Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education > Colleges and Universities
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-22-2009, 03:41 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,317 posts, read 22,310,222 times
Reputation: 18436

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by missionhome View Post
My son got into UCLA, UCSD, UC Davis, UCSB, and UCI. He is waiting for Berkeley next week. He really wants to go to UCLA and yes, he is WHITE. Eight white students, seven Asians, and one Hispanic student were accepted to UCLA from his high school.

If you want a comparison for another white student, here are my son's stats:
Eligible in the Local Context (Top 4% of his high school)- Guarantees admission to UC Davis, UCSB, and UCI
Class Rank: 6/750
10-12 weighted GPA: 4.69
SAT: 2180
SAT II: Biology (720), Math II (700), English Lit (690)
ACT: 32

Classes:
Full International Baccalaureate Diploma Candidate
Academy of Technology, Math, and Science Student
Five AP Classes in addition to IB Diploma: AP Stats, AP Enliglish Lang, AP Bio, AP Physics, AP Euro History
Three classes taken at community college

Extra Curriculars:
Lead volunteer of telemetry department at local hospital with 300 service hours, varsity track and field, JV cross country, publicity for National Honor Society, piano, California Scholarship Federation member, Operation Smile Vice President, represents high school to church council, Cougars for Character member, and independent research project on dissolved oxygen concentration with chlorella and diatoms.

Essays: One was about why he loved biology, wanted to major in it, and his research project. His second essay was about the community in his high school.

You can compare to other students here and maybe submit an appeal if you feel you need to: *****official ucla decision thread class 2013***** - College Discussion
Students do find more success with winning appeals at the mid-tier campuses like UCD and UCSB. I am sorry this happend, your daughter sounds bright and gifted. She will hopefully find a school where she can be happy. I just wanted to share so you could compare and maybe see if there were any differences in application types between your daughter and my son, although I realize this is just one case. Maybe if you check out that other site you will have even more to compare and put together the puzzle of who was accepted, although it seems pretty random if you ask me.
Congratulations on your son! He sounds like an exceptional young man. Your family did a fine job with him and I wish him the best. I know you're very proud of him.

Also, thank you for that information and the kind words. I will check it out and she would probably be interested in it as well.

She does not intend on appealing, as she has already been accepted into some fine private schools. She is not disappointed, just surprised as Davis, UCLA, and San Diego were among her "safe" schools. Not getting admitted to these schools implied that she wouldn't be accepted to Berkeley which was high on her list. Haven't heard from Berkeley yet, but no high hopes there.

You're right though, it is a puzzle. As others have aluded to here, I should just let it slide. Hard to do though when you're a parent, so emotionally-involved. I need to get informed. I'm certainly not the first to inquire. This is my first dose of college admissions for our kids and I certainly seek answers so we can be better prepared for when my son applies in two years. I want to increase the chances for his success getting admitted to the schools of his choice.

Last edited by LexusNexus; 03-22-2009 at 04:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2009, 05:01 AM
 
Location: Sandpoint, Idaho
3,007 posts, read 6,262,318 times
Reputation: 3310
alexus,
Your comments that weave in and out from moral judgments but you choose not to see that. dissection keeps the thread honest.

Reading between the lines, your daughter does not get in. You are making comments on race. Your posts are making wild, unsubstantiated comments on Asians and throwing in comments on the benefits of affirmative action. OK, things are more clear. Here are some things to note.

1) The assertion that UC discriminates in favor of Asian Americans would be news to the thousands of Asian Americans who feel the UC system criteria has punished them for their success. And to be frank, I have never once heard such a charge that the UC discriminates in favor of Asians.

2) The assertion that UC admissions criteria is too focused on quantitative indicators and thus biases admissions in favor of SATs and GPAs and against intangibles is true. However, this is usually the case for public universties as a way to institute objective criteria. From the perspective of Asian Americans, their success at achieving these quantitative indicators has been met by UC admissions biasing criteria increasingly toward intangibles--not for the reasons of a better way of dong admissions but to limit the growth of Asians in the UC.

3) Re: #2. Your charge of racial discrimination should be targeted against the design of the UC system not at Asian students with 4.6 GPA, 2300+ SATs, and loads of AP classes, students who are academic superstars by any definition of terms. Private universties are not bound by the retrictions found at public universities.

4) The idea of moving admissions criteria to more intangibles is something that would increase admissions to favor discriminated groups. Interestingly enough, the past 30+ years of court cases have moved public admissions to more objective criteria and away from affirmative action, largely becuase of parents using similar arguments as yours, that the system is biased against their children for use of intangibles.

I do not foresee a time anytime soon when public universty admissions will be allowed full discretion. The UC needs to balance the need for objective criteria with the need to examine intangibles and do both while serving the mandate of a public institution. As such, expect them to favor the quants, with bits of discretion here and there to cull incoming classes to the desired size. In this latter process, mitigating and extraordinary factors will continue to play a role, but apparently not enough to your satisfaction.

S
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 08:51 AM
PYT
 
122 posts, read 289,538 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus View Post
Also, I think schools ARE looking at race because if they didn't, all of the top-ranked schools would be full of asians because they scored higher than every other race on exams. I talked to an admissions officer once who told me that they received over 2000 applications the first four days, and at least 80% of those were from asian applicants with 4.0 averages and exceptional SAT scores. They essentially had enough asians who scored higher than everyone else within the first week to fill their freshman class! Certainly, they have to pay attention to race, to keep from only admitting asians simply because of the numbers.
I just want to clarify in the statistics given by the admissions board for 2007, you find that average GPA (weighted)/SAT score for Asian UC Berkeley applicant is 3.85/1254, for whites is 3.89/1277 and American Indians, Latinos and Blacks, 3.72/1204; 3.70/1084 and 3.55/1063. There is an undisclosed category (since can refuse to identify your race) with a GPA/SAT scores 3.9/1308. (Please note: This does not contain SAT IIs or the writing section)

The admit rate for Asians is 26.3%, for whites AND American Indians is 25.9% with blacks and hispanics at 16.9% and 19.7%. For the undisclosed category the admit rate is 31.3%

Asians account for roughly 38.9% of the applicants for UC Berkeley (not 80%) and roughly 41.4% of admits. Caucasians account for roughly 32.0% of applicants and 33.5% of admits. These numbers vary from university to university across the UCs however demonstrate similar numbers.

I am not trying to discount your story or your argument I just want to make sure the numbers that are being thrown around are correct.

You quoted earlier that "I disagree. Race is a factor in for instance making sure that Berkeley" is not completely Asian. Now there are three main reasons why I disagree that the UCs are "intentionally" cutting Asian admissions.

1. The U.C. system is legally not allowed by law to impose affirmative action. (Doing so will involve millions in litigation costs)

2. You are not forced to disclose your ethnicity therefore creating an easy loophole for affirmative action.

3. Asians have a higher admit rate per applicant (not just overall) than other ethnicity in UC Berkeley and overall in the whole UC system, matches Caucasians exactly at 90.2% (note that the UC's overall admit rate 87.4% is much higher than Berkeley's 24.8% admit rate).

Unless the figures are incorrect, I believe this highly suggests that the UC system does not impose a "secret" affirmative action. (Especially reason #1)

Now whether that is a good or bad thing? Whether that is fair? That is entirely another discussion. Hopefully I'm being as unbiased as possible and this gives a different perspective on things.

Please also to note that this data does not show the effects of extracurriculars, essays and other scores not mentioned.



Now for my more opinionated response:
Now the reason why Asians statistics may seem slightly higher is due to the fact that Asians who come over seas tend to be the cream of crop, the smartest, most determined and affluent. This results in more focus on academics and schoolwork (which heavily determines success in some Asian countries).

However, you cannot group all Asians into the same category. Koreans, Chinese (Cantonese, Taiwanese, Mainland), Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Indians (and other ethnicities) all have major differences in culture, background and work ethics. While many cultures do emphasize on education, by grouping all cultures together, you actually hurt certain Asians that are disadvantaged.

Japaneses in America tend to make 3 times more than Vietnamese, while Koreans have huge gaps between the wealthy and the poor. Therefore a studious well-off Asian at your local school may have a racial counterpart who's going through extreme hardship and financial hardship.

You must also realize that the majority of Asians do not receive perfect GPAs and SAT scores and that their study habits vary widely. Statistics show that out of 24,778 Asian applicants, the average GPA was a 3.69. In addition, for state colleges, the average was significantly lower. Therefore those 4.5+ super students you hear about, those are mostly a minority.

First generation and second generation families also vary vastly in culture and work ethics as well. As families (as do all immigrants) age, they become much more assimilated into American culture with every generation, therefore a second or third generation Asian may bare no resemblance to first generation/new immigrants.

So remember that Asians vary vastly across different socioeconomic class, culture and generation. (Please note I am way overgeneralizing above)

Now I'm pretty sure you were applying your stories mostly locally, because those study stories you hear about probably have quite some truth to them, however just be careful not to completely group everyone together.


I think the real issue is not whether UCs are biased, or the fact Asians study too much.

I think it is a combination of "emphasis on life experiences rather than book learning" and the "fairness of affirmative action" and the fact that we have a completely undiverse "Asian/ White UC system".

Everyone has differing views upon affirmative action (there are so many pros and cons) and It'd be impossible to completely address them in this threads, nevertheless I hope I addressed the underlying issue with the UCs in particular. (there is probably bias in other college system though).

As for your daughter, I still find it very surprising she didn't make it in with a 4.5. I don't think budget cuts can explain everything... maybe the essays somehow offended the adcoms or something was missing from the transcript(I'm just pulling reasons out of thin air at this point)? Try not to dwell on it though, I'm pretty sure you understand already that its depends on your daughter (not the college) whether she'll be successful in life. And it seems like she'll be fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 12:19 PM
f_m
 
2,289 posts, read 8,349,740 times
Reputation: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus View Post
To answer your question, I'd want BOTH (one who spent a lot of time studying and learning AND one who talks to people well). Wouldn't you? You misinterpeted my points.
I'm not sure how I misinterpreted your points, but finding competent people in technical fields is hard enough sometimes, finding them to be competent on subject matter and have above average bedside manner/social skills may be even harder. I would rather have someone competent first, anything aside from that is extra.

But it doesn't mean people who study lack social skills. I know that it may be necessary for people to study nearly all the time for difficult fields. Being able to sit down and work 4-8 hours straight with 100% concentration is necessary for some kinds of work, and I've heard Ph.D.'s discussing this in admiration of people they know. That's just a matter of necessity for some fields. So making a judgment about the study habits of people doesn't make sense in regards to school acceptance.

Interestingly enough, Texas has a rule that the top 10% of the graduating class is automatically accepted into any state school. Of course that would make high school fairly competitive.

Last edited by f_m; 03-22-2009 at 12:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
2,498 posts, read 11,408,778 times
Reputation: 1619
Here are some other interesting statistics on the UC system from the "Introducing the University" book sent out:

It has the admit rate for each campus in each category such as GPA, ACT, SAT, etc....

UCLA only accepts 51.4% of students applying with above a 4.00. 56.1% of students in the 700-800 critical reading range are accepted, 46% in the 700-800 range for math are accepted, and 55.4% in the 700-800 range for writing are accepted. For ACT applicants in the 31-36 range, 54.3% are accepted. 60.6% of students that were eligible in the local context were accepted.

The numbers are more encouraging for UCSD and UCD. UCSD admits 80.7% of students with above a 4.00 and 68-78% of students in the 700-800/31-36 range. 89.1% of ELC students are accepted.

Davis takes 90.5% of students with above a 4.00 and 80-89% of students in the 700-800/31-36 range are accepted. 99.3% of ELC students are accepted.

Just a lot of interesting stats on the UC system in this book: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/ITU.pdf (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 12:35 PM
f_m
 
2,289 posts, read 8,349,740 times
Reputation: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by missionhome View Post
Here are some other interesting statistics on the UC system from the "Introducing the University" book sent out:

It has the admit rate for each campus in each category such as GPA, ACT, SAT, etc....
The chart I posted on the first page of this thread is the link to their online admissions stat database. You can create your own charts based on school, scores, GPA, gender, ethnicity, etc...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
2,498 posts, read 11,408,778 times
Reputation: 1619
Quote:
Originally Posted by f_m View Post
The chart I posted on the first page of this thread is the link to their online admissions stat database. You can create your own charts based on school, scores, GPA, gender, ethnicity, etc...
Yes, I saw your link. It is awesome! I just liked how the Intoducing the University book was simple. Both are a good source of info.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 01:03 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,317 posts, read 22,310,222 times
Reputation: 18436
Quote:
Originally Posted by PYT View Post
I just want to clarify in the statistics given by the admissions board for 2007, you find that average GPA (weighted)/SAT score for Asian UC Berkeley applicant is 3.85/1254, for whites is 3.89/1277 and American Indians, Latinos and Blacks, 3.72/1204; 3.70/1084 and 3.55/1063. There is an undisclosed category (since can refuse to identify your race) with a GPA/SAT scores 3.9/1308. (Please note: This does not contain SAT IIs or the writing section)

The admit rate for Asians is 26.3%, for whites AND American Indians is 25.9% with blacks and hispanics at 16.9% and 19.7%. For the undisclosed category the admit rate is 31.3%

Asians account for roughly 38.9% of the applicants for UC Berkeley (not 80%) and roughly 41.4% of admits. Caucasians account for roughly 32.0% of applicants and 33.5% of admits. These numbers vary from university to university across the UCs however demonstrate similar numbers.

I am not trying to discount your story or your argument I just want to make sure the numbers that are being thrown around are correct.

You quoted earlier that "I disagree. Race is a factor in for instance making sure that Berkeley" is not completely Asian. Now there are three main reasons why I disagree that the UCs are "intentionally" cutting Asian admissions.

1. The U.C. system is legally not allowed by law to impose affirmative action. (Doing so will involve millions in litigation costs)

2. You are not forced to disclose your ethnicity therefore creating an easy loophole for affirmative action.

3. Asians have a higher admit rate per applicant (not just overall) than other ethnicity in UC Berkeley and overall in the whole UC system, matches Caucasians exactly at 90.2% (note that the UC's overall admit rate 87.4% is much higher than Berkeley's 24.8% admit rate).

Unless the figures are incorrect, I believe this highly suggests that the UC system does not impose a "secret" affirmative action. (Especially reason #1)

Now whether that is a good or bad thing? Whether that is fair? That is entirely another discussion. Hopefully I'm being as unbiased as possible and this gives a different perspective on things.

Please also to note that this data does not show the effects of extracurriculars, essays and other scores not mentioned.



Now for my more opinionated response:
Now the reason why Asians statistics may seem slightly higher is due to the fact that Asians who come over seas tend to be the cream of crop, the smartest, most determined and affluent. This results in more focus on academics and schoolwork (which heavily determines success in some Asian countries).

However, you cannot group all Asians into the same category. Koreans, Chinese (Cantonese, Taiwanese, Mainland), Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Indians (and other ethnicities) all have major differences in culture, background and work ethics. While many cultures do emphasize on education, by grouping all cultures together, you actually hurt certain Asians that are disadvantaged.

Japaneses in America tend to make 3 times more than Vietnamese, while Koreans have huge gaps between the wealthy and the poor. Therefore a studious well-off Asian at your local school may have a racial counterpart who's going through extreme hardship and financial hardship.

You must also realize that the majority of Asians do not receive perfect GPAs and SAT scores and that their study habits vary widely. Statistics show that out of 24,778 Asian applicants, the average GPA was a 3.69. In addition, for state colleges, the average was significantly lower. Therefore those 4.5+ super students you hear about, those are mostly a minority.

First generation and second generation families also vary vastly in culture and work ethics as well. As families (as do all immigrants) age, they become much more assimilated into American culture with every generation, therefore a second or third generation Asian may bare no resemblance to first generation/new immigrants.

So remember that Asians vary vastly across different socioeconomic class, culture and generation. (Please note I am way overgeneralizing above)

Now I'm pretty sure you were applying your stories mostly locally, because those study stories you hear about probably have quite some truth to them, however just be careful not to completely group everyone together.


I think the real issue is not whether UCs are biased, or the fact Asians study too much.

I think it is a combination of "emphasis on life experiences rather than book learning" and the "fairness of affirmative action" and the fact that we have a completely undiverse "Asian/ White UC system".

Everyone has differing views upon affirmative action (there are so many pros and cons) and It'd be impossible to completely address them in this threads, nevertheless I hope I addressed the underlying issue with the UCs in particular. (there is probably bias in other college system though).

As for your daughter, I still find it very surprising she didn't make it in with a 4.5. I don't think budget cuts can explain everything... maybe the essays somehow offended the adcoms or something was missing from the transcript(I'm just pulling reasons out of thin air at this point)? Try not to dwell on it though, I'm pretty sure you understand already that its depends on your daughter (not the college) whether she'll be successful in life. And it seems like she'll be fine.
Thank you for the post. Very good information and I appreciate your opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 02:08 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,317 posts, read 22,310,222 times
Reputation: 18436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandpointian View Post
alexus,
Your comments that weave in and out from moral judgments but you choose not to see that. dissection keeps the thread honest.

Reading between the lines, your daughter does not get in. You are making comments on race. Your posts are making wild, unsubstantiated comments on Asians and throwing in comments on the benefits of affirmative action. OK, things are more clear. Here are some things to note.

1) The assertion that UC discriminates in favor of Asian Americans would be news to the thousands of Asian Americans who feel the UC system criteria has punished them for their success. And to be frank, I have never once heard such a charge that the UC discriminates in favor of Asians.

2) The assertion that UC admissions criteria is too focused on quantitative indicators and thus biases admissions in favor of SATs and GPAs and against intangibles is true. However, this is usually the case for public universties as a way to institute objective criteria. From the perspective of Asian Americans, their success at achieving these quantitative indicators has been met by UC admissions biasing criteria increasingly toward intangibles--not for the reasons of a better way of dong admissions but to limit the growth of Asians in the UC.

3) Re: #2. Your charge of racial discrimination should be targeted against the design of the UC system not at Asian students with 4.6 GPA, 2300+ SATs, and loads of AP classes, students who are academic superstars by any definition of terms. Private universties are not bound by the retrictions found at public universities.

4) The idea of moving admissions criteria to more intangibles is something that would increase admissions to favor discriminated groups. Interestingly enough, the past 30+ years of court cases have moved public admissions to more objective criteria and away from affirmative action, largely becuase of parents using similar arguments as yours, that the system is biased against their children for use of intangibles.

I do not foresee a time anytime soon when public universty admissions will be allowed full discretion. The UC needs to balance the need for objective criteria with the need to examine intangibles and do both while serving the mandate of a public institution. As such, expect them to favor the quants, with bits of discretion here and there to cull incoming classes to the desired size. In this latter process, mitigating and extraordinary factors will continue to play a role, but apparently not enough to your satisfaction.

S
Thank you for your post.

Again, there are no moral judgments. I'm not the first parent to complain about the amount of pressure put on kids these days to perform. I singled out asians and my points are not invalid or inferior to yours simply because we disagree.

Don't read between the lines. You don't know me or my daughter. You also assume that my knowledge of asian study habits is unsubstantiated. This does not give your points much credibility in my eyes. Refrain from doing this.

Read the headline of this thread. I'm asking the question if UC favors asians in the admission process. There appears to be a bias. I'm seeking answers here. If you can shed any substantive light on the subject, aside from "reading between the lines" or relying on conjecture, do so objectively. Don't get emotionally caught up in the fact that we disagree over affirmative action. You happen to hold the inferior position on that point, so no amount of dissecting can compensate for that.

Concerning point #2, my daughter's SAT score and GPA exceed that of most of the asians in her school, all of whom were admitted to certain UC schools where she was turned down. One has to ask the question in a quantitative sense, why this is so, as well as look at the intangible factors. This is what I'm doing. About the success of the effort asians put in to produce the quantitative results, good for them. Knowing the effort that my daughter put in to exceed those scores, I am not an advocate for the pressure that is put on kids to achieve such feats. You're entitled to disagree.

About point #1, because you have never heard such a charge does not mean that it is not true. I'm not the first parent to ask the question. Also, if asians feel that the system discriminates against them because of their high numbers, then this might suggest that the admission committees are taking note of the number of asians that they admit, to keep that number from getting too high, does it not? This would also suggest that they are looking at race. How can they do this without looking at the race of the applicant?

About point #3, there appears to be a bias. The reasons for it and to what extent it exists, are questions I'm seeking answers to. It could be quantitative, the intangbles, or various combinations of both. I am targeting the UC system, not asians. I gave the example of Hector to illustrate this point. Others here have given me some valuable information on this front.

About point #4. Jim Crow was alive and well at one time, supported by court cases in the South that didn't want to recognize black people as citizens with equal rights. This certainly was wrong. The "public opinion" that was the basis of Jim Crow certainly was wrong, was it not? By the same token, asking the majority to vote on rights for the minority usually works to the detriment of the minority. This doesn't make the majority right and certainly doesn't invalidate the rights that the minority seek. It happened recently with Prop 8. In this case, asking the people of CA if affirmative action should be banned was not a move that I respect or agree with. Naturally, people who have never been impacted by racial prejudice are not going to acknowledge that it exists. So "public opinion" is completely wrong here, just as wrong as it was during the height of Jim Crow. I have absolutely no respect for "public opinion" on this issue and the issue itself is a topic for another thread. You want to argue against AA, there are plenty of other threads for you to do that in. Go to those threads.

About what public institutions should and will do, that is anyone's guess and you opinion on the matter is just that..your opinion. I however am trying to get some more insights into the process so that I can be better informed to properly prepare my younger kids for admission into the schools of their choice. I am going to ask the tough questions. That is my perogative as a parent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
2,498 posts, read 11,408,778 times
Reputation: 1619
Also, UC Davis and UC San Diego admit by a point system. You need to get enough points to be better than the cutoff at the admit rate. So if they want to admit 40% of applicants and your points put you in the top 41% of points, then you are not accepted. Something like 70% of the points come from GPA and test scores, but you need to get some points from the other sections in order to get in or you will have below the 7,500 points usually needed as the bare minimum. Many of the sections beyond grades/test scores are all or nothing. For example if you don't qualify for low income points, you get zero. Categories that give partial points are mentioned.

Here is UCSD's point sections:
Selection process

Step I: Academic review Maximum Consideration
Uncapped Grade Point Average (GPA)L Max: 4,500 points
Scores of all required exams: 3,200
Number of "a-g" courses beyond the minimum: 500 (40 or more courses (this is per semester, award points)

Step II: Additional academic factors
Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC): 300 (student is in top 4% of high school class in 10-12 rank).
Educational environment: 300 (If student attends low performing high school, give 300 pts)

Step III: Socioeconomic factors
Low family income: 300 (parents make less than 60k, award 300 pts)
First generation college attendance: 300 (Neither parent is 2yr or 4yr college grad)

Step IV: Personal characteristics and achievement factors
Demonstrated leadership: 300 (300 for president of a club, 200 for vice president, 100 for other office, 0 for general member)
Special talents/ achievements/ awards: 300 (Points awarded according to admission counselor's opinion)
Community and volunteer service: 300 (Award 150 pts for 100 volunteer hours, 300 for 200+ hours, below 100 hours gets 0 points)
Participation in academic development preparation programs: 300 (Only programs like AVID, Upward Bound, Puente, MESA, etc... NOT AP or IB, all or nothing for points)
Special circumstances/ personal challenges: 500 (This is the only reason they read essays. You get points if your mom had cancer, dad died, was homeless for a year, was shot, etc... it needs to be something big basically).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education > Colleges and Universities
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top