Live data from Hacker News

How your high school affects your chances of UC Admission

sfeducation.substack.com

161–170 of 199 posts

Re: How your high school affects your chances of UC Admission

#161
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting idea, but look at it from the applicant’s perspective: you’d have to front like $50,000 to apply to just 5 schools (if you call $10k the average price for a semester). Even if you solved the financial aid question here, admissions is a numbers game for students, usually, so getting accepted to more than one school would dig the student loan debt hole that much deeper across the board.

> you’d have to front like $50,000 to apply to just 5 schools (if you call $10k the average price for a semester). Even if you solved the financial aid question here, admissions is a numbers game for students, usually, so getting accepted to more than one school would dig the student loan debt hole that much deeper across the board. Perhaps insurance companies could create an insurance product to insurance the applic…

Even getting admitted to two colleges would be financial crippling to a majority of applicants.

Insurance premiums would be a significant fraction of the average tuition, which would be beyond the reach of many.

The effect of the proposed system would be that most people would just apply to one school. If rejected they would try another next year, if they haven’t given up on college, and so on.

Re: How your high school affects your chances of UC Admission

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems terrible incentives. You are now in a purely adversarial relationship with your peers and hurting them helps you

This kind of competition happens in other areas of academic pursuits too. Is that strictly a bad thing? The bad thing about UT's policy is that it encourages well-off students to move to a less-competitive school district (usually rural) in order to improve their chances.

This seems like a good thing to me actually, lower performing students generally benefit from having high performers in their social circles

Re: How your high school affects your chances of UC Admission

#163
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you’d have to front like $50,000 to apply to just 5 schools (if you call $10k the average price for a semester). Even if you solved the financial aid question here, admissions is a numbers game for students, usually, so getting accepted to more than one school would dig the student loan debt hole that much deeper across the board. Perhaps insurance companies could create an insurance product to insurance the applic…

Even getting admitted to two colleges would be financial crippling to a majority of applicants. Insurance premiums would be a significant fraction of the average tuition, which would be beyond the reach of many. The effect of the proposed system would be that most people would just apply to one school. If rejected they would try another next year, if they haven’t given up on college, and so on.

This would result in lots of schools moving to a rolling admission process with monthly (or even weekly) notification cycles. Students would then apply serially to several schools.

Of course, there's no way to get schools to all require a deposit, and even if there were schools would give fee-waivers to low-income students (giving them an advantage over middle-class kids).

Re: How your high school affects your chances of UC Admission

#164
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the new meta, in SF at least. Despite the "what are secondary effects?" school admins trying to "fix inequality" by creating school lotteries, ending gifted programs and focusing on "equality of outcomes not equality of opportunity", the only thing that has actually improved troubled schools is that smart kids with involved parents now actively seek out lower rated schools like Mission High so they can more e…

While I'm usually not a fan of ending gifted programs and such, I do believe that the kids in the lower-rated schools must feel a positive effect, mingling with highly-motivated, better-educated kids. It may do away with the whole "study is uncool, real kids hate school" vibe that holds many "bad neighborhood" schools back.

> I do believe that the kids in the lower-rated schools must feel a positive effect, mingling with highly-motivated, better-educated kids. It may do away with the whole "study is uncool, real kids hate school" vibe that holds many "bad neighborhood" schools back.

That's the logic, but it doesn't pan out. IMO it's because 1) by high school it's too late--kids already segregate themselves and the ones with strong study habits will tend to hide them. In America generally the culture is for upper classes to pretend they're anything but, coopting the styles and mannerisms of the lower classes, especially Black culture (which in American culture is almost by definition low status yet valorized).

I grew up poor, with zero structure at home. It wasn't until I was mid-way through college when I realized the people around me actually studied and did their homework. I just didn't see it because they all pretended otherwise, then snuck off with their higher class peers, almost like secret rituals.

Contrast that with, e.g. East Asian culture. I remember the first time I visited Singapore and saw a group of elementary school kids, without supervision, congregating at a McDonalds do to their homework together.

My daughter goes to a Chinese immersion public school in SF. It's mostly Asian, but there's actually a sizable minority of black students there. Like their slightly more numerous white peers, they tend have a parent (or relative--grandmother, aunt, etc) who made a very deliberate decision and who provides the necessary structure and support at home. Home support is key because, talking with those parents, not even by 8th grade does the feeling of being different disappear; it's very taxing, and without constant encouragement kids will slip back into their comfort zone. It's entirely unreasonable to drop a poor white, black, or 4th generation Asian kid off at that school and expect them to adopt and internalize the culture without significant support at home. By contrast, the recently immigrated Asians fit right in regardless of class or wealth.

Now imagine dropping a few smart students with strong study habits and support networks off at a school where most kids don't have those benefits. It's never going to move the needle.

I just got back from Malaysia, where the majority Muslim Malay population benefits from government programs in ways that would be unfathomable to all but the most leftist Americans. 50 years from independence, excepting for the most wealthy, cosmopolitan strata, the country is as racially and economically stratified and segregated as it ever was. AFAIU, the situation is similar in South Africa.

I'm onboard with the idea that diversity and breaking the structures of inequality are laudable goals, but so far nobody has figured out to socially engineer that outcome. Culture is like a newtonian fluid; you apply pressure and things tend to become even more rigid and less fluid. It's not just the privileged who push back, it's the social underclasses that also push back; they're no less invested in their identity. Change, when it comes about, tends to only happen organically in ways we haven't figured out how to induce.

I no longer advocate for affirmative action programs, though I don't like dropping what programs we have. Constantly changing the rules creates its own burdens and unfairness that probably exceed the costs of keeping them. Better to just let them quietly recede into the background where they can continue helping a small minority of people capable of leveraging them.

Re: How your high school affects your chances of UC Admission

#166
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has that. The top 9% from each high school and the top 9% statewide are guaranteed UC admission. This does not guarantee admission to any specific campus, so if you are only interested in say Berkeley or UCLA you might get admitted but UC will find you a place at some campus.

Recall that there are UC campuses in Riverside, Merced, Davis.

Yes, I agree. The UC system is large and has many different campuses, but for undergraduate degrees it is by far Berkeley then LA. For grad schools, it is a toss up because different UCs specialise in different areas. Example: LA grad for film will be way better than Berkeley. And Berkeley physics or compsci will be much better than LA (but LA is still OK those). And don't forget there are some UCs that are grad schools only, like SF. They have excellent life sciences and medical school

Re: How your high school affects your chances of UC Admission

#167

>> Incidentally, San Francisco public schools had a combined admission rate of just under 20%, well below the state average. Mission had the highest rate (26.5%) and Balboa the lowest (15.4%). It may or may not be a coincidence that 90% (the most of any SF school) of the applicants from Balboa were Asian whereas only 25% (the fewest of any SF school) of the applicants from Mission were Asian. In order to promote dive…

You just discovered affirmative action?

That is illegal in California public schools like this article focused on.

The truth is, UC San Diego admits students who didn't get into the more prestigious UCs like Berkeley, LA, etc. That's probably why you see data like this

Re: How your high school affects your chances of UC Admission

#168
post #127

>> Incidentally, San Francisco public schools had a combined admission rate of just under 20%, well below the state average. Mission had the highest rate (26.5%) and Balboa the lowest (15.4%). It may or may not be a coincidence that 90% (the most of any SF school) of the applicants from Balboa were Asian whereas only 25% (the fewest of any SF school) of the applicants from Mission were Asian. In order to promote dive…

Universities and basically every major company, including all the big tech companies, have been openly and publicly doing this for years.

Not UCs, they are forbidden from doing so by law

Re: How your high school affects your chances of UC Admission

#169
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is, they are biased towards top performers, not just high performers, even if one student's "merely high" is formally higher than the ceiling the other student hit. (The "winning" strategy then is to move to an underserved high school after an elite middle school, and hit the ceiling.)

One of the charts in TFA shows a discontinuity in admissions rate around 75% UPP. This means that if you send your kid to a HS that is underserved when you enroll, but drops below the critical 75% threshold because too many other families are doing the same, then the school could fall out of the strong-benefit category. The kid would still have a better chance than if he applied from a high-performing school, but it…

> other high performing students might not like him because he's a curve-breaker

Not that common in high school to have classes and exams curved. Also kids don't care.

> teachers would know what the family was up to and could view it as distasteful

They also don't care

> if the student went to UCSD or another school where this is a well-known hack, there could be stigma for having gamed the system/being less-smart.

College kids also don't care and there are lots of other ways to game the system. Ocne you're at school, no one cares who gamed the system to get there and how they did it

Re: How your high school affects your chances of UC Admission

#170
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don't know how do you even compare students with different backgrounds against each other. That's why standardized testing is good - it gives everyone the same chance to excel.

> it gives everyone the same chance to excel. How does the existence of standardized testing give everyone the same chance? As an extremely over-exaggerated example example, someone whose home study time is disrupted frequently by gunfire outside is probably not getting the same chance as someone who lives on a 20 acre estate with private tutors for every subject.

This is like saying all furniture must be made waterproof because some people have leaky roofs. No, you fix the roof.

I know my proposition sounds absurd, but it kind of point out the issue with this kind of thinking is that applying some patchwork fixes to complex issues rather than treating the root cause is a bad idea. It's a bad idea in CS and a bad idea in planning social systems.

Neighborhoods should be made safe, or failing that, dorms should be made available for kids (in my country, there are tons of dorms for high schoolers already, who live in the countryside, and want to attend a somewhat better high school).

Alternatively I suggest making this a demand problem - good high schools should compete for talent (which is always in short supply) and should actively take measures to seek out and nurture gifted kids.

As for your rich kid example - what makes you think that in a more holistic system, he won't be able to optimize admissions by exploiting resources?

Just recently there was an article on HN about how the majority of those admitted to US elite college received some 'pity party' points - sounds to me the system is being actively exploited.

Post reply on HN