Achievement (for top African American scholars) finalist and did not get into Cal (her dream school since a kid, my fault) and only got into UCSD on appeal (though she did get multiple unsolicited scholarship offers from privates and out-of-state publics).

However, where I agree with you is that the anxiety and overreactive behavior is mistaken. I attended grad school at Columbia with graduates of Harvard, Cal, Stanford, Penn State and SF State. Not getting into a "top" school out of high school is definitely not the end of the world. A top degree is useful, but is not necessary or sufficient to achieve success and/or happiness.

---

The sad fact-and you hit on it-is that excellence for these applicants has become a commodity. Not that your daughter isn't excellent, there's just too many of them. These kids have been told that there is a profile for acceptance at these places-grades, scores, volunteer, passion, leadership-so we have thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of kids, all of whom have 4.0, playing the violin, Presidents of their class, volunteering at homeless shelters, and working for cancer cures on their summer vacation. The system is haywire; we should not expect 18 year olds to be fully formed adults and it is not fair to tell these kids to do all this-and after they do it- be unable to choose between them. A lottery would be as fair.

BearEatsTacos;460164 said:

---

This is a direct result of a well known controversy from Boalt about 10 years ago where admissions "weighed" undergraduate GPAs based on the institutions they came from. See http://articles.latimes.com/1997/nov/27/news/mn-58146

There was a huge outcry following this and essentially Boalt officials have been forced to take a 180. Secretly, I still believe their biases prevail quite strongly. I don't believe a 3.8 in History at CSU Hayward is taken the same as a 3.8 from a Math major at MIT, no matter how vehemently Boalt officials will state it.

---

This is very very interesting to me, can't believe it's the first I've heard of it. I applied to law school in 1998 from a major that at Cal that I always suspected should have given me bonus points - interesting that among the schools I applied to Boalt was the least likely to have noticed/cared.

Cal84;459313 said:

---

Top 3% is still the top 3%. And yeah, for my preferences, play time is preferable to volunteer time, but then again my HS aged kid turned down my offer of going skiing for a week to volunteer at an orphanage in Baja California.

---

I'm living proof that this is not true. I graduated a mere 8 years ago, and I'm almost certain that if I had to apply to Cal today, I probably don't get in.

I admit, that when I was in HS, I was pretty damn lazy. But I knew I wanted to go to Cal, because I grew up a huge Cal fan. So I did just enough to get in. Sure, I had a 4.0, but I only took one AP class (something that I would not be able to get away with today). I had almost zero extracurricular activities, except sports. I never built houses, or fixed toilets in Mexico or whatever kids do today. So I applied with a pretty weak 4.0, and high test scores, and that's it. I'm almost certain that my application today would be rejected.

Now, its possible that if I were applying today, maybe I could have decided to put in the work necessary to get into Cal. But its equally possible that I would have said, "screw it", I'm going to Davis. So its absolutely not true that the same kids who got accepted to Cal 20 years ago would get accepted today. And its really not true that it takes the same amount of effort to get into Cal today as 20 years ago.

ducky23;460246 said:

---

I'm living proof that this is not true. I graduated a mere 8 years ago, and I'm almost certain that if I had to apply to Cal today, I probably don't get in.

I admit, that when I was in HS, I was pretty damn lazy. But I knew I wanted to go to Cal, because I grew up a huge Cal fan. So I did just enough to get in. Sure, I had a 4.0, but I only took one AP class (something that I would not be able to get away with today). I had almost zero extracurricular activities, except sports. I never built houses, or fixed toilets in Mexico or whatever kids do today. So I applied with a pretty weak 4.0, and high test scores, and that's it. I'm almost certain that my application today would be rejected.

Now, its possible that if I were applying today, maybe I could have decided to put in the work necessary to get into Cal. But its equally possible that I would have said, "screw it", I'm going to Davis. So its absolutely not true that the same kids who got accepted to Cal 20 years ago would get accepted today. And its really not true that it takes the same amount of effort to get into Cal today as 20 years ago.

---

But maybe this shows that all this stuff doesn't matter that much. You got in, you succeeded. The difference is that you may not get in now, but you still would have succeeded. The quality of the student or graduate may not be any different but the profile of the applicant is.

I think a lot of this stuff has turned into a cottage industry-you have a consultant for SAT testing, for writing an essay, for developing your profile. It's a paint by number scheme but in the end what is it producing that is substantively better than your lazy but well meaning self. (I joke.. I joke)

grandmastapoop;460159 said:

---

Interesting. I talked to a Boalt Admissions officer a few years back. He told me, and I quote, "A 4.0 at CSU Hayward is better than a 3.8. Undergrad is the same everywhere you go. We're not impressed by the school."

I was kind of floored.

---

If true, not your statement, but the admissions officer, that is a TERRIBLE policy. I would be floored and angry.

This is definitely not true at top privates. They absolutely weight undergrads, typically with their own at the top. The #1 feeder undergrad for Harvard Law School is Harvard and the #1 feeder for Stanford Law is Stanford (and I'm sure Yale Law is similar). Of course, one could easily argue that it is applicant bias and it is b/c there are more applicants and more qualified applicants from those respective undergrads, but I doubt it.

You would think Boalt/Berkeley Law School of all schools would realize how different a 3.8 at Cal is from a 3.8 at CSU Hayward. I only hope this is the company line and it's really not actually evaluated that way behind closed doors.

Unit2Sucks;460216 said:

---

This is very very interesting to me, can't believe it's the first I've heard of it. I applied to law school in 1998 from a major that at Cal that I always suspected should have given me bonus points - interesting that among the schools I applied to Boalt was the least likely to have noticed/cared.

---

Unit2, I remember you were EECS as well. I was a EECS and Haas double major at Cal. You would need to be a programming/engineering savant and still spend countless hours/days/months in the lab to get a 3.8+ GPA in EECS classes. I would literally show up to 25% of most of my Haas classes (never to discussion sections), get Black Lightning for the course and ace the midterm and final and get a easy A. I had to b/c I was spending countless hours in the computer lab b/c I wasn't a programming/engineering savant.

If I had to guess as someone that majored in both, in terms of difficulty and aptitude, a B- (2.7) in Haas equals a A- (3.7) in EECS. Basically a full point in GPA. That was how large the discrepancy was for the two majors. I might even be conservative in this. It was probably bigger.

Every student at Cal knows to some degree the difficulty of the different majors. If Boalt doesn't realize this under their own nose or chooses to ignore it, that's pathetic.

Crimson, this discussion has been lengthy and has touched multiple areas. I'll get back to Berkeley specifically, but more generally it's simply a fact that you can't assert that it's harder to get into higher education if a much greater proportion of the population is achieving that mark - unless I suppose you take a biological superiority view that this generation of people is genetically more intelligent than the last. And I reject that view.

As far as Berkeley is concerned, I've presented the numbers. Percentage wise, about the same percentage of CA HS grads are getting Berkeley acceptance letters as occurred in the last generation. The state's population has increased, but what has decreased is Berkeley's acceptance yield. It is now in the low 40's (percent). When I was a HS senior, virtually no one turned down Berkeley, because no one was also admitted to Cornell/Northwestern/Columbia, etc. Today's students often have that scenario and are often opting for the private route. Yeah, I'd argue that Berkeley is better than those other schools, but you can NOT argue that the student feels he is worse off. He/she willingly opted to turn down Cal. Thus from the student's viewpoint, the top 3-4% of students have MORE educational opportunities not LESS.

So again, your side of the argument devolves into one of two untenable views. Either this generation is genetically smarter than the last and thus it's tougher to hit that top 3-4% mark, or people aren't smarter but they have to put in more hours of effort to fill the necessary checkboxes on their application forms. And tha latter view I already refuted several posts above - today's kids have a better standard of living than those of the last generation.

The answer of course is that the "it's more competitive" attitude actually subscribes to neither of the two views given in the last paragraph. Rather its one that is more myopic in nature - it's simply that parents have shoved their higher expectations on their kids and now kids that in prior generations wouldn't have been expected to get into Berkeley/Harvard/Yale, etc. are being pushed by their parents to hit those targets. A Cal State university is no longer considered acceptable for the bulk of parents (students) in an upper middle class neighborhood. They have increased expectations and those higher expectations are the source of the "greater competitiveness". But it's myopic because the greater competitiveness is only for that group because they are being mandated to hit goals that in prior generations would have only been targeted by a much smaller (higher percentile) student base.

And the out of state and overseas applicants don't enter into this picture whatsoever. The figures I've provided in prior posts are for CA HS residents only. And to repeat, approximately the same percentage of CA HS grads are being accepted into Berkeley as occurred in the past.

GB54;460254 said:

---

But maybe this shows that all this stuff doesn't matter that much. You got in, you succeeded. The difference is that you may not get in now, but you still would have succeeded. The quality of the student or graduate may not be any different but the profile of the applicant is.

I think a lot of this stuff has turned into a cottage industry-you have a consultant for SAT testing, for writing an essay, for developing your profile. It's a paint by number scheme but in the end what is it producing that is substantively better than your lazy but well meaning self. (I joke.. I joke)

---

You bring up fair points, but I do think that all this stuff does kinda matter (cause it helps weed out applicants who may not be willing to work as hard). Here's the problem, our population has grown, so obviously that makes it harder to get into the elite universities. So if you have 100 equally intelligent people, but only 50 spots open, how are you going to decide who to accept? Pure lottery system?

Today's application process is a lot like being a pre-med at Berkeley. You have 100 equally intelligent pre-meds, but only 50 of them can get into med-school. So to survive, you have to survive all of the "weeder" classes at Berkeley. Getting a good grade in organic chemistry has less to do with being smart, and more to do with how hard you're willing to work. So those that can show they will work, will get the spot. I think that's a pretty fair system.

So I'm not saying that today's student is any smarter than the Cal student 20 years ago. But they are going to be harder working (on average). And that's probably a good thing.

Which leads me to my tangent of the day. And I've actually bought up this point a few times on this board. But I truly believe that the student section (for both football and basketball) used to be louder, rowdier and more clever back in the day. And I think the main reason for this is because we are now accepting over achieving high school kids who built houses and played violin in their free time, rather than being lazy like me and watching ESPN all day. But that's a discussion for another day.

Yeah I was EECS. I'm sort of an outlier in that my EECS GPA was notably higher than my overall GPA, but generally I agree - the difference can be substantial depending on what classes you take. My 2 unit statics CE class was harder and required more time than any 4 unit GE class I took at Cal. I probably spent more time on EECS 150 than on any other 2 classes combined.

I don't want to knock other majors, they're all valuable/worthwhile/etc., but I don't think an American Studies GPA should be treated as the equivalent an EECS GPA in admissions.

CrimsonBear;460271 said:

---

Unit2, I remember you were EECS as well. I was a EECS and Haas double major at Cal. You would need to be a programming/engineering savant and still spend countless hours/days/months in the lab to get a 3.8+ GPA in EECS classes. I would literally show up to 25% of most of my Haas classes (never to discussion sections), get Black Lightning for the course and ace the midterm and final and get a easy A. I had to b/c I was spending countless hours in the computer lab b/c I wasn't a programming/engineering savant.

If I had to guess as someone that majored in both, in terms of difficulty and aptitude, a B- (2.7) in Haas equals a A- (3.7) in EECS. Basically a full point in GPA. That was how large the discrepancy was for the two majors. I might even be conservative in this. It was probably bigger.

Every student at Cal knows to some degree the difficulty of the different majors. If Boalt doesn't realize this under their own nose or chooses to ignore it, that's pathetic.

---

CrimsonBear;460260 said:

---

If true, not your statement, but the admissions officer, that is a TERRIBLE policy. I would be floored and angry.

This is definitely not true at top privates. They absolutely weight undergrads, typically with their own at the top. The #1 feeder undergrad for Harvard Law School is Harvard and the #1 feeder for Stanford Law is Stanford (and I'm sure Yale Law is similar). Of course, one could easily argue that it is applicant bias and it is b/c there are more applicants and more qualified applicants from those respective undergrads, but I doubt it.

You would think Boalt/Berkeley Law School of all schools would realize how different a 3.8 at Cal is from a 3.8 at CSU Hayward. I only hope this is the company line and it's really not actually evaluated that way behind closed doors.

---

Based on the admissions profile for Boalt, I am pretty sure you don't have much reason to be angry -- behind closed doors, I don't think much has changed since 1997.