Admission to UCLA and Berkeley

[quote author="WINEX" date=1234269661][quote author="PANDA" date=1234263185]Wow!, I would of loved to attend a school with this much ethnic diversity. I think that is the reason why I love Irvine so much.

</blockquote>


I hate to sound obtuse, but why does ethnic diversity matter? People are just people. What is gained by categorizing them?</blockquote>


I guess it doesn't really matter except when there is NONE. It's a big wide world out there, as you know better than most, WINEX, so I hope that I can meet and experience some of the many different people and cultures out there and I wish that for my kids too.
 
Not to nitpick, but Irvinian Asians are a whole lot less different from Irvinian Caucasians and generic Californians than just about any Floridian, Texan, Nebraskan, Montanan, Michigonian or New Yorker.
 
Ethnic diversity matters because you never know where you'll end up. For instance, I have an uncle and aunt who, for the first 30 years of their lives, only associated with Whites and Asians. Now that they are working professionals, they primarily work with Hispanics. The point is, it's important to interact well with whoever you are surrounded by. If the only people in my life are Asians, then I guess I don't need to associate with others. But that not being the case, I feel it's very important for me to interact well with Whites, Hispanics, Asians, and others.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1234269661][quote author="PANDA" date=1234263185]Wow!, I would of loved to attend a school with this much ethnic diversity. I think that is the reason why I love Irvine so much.

</blockquote>


I hate to sound obtuse, but why does ethnic diversity matter? People are just people. What is gained by categorizing them?</blockquote>


It does not matter. Ethnic diversity = Racism of just another sort.



Ethnicity is none of the government's business. If you want ethnic diversity in your own life, throw a party and invite an ethnically diverse crowd.



<em>... little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character</em>
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1234306317][quote author="WINEX" date=1234269661][quote author="PANDA" date=1234263185]Wow!, I would of loved to attend a school with this much ethnic diversity. I think that is the reason why I love Irvine so much.

</blockquote>


I hate to sound obtuse, but why does ethnic diversity matter? People are just people. What is gained by categorizing them?</blockquote>


It does not matter. Ethnic diversity = Racism of just another sort.



Ethnicity in none of the government's business. If you want ethnic diversity in your own life, throw a party and invite an ethnically diverse crowd.



<em>... little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character</em></blockquote>


Exactly. Of course I belong to the one demographic group that people are encouraged to discriminate against.
 
Sorry to steer away from the racial track, but back to the original question...Below are the average High School GPA's of admitted students into the UC Campuses.



Berkeley: 4.18

UCLA: 4.15

UC San Diego: 4.07

UC Irvine: 3.95

UC Davis: 3.94

UC Santa Barbara: 3.94

UC Santa Cruz: 3.70

UC Riverside: 3.58

UC Merced: 3.54



See link below where you can find the average statistics such as, GPA, SAT score, acceptance rates, etc, of admitted students to the UC Campuses. Click on the link on the left to view information for the campus you are interested in.



<a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles.html">UC Admission Information</a>



For the record, my wife is all about UCLA for our daugther...I'd be fine with USC. Insert any sterotype you want about SC --- but I know a lot of SC grads, and every last one of them is successful. I unfortunately did not attend there, but my observation is the USC alumni network is second to none in So Cal. Having a network like that at your disposal to open doors is the single biggest springboard to career success, IMO.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1234315941]I'm with WINEX and awgee, if I understand them correctly. Diversity for diversity's sake is racism in another form. If you treat everyone equally, you shouldn't have a problem interacting with folks of any ethnicity. I favor diversity of economic advantage. I'd be happy if schools made GPA and SAT allowances for people who grew up in deep poverty, without regard to race or ethnicity.</blockquote>
That's reverse discrimination. I'll give you a great example of that while at UCLA. UCLA had a special tutoring program (free of charge) for "disadvantaged students." Well, I was having a hard time in one of my GE classes so I decided to investigate this program and I could not afford private tutoring (particularly since my parents were low income earners who came to the US from Poland when I was 5). So I came to find that I was not eligible for the tutoring program because I was not a minority. What kinda BS is that? Just because I put in the "white" category I was not eligible for the program? Man, I was so pissed I was thinking about suing the school but just let it go.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1234315941]I'm with WINEX and awgee, if I understand them correctly. Diversity for diversity's sake is racism in another form. If you treat everyone equally, you shouldn't have a problem interacting with folks of any ethnicity. I favor diversity of economic advantage. I'd be happy if schools made GPA and SAT allowances for people who grew up in deep poverty, without regard to race or ethnicity.</blockquote>


Except for that last sentence, we are in agreement. I grew up in a rough environment, but I think merit should determine everything. If someone can't keep pace with the rest of the group, does it really matter what the cause is? They still slow everyone else down and require additional attention.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1234326692]A merit-based system where the country identifies its best and brightest and gives them an opportunity to succeed is profoundly conservative. Using race based classifications as a corruptable replacement for merit is liberal. Economic caste systems that are impossible to escape is strictly third world.



Let me emphasize, in my opinion, I'm not taking the less qualified candidate. In my view, Kid#2 would not have done as well in Kid#1's environment, and so Kid#1 is the more qualified candidate. I'm saying that environment can provide context in which to interpret the raw scores.</blockquote>


How do you prove hardship? Is it only financial or also emotional hardship that counts?
 
[quote author="CK" date=1234316734]Sorry to steer away from the racial track, but back to the original question...Below are the average High School GPA's of admitted students into the UC Campuses.



Berkeley: 4.18

UCLA: 4.15

UC San Diego: 4.07

UC Irvine: 3.95

UC Davis: 3.94

UC Santa Barbara: 3.94

UC Santa Cruz: 3.70

UC Riverside: 3.58

UC Merced: 3.54



See link below where you can find the average statistics such as, GPA, SAT score, acceptance rates, etc, of admitted students to the UC Campuses. Click on the link on the left to view information for the campus you are interested in.



<a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles.html">UC Admission Information</a>



For the record, my wife is all about UCLA for our daugther...I'd be fine with USC. Insert any sterotype you want about SC --- but I know a lot of SC grads, and every last one of them is successful. I unfortunately did not attend there, but my observation is the USC alumni network is second to none in So Cal. Having a network like that at your disposal to open doors is the single biggest springboard to career success, IMO.</blockquote>


Grade inflation is rampant.
 
If those are the current numbers, I'll be encouraging my children to consider transferring from junior college to Cal (after they realize they cannot spend high school studying for exams like some sort of robot.) Those GPAs are crazy.
 
Wow, I am really suprised as well with how high the GPA average is for the UC schools. Is the grading scale out of 5 = A in California? I remember if you took even one AP class as a sophomore you would be considered a genius. Do many students at Uni and Northwood High start taking AP classes from freshman year? Also, aren't most high schools in California pretty crappy compared to Irvine? For some of you have high school students right now, how difficult is it for your son/daugther to maintain a 4.1 GPA from either Uni/Northwood/Aliso Niguel/ or maybe a high school from Hacienda Heights.



Wow! 3.95 for UC Irvine and 3.94 for UC Santa Barbara, That is Crazy! Isn't UCSB and Santa Cruz a party surf school? These schools were not very difficult to get into when i applying as a high school senior. One friend of mine got into UCI with 3.1 GPA and 1050 SAT back in '94. I'm sure you wouldn't stand a chance with those scores today. Very interesting. GrewupinIrvine, how much easier is it to transfer into Cal or UCLA from JC? Do they only look at your JC GPA and not your high school test scores when admitting students as transfers? I agree, you and your wifey will be able to retire much faster if your kids take this CAL/UCLA backdoor route. At the end, they all get the same Bruin degree. No employer will ever know that you transferred in from JC.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1234325986][quote author="WINEX" date=1234325272][quote author="skek" date=1234315941]I'm with WINEX and awgee, if I understand them correctly. Diversity for diversity's sake is racism in another form. If you treat everyone equally, you shouldn't have a problem interacting with folks of any ethnicity. I favor diversity of economic advantage. I'd be happy if schools made GPA and SAT allowances for people who grew up in deep poverty, without regard to race or ethnicity.</blockquote>


Except for that last sentence, we are in agreement. I grew up in a rough environment, but I think merit should determine everything. If someone can't keep pace with the rest of the group, does it really matter what the cause is? They still slow everyone else down and require additional attention.</blockquote>


I disagree. Imagine Kid #1. He or she grew up in the ghetto to a crack addict mother, no father, on public assistance, attended a crime ridden public school with no music, art or AP programs, lived on gang-infested streets and saw his little brother shot in a drive-by shooting, but somehow managed to earn a 3.5 GPA with no extracurriculars because he worked two jobs to keep the lights on. Imagine Kid #2. Upper middle class family, two parents, loads of opportunities, well funded public school with all the activities. Never had a job so he or she was able to load up on extracurriculars. GPA inflated by taking AP courses. Result, a GPA of 4.1 and tons of extracurriculars.



Let's say you are the admissions officer at the college. You'd take Kid #2? I'd take Kid #1. In my view, what he or she did in their environment is more meritorious than what Kid #2 did. There are plenty of Kid #2s in college, but very few Kid #1s. Kid #1 deserves a chance to succeed and break the cycle of poverty for his family. Note that I'm not talking about quotas or formulae.



It is an extreme example, sure, but if you define merit strictly by the numbers, you'd have to take Kid #2 over Kid #1. To me, it doesn't matter whether Kid #1 is white or black or otherwise, nor Kid #2. Kid #1 deserves the chance. America is a better place when we take kids like #1 and give them a seat at the table.</blockquote>


Agree 95% with skek on this one. If I am admissions, I really do not care which kid "deserves" admission more. I care which kid will make my school look better in the end. And many times, a kid who excells through adversity is much more likely to excell throughout life.



Although GPA and SAT are important at UCLA, my understanding is that another factor is being heavily considered. UCLA wants to know what else besides academics has the applicant excelled at. Not just what extracurricular activites or community works have they been involved with, but what have they excelled at, and national recognition is a big plus. UCLA has found that a student with a 4.3 GPA is impressive, but their success may be limited to academia or some other field which does not give UCLA exposure. A student with a 4.0 who has also been recognized for excellance in ballet, or science, or surfing, or gymnastics, or architectural model building will be more likely to attain visible success after graduating UCLA and put UCLA in a positive spotlight.



It may seem anecdotal, but I can not count the number of parents who have expressed their surprise that their child got accepted to Stanford or Harvard or Columbia, but got rejected from UCLA.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1234394983][quote author="skek" date=1234325986][quote author="WINEX" date=1234325272][quote author="skek" date=1234315941]I'm with WINEX and awgee, if I understand them correctly. Diversity for diversity's sake is racism in another form. If you treat everyone equally, you shouldn't have a problem interacting with folks of any ethnicity. I favor diversity of economic advantage. I'd be happy if schools made GPA and SAT allowances for people who grew up in deep poverty, without regard to race or ethnicity.</blockquote>


Except for that last sentence, we are in agreement. I grew up in a rough environment, but I think merit should determine everything. If someone can't keep pace with the rest of the group, does it really matter what the cause is? They still slow everyone else down and require additional attention.</blockquote>


I disagree. Imagine Kid #1. He or she grew up in the ghetto to a crack addict mother, no father, on public assistance, attended a crime ridden public school with no music, art or AP programs, lived on gang-infested streets and saw his little brother shot in a drive-by shooting, but somehow managed to earn a 3.5 GPA with no extracurriculars because he worked two jobs to keep the lights on. Imagine Kid #2. Upper middle class family, two parents, loads of opportunities, well funded public school with all the activities. Never had a job so he or she was able to load up on extracurriculars. GPA inflated by taking AP courses. Result, a GPA of 4.1 and tons of extracurriculars.



Let's say you are the admissions officer at the college. You'd take Kid #2? I'd take Kid #1. In my view, what he or she did in their environment is more meritorious than what Kid #2 did. There are plenty of Kid #2s in college, but very few Kid #1s. Kid #1 deserves a chance to succeed and break the cycle of poverty for his family. Note that I'm not talking about quotas or formulae.



It is an extreme example, sure, but if you define merit strictly by the numbers, you'd have to take Kid #2 over Kid #1. To me, it doesn't matter whether Kid #1 is white or black or otherwise, nor Kid #2. Kid #1 deserves the chance. America is a better place when we take kids like #1 and give them a seat at the table.</blockquote>


Agree 95% with skek on this one. If I am admissions, I really do not care which kid "deserves" admission more. I care which kid will make my school look better in the end. And many times, a kid who excells through adversity is much more likely to excell throughout life.



Although GPA and SAT are important at UCLA, my understanding is that another factor is being heavily considered. UCLA wants to know what else besides academics has the applicant excelled at. Not just what extracurricular activites or community works have they been involved with, but what have they excelled at, and national recognition is a big plus. UCLA has found that a student with a 4.3 GPA is impressive, but their success may be limited to academia or some other field which does not give UCLA exposure. A student with a 4.0 who has also been recognized for excellance in ballet, or science, or surfing, or gymnastics, or architectural model building will be more likely to attain visible success after graduating UCLA and put UCLA in a positive spotlight.



It may seem anecdotal, but I can not count the number of parents who have expressed their surprise that their child got accepted to Stanford or Harvard or Columbia, but got rejected from UCLA.</blockquote>


Wow! I didn't think it is possible for a child to get accepted to Stanford or Harvard or Columbia, and still get rejected from UCLA. Are you serious?
 
[quote author="PANDA" date=1234395576]Wow! I didn't think it is possible for a child to get accepted to Stanford or Harvard or Columbia, and still get rejected from UCLA. Are you serious?</blockquote>


Interesting thread... one note that I'll add:



I do have an old friend whose mother was involved with admissions for UCLA some 10 years ago. She had mentioned at the time that the number of applications so far exceeded the admissions availability, that the process had significant bias towards early applicants. As she explained the process, the first check was to see if the applications were complete and met minimum standards, but after that, as a practical matter, <strong>many did not get re-reviewed </strong>because there was such a preponderance of qualified potential students coming from all over the globe. She stated very clearly that if an initial rejection was received, <strong><span style="color: red;">subsequent appeals had a very good success rate</span></strong>. I would venture to guess that similar conditions still exist, and highly encourage people to explore that avenue if they have children that run into that situation.



The lesson of persistence is often it's own reward, as well. Even if we don't experience the situation-specific "success," we learn more about how capable we can be.



Good luck,

-Deuce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top