emanbears24;842487410 said:

---

This is just silly.

---

It's the truth that if you come from a family that is successful it's almost impossible to get in which is why a lot of kids are getting into furd and denied at Cal.

barabbas;842487750 said:

---

It's the truth that if you come from a family that is successful it's almost impossible to get in which is why a lot of kids are getting into furd and denied at Cal.

---

Odd. The local high school is still sending ~50 out of 400 students to Cal, and most everyone comes from successful families (we're talking $1M gets you a 60 year old 1800 sq. ft. shack). Also odd given that Stanfurd still admits less (in terms of both percentages and raw number) than Cal, so by and large I think more kids are getting into Cal and denied at Stanfurd...

jebus;842487406 said:

---

You basically just said they were admitted to schools all ranked and is considered to be below Berkeley. If they were accepted to stanford, Ivies etc then your complaint is valid. Getting accepted to USC, UCLA, Duke is good, but not berkeley good.

---

Not as far as gaining admission or selectivity. Now USC and Ucla are only the slightest bit easier to get into, to the point you might as well say there equally as difficult-look at the stats.

barabbas;842487752 said:

---

Not as far as gaining admission or selectivity. Now USC and Ucla are only the slightest bit easier to get into, to the point you might as well say there equally as difficult-look at the stats.

---

USC's stats have been gamed ever since Sample took over. For those who take the SAT more than once, USC will take and report the sum of the best scores from each section. They only report "Fall admissions" which just means that most of their lower scoring/legacy admits enter in the Spring.

GivemTheAxe;842487744 said:

---

If they appeal make sure to say that they would be willing to accept admission to the Spring semester. It might increase the chances of having the appeal accepted.

---

When you apply simply say your parents didnt attend college-that's the game changer. They give huge points to applicants who claim to first time college attendees

pingpong2;842487751 said:

---

Odd. The local high school is still sending ~50 out of 400 students to Cal, and most everyone comes from successful families (we're talking $1M gets you a 60 year old 1800 sq. ft. shack). Also odd given that Stanfurd still admits less (in terms of both percentages and raw number) than Cal, so by and large I think more kids are getting into Cal and denied at Stanfurd...

---

What school is that?

calumnus;842487754 said:

---

USC's stats have been gamed ever since Sample took over. For those who take the SAT more than once, USC will take and report the sum of the best scores from each section. They only report "Fall admissions" which just means that most of their lower scoring/legacy admits enter in the Spring.

---

USC is "purchasing" students that otherwise would have gone to Cal via merit scholarships. My daughter is one of them. She got into Cal but opted for USC (which, unlike Cal, let her declare a business major as a freshman. Cal told her they would "think about" letting her be a business major her junior year). My daughter loves USC and after many visits there I am also impressed by the place. USC seems closer to my college experience at Cal 40 years ago than the vibe around Cal today. The bashing of USC is based on how USC used to be, not how it is today. If I knew 40 years ago that someday I would write something like this I would have had a stroke.

tydog;842487756 said:

---

What school is that?

---

Any of the high-achieving south bay / peninsula schools will have similar matriculation numbers. Lynbrook, Mission San Jose, Gunn, Palie, Monta Vista, Saratoga, you name it. One school in particular (and maybe the others do too) list how many people are going where in the school newspaper, and every year for as long as I can remember it's been something like 40-50 students who go to Cal (not even counting those who got admitted but chose to go somewhere else).

Case in point, last year's partial list: http://www.msjhs.org/cms/lib04/CA01000848/Centricity/Domain/2858/MissionSchoolProfile2013-2014.pdf

Are those numbers down from years past? Yeah, but maybe it's due to normal variance, or maybe it's because Cal is more selective and harder to get into now, or maybe it's some other reason. Whatever the case may be, the claim that students from wealthy families have a harder time of getting into Cal is completely unfounded, reeks of entitlement, and belittles the accomplishment of less wealthy students who got in on merit. It's a very odd mentality to hold, because this kind of thinking is what I would have expected from Stanfurd folk.

jackbauerish;842487755 said:

---

When you apply simply say your parents didnt attend college-that's the game changer. They give huge points to applicants who claim to first time college attendees

---

Quote Originally Posted by GivemTheAxe View Post

If they appeal make sure to say that they would be willing to accept admission to the Spring semester. It might increase the chances of having the appeal accepted.

No need to be bitter. The recommendation was obviously meant to be helpful.
There are often more openings available for Freshmen in the Spring semester. Saying you are willing to start in the Spring Semester is in no way lying.
And whether a student starts in the Fall Semester or Spring Semester does not usually make a hill of beans.

pingpong2;842487759 said:

---

Any of the high-achieving south bay / peninsula schools will have similar matriculation numbers. Lynbrook, Mission San Jose, Gunn, Palie, Monta Vista, Saratoga, you name it. One school in particular (and maybe the others do too) list how many people are going where in the school newspaper, and every year for as long as I can remember it's been something like 40-50 students who go to Cal (not even counting those who got admitted but chose to go somewhere else).

Case in point, last year's partial list: http://www.msjhs.org/cms/lib04/CA01000848/Centricity/Domain/2858/MissionSchoolProfile2013-2014.pdf

Are those numbers down from years past? Yeah, but maybe it's due to normal variance, or maybe it's because Cal is more selective and harder to get into now, or maybe it's some other reason. Whatever the case may be, the claim that students from wealthy families have a harder time of getting into Cal is completely unfounded, reeks of entitlement, and belittles the accomplishment of less wealthy students who got in on merit. It's a very odd mentality to hold, because this kind of thinking is what I would have expected from Stanfurd folk.

---

I lived right across the street and my daughters went to MSJH and yes 37 "matriculating" to Cal is a huge number (note 36 to UC San Diego, really popular as a SoCal/second choice option for MSJH students), but not compared to the number who applied. You can bet that the kids going to Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech, Yale (interesting that none got into or are going to Harvard) also applied to Cal and probably got in (though not necessarily). However if you look at the SATs of the kids going to the other UCs, my bet is they are far higher than most of the kids going to Cal. My bet is that every MSJH kid that applied to Harvard had a higher SAT score than their average admit. For years, Stanford took no one from MSJH, even though most kids there apply and have "better" scores/qualifications than most who are admitted.

Not everyone who goes to MSJH is "well to do," many (mostly immigrant) families move to the district and live in crampt apartments and drive cabs or work other blue collar jobs to support their families--the key is they will do anything to live in the MSJH district because it is the top scoring open admissions public school in the nation (and FWIW, MSJH is roughly 85% "Asian" and many of the "non-Asians" are Russian or other immigrants).

These immigrant families see MSJH and Cal/UC as the low/cost public rigorous/excellent education options for their children.

barabbas;842487750 said:

---

It's the truth that if you come from a family that is successful it's almost impossible to get in which is why a lot of kids are getting into furd and denied at Cal.

---

I struggle with how this is different from my day. When I went to Cal the difference in GPA's/test scores between disadvantaged minorities and others was very large. I'd say the main thing that changed from then to now is that back then the way the system worked they did not distinguish between disadvantaged minority individuals by actual socio-economic status, so many (if not most) of the "disadvantaged" minorities who were admitted with lower grades/test scores were well off kids who went to high school with the non disadvantaged groups. Now the system seems to be more based on high school and that does eliminate a lot of those slots going to kids that did not overcome any adversity. But I struggle to see how the system could really be any harder for wealthy, non-disadvantaged groups.

Do they still have the percentage of admits that are based soley on grades/test scores? In my time, they took a number equal to 40% of the number of admits they would offer, and offer those slots based soley on a ranking from grades/test scores.

OaktownBear;842487784 said:

---

I struggle with how this is different from my day. When I went to Cal the difference in GPA's/test scores between disadvantaged minorities and others was very large. I'd say the main thing that changed from then to now is that back then the way the system worked they did not distinguish between disadvantaged minority individuals by actual socio-economic status, so many (if not most) of the "disadvantaged" minorities who were admitted with lower grades/test scores were well off kids who went to high school with the non disadvantaged groups. Now the system seems to be more based on high school and that does eliminate a lot of those slots going to kids that did not overcome any adversity. But I struggle to see how the system could really be any harder for wealthy, non-disadvantaged groups.

Do they still have the percentage of admits that are based soley on grades/test scores? In my time, they took a number equal to 40% of the number of admits they would offer, and offer those slots based soley on a ranking from grades/test scores.

---

When my kids were applying, half of the admits were selected by a formula. I'm sure someone here knows the formulas but it went something like GPA x 1000 + SAT + points for advanced classes + a few other metrics. I believed the first part were the same for all UC's but every school seemed to have different metrics for the minor part. If you weren't part of the "automatic admits" based on this metric, you were at the mercy of the evaluators. I don't know if they still do this.

GATC;842487795 said:

---

When my kids were applying, half of the admits were selected by a formula. I'm sure someone here knows the formulas but it went something like GPA x 1000 + SAT + points for advanced classes + a few other metrics. I believed the first part were the same for all UC's but every school seemed to have different metrics for the minor part. If you weren't part of the "automatic admits" based on this metric, you were at the mercy of the evaluators. I don't know if they still do this.

---

As of sometime around 2011, all UCs have stopped publishing the scoring metric. Whether they internally still do this or not, I don't know, but at the very least it's no longer public information. It usually maxed out at 16000 points or so, and with a cap of 4500 for the GPA x 1000 and a max test score of 4000, you can see that the combine value of your GPA and test scores is more than 50% of your possible scores. You only got 500 points for being social-economically disadvantaged, 500 pts if your parents are in the military, 1000 points for a lot of leadership EC, 500 points for some leadership EC, 1000 points for a lot of volunteer hours, 500 points for some volunteer hours, etc.

Quite a few people I know appealed (to the other UCs, not Cal) when they didn't get in, arguing that their scores as calculated by the rubric gave them scores higher than classmates that did get in. As far as I know, most of them were able to get in under appeal.

FWIW Cal hasn't used a strict rubric since at least 2005, if they ever did at all.

pingpong2;842487796 said:

---

As of sometime around 2011, all UCs have stopped publishing the scoring metric. Whether they internally still do this or not, I don't know, but at the very least it's no longer public information. It usually maxed out at 16000 points or so, and with a cap of 4500 for the GPA x 1000 and a max test score of 4000, you can see that the combine value of your GPA and test scores is more than 50% of your possible scores. You only got 500 points for being social-economically disadvantaged, 500 pts if your parents are in the military, 1000 points for a lot of leadership EC, 500 points for some leadership EC, 1000 points for a lot of volunteer hours, 500 points for some volunteer hours, etc.

Quite a few people I know appealed (to the other UCs, not Cal) when they didn't get in, arguing that their scores as calculated by the rubric gave them scores higher than classmates that did get in. As far as I know, most of them were able to get in under appeal.

FWIW Cal hasn't used a strict rubric since at least 2005, if they ever did at all.

---

I believe that all UC's did use it at one time because the cut off for every school was public each year (or at least known by some people anyway). Around that time, Cal had the highest cutoff point with UCLA next and UCSD right after. If you didn't make it on this cut, you are at the mercy of the evaluators.

Golden One;842487623 said:

---

You misunderstand. I'm not proposing that admissions preference be based on how much you give, but rather that it be based on whether your parents/grandparents were Cal alumni. The private schools have demonstrated that legacy admissions do great things for donations, endowments, etc.

---

But if we admit kids whose parents didn't go then they and their kids can also be legacies- larger pool.

jackbauerish;842487755 said:

---

When you apply simply say your parents didnt attend college-that's the game changer. They give huge points to applicants who claim to first time college attendees

---

Or..(to be cheeky!) we thought about checking the "Pacific Islander" box on our daughter's application form since she was born in New Zealand! and obviously didn't...And one of my friends found out that his son was 1/8 native American.. just the right fraction..voila!

Pacific Islander nets nothing.

pingpong2;842487796 said:

---

As of sometime around 2011, all UCs have stopped publishing the scoring metric. Whether they internally still do this or not, I don't know, but at the very least it's no longer public information. It usually maxed out at 16000 points or so, and with a cap of 4500 for the GPA x 1000 and a max test score of 4000, you can see that the combine value of your GPA and test scores is more than 50% of your possible scores. You only got 500 points for being social-economically disadvantaged, 500 pts if your parents are in the military, 1000 points for a lot of leadership EC, 500 points for some leadership EC, 1000 points for a lot of volunteer hours, 500 points for some volunteer hours, etc.

Quite a few people I know appealed (to the other UCs, not Cal) when they didn't get in, arguing that their scores as calculated by the rubric gave them scores higher than classmates that did get in. As far as I know, most of them were able to get in under appeal.

FWIW Cal hasn't used a strict rubric since at least 2005, if they ever did at all.

---

30 or 40 years ago, the baseline for UC eligibility was top 12.5% of California high school students. Is there a similar overall eligibility for the entire UC System now or has that disappeared too?

BearDevil;842487828 said:

---

30 or 40 years ago, the baseline for UC eligibility was top 12.5% of California high school students. Is there a similar overall eligibility for the entire UC System now or has that disappeared too?

---

Top 9% of applicants (not your school) allows preference is flagged on your application and can lead to a "guaranteed spot" at any campus (not your choice) which has room

http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/local-path/

All I can say is wow. Though on the discussion wrt donations, I am willing to venture to bet that if a an alum or a private donor makes a 7 digit donation I am certain the admissions office will make exceptions.

barabbas;842487750 said:

---

It's the truth that if you come from a family that is successful it's almost impossible to get in which is why a lot of kids are getting into furd and denied at Cal.

---

This is flagrantly untrue.

ultramantaro;842487835 said:

---

All I can say is wow. Though on the discussion wrt donations, I am willing to venture to bet that if a an alum or a private donor makes a 7 digit donation I am certain the admissions office will make exceptions.

---

I think you have to donate more. A friend donated $2.5M and got a room named after him, but his son did not get into Cal. I got invited to the ceremony and they served punch and cookies and had to listen to people making speeches. I get better punch and cookies when I donated blood.

GB54;842487833 said:

---

Top 9% of applicants (not your school) allows preference is flagged on your application and can lead to a "guaranteed spot" at any campus (not your choice) which has room

http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/local-path/

---

Thanks. Was the % (12.5 or 9) always based on the applicant pool? Would make more sense because allegedly Lowell sent 200 and Miramonte sent 50 to Cal every year back in the day.

I had to do some digging via the Internet's wayback machine to find this article from the Daily Cal, published on August 27, 1998.

(All Daily Cal articles published online between June 1995 and August 1998 were erased by subsequent staffs in the 2000s. Meanwhile, I can easily search on the web for an article from the Stanford Daily or the Daily Trojan from the 1920s.)

I don't know if it's that interesting, but here it is...

okaydo;842487851 said:

---

---

Is that stuff about not knowing whether Alison Sonsini is related to Larry Sonsini a joke? Is it just a grand cosmic coincidence that he inquired on her behalf and they share the same name. Yea gods.

But I'll go on the record and say that Cal [U]not[/U] giving some preference to the children of alumni/donors is a head slapper. I mean give me a break. When the State went from funding 80+% of Cal's expenses to 11+% where did we think the additional money would come from? California abdicated its right to get all holier than thou when it gutted its financial contributions to the system. News flash - every single one of our competitors does this. Not a little. A lot. Is Cal different? Well it was when it was still a state school.

Now I'm not saying we should become USC circa 1980 and let in the imbecilic offspring of our wealthy grads. But on the margin a family who supports Cal should at least feel like their applicant is getting a hearing. Maybe they get in, maybe they don't but we need to keep that connection to the family alive. If letting them know someone at least looked at their kids application in the context of the relationship to Cal, then maybe that's enough.

Of course, a part of me dies writing this because the dream of a merit-based, publicly funded, world class university system was one of the things (if not the thing) that made this state what it is today. It was Camelot. Now it's gone and we sold it for a mess of pottage.

72CalBear;842487813 said:

---

Or..(to be cheeky!) we thought about checking the "Pacific Islander" box on our daughter's application form since she was born in New Zealand! and obviously didn't...And one of my friends found out that his son was 1/8 native American.. just the right fraction..voila!

---

Affirmative Action at Cal was eliminated by Prop. 209 in 1996 (19 years ago).

calumnus;842487964 said:

---

Affirmative Action at Cal was eliminated by Prop. 209 in 1996 (19 years ago).

---

That's right - so now the applicant's personal essay and recommendations/references are devoid of ANY mention of race or ethnic group?? Perhaps. I have sat on our school scholarship committee and even though affirmative action quotas may be officially eliminated, it is still very much a consideration.

calumnus;842487964 said:

---

Affirmative Action at Cal was eliminated by Prop. 209 in 1996 (19 years ago).

---

In theory, but not really in practice.

72CalBear;842487813 said:

---

Or..(to be cheeky!) we thought about checking the "Pacific Islander" box on our daughter's application form since she was born in New Zealand! and obviously didn't...And one of my friends found out that his son was 1/8 native American.. just the right fraction..voila!

---

72CalBear;842487969 said:

---

That's right - so now the applicant's personal essay and recommendations/references are devoid of ANY mention of race or ethnic group?? Perhaps. I have sat on our school scholarship committee and even though affirmative action quotas may be officially eliminated, it is still very much a consideration.

---

So THAT's why a whopping 5 Pacific Islanders were enrolled last year.

Golden One;842487979 said:

---

In theory, but not really in practice.

---

Considering the black student population is less than half what is was before the law changed, the numbers suggest it has stopped in practice.

If we were practicing affirmative action (even secretly) we would have tons more hispanic students (this is California) and more than a paltry 3% black. But we don't, so our numbers reflect the state's test scores/gpa's, Asian up top, then white.

72CalBear;842487969 said:

---

That's right - so now the applicant's personal essay and recommendations/references are devoid of ANY mention of race or ethnic group?? Perhaps. I have sat on our school scholarship committee and even though affirmative action quotas may be officially eliminated, it is still very much a consideration.

---

My daughter is African American, had a 2250 SAT, won the Fremont science Fair, was a paid speaker for Stanford's school of education, had full scholarship offers to schools all over the country, but was devastated when she did not get into Cal, her dream school since she was a child.

calumnus;842488063 said:

---

My daughter is African American, had a 2250 SAT, won the Fremont science Fair, was a paid speaker for Stanford's school of education, had full scholarship offers to schools all over the country, but was devastated when she did not get into Cal, her dream school since she was a child.

---

That's horrifying. Seriously. What does it actually take to get admitted these days? I mean on some level the more stories like this I hear the more I think they just throw darts at a board in the admissions office.

Cal is one the of greatest universities in the entire world. There are some amazingly qualified and talented people that get passed over. Sadly, not everyone that deserves to get in does. Then there are some who get in that had no business there (but enough about me). I'm all for whatever keeps Cal the best school on the planet. Now, we need to work on our athletics...

Sebastabear;842487949 said:

---

But I'll go on the record and say that Cal [U]not[/U] giving some preference to the children of alumni/donors is a head slapper. I mean give me a break. When the State went from funding 80+% of Cal's expenses to 11+% where did we think the additional money would come from? California abdicated its right to get all holier than thou when it gutted its financial contributions to the system. News flash - every single one of our competitors does this. Not a little. A lot. Is Cal different? Well it was when it was still a state school.

Now I'm not saying we should become USC circa 1980 and let in the imbecilic offspring of our wealthy grads. But on the margin a family who supports Cal should at least feel like their applicant is getting a hearing. Maybe they get in, maybe they don't but we need to keep that connection to the family alive. If letting them know someone at least looked at their kids application in the context of the relationship to Cal, then maybe that's enough.

Of course, a part of me dies writing this because the dream of a merit-based, publicly funded, world class university system was one of the things (if not the thing) that made this state what it is today. It was Camelot. Now it's gone and we sold it for a mess of pottage.

---

+1

Just because SOME children of alumni/donors don't get in, does NOT mean that Cal is not giving preference to their children. You know how many of these kids there are that apply per year?

For all you know, they could've been at the cusp of admittance, but were ultimately passed for someone more qualified.