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.
My takeaway is that the high school you attend doesn't matter as much as people think. Kids get admitted to colleges from everywhere, and the GPA cutoffs are pretty similar regardless of high school.
There are a lot of educational studies that suggest that going to high schools with tippy top test scores (say Palo Alto level) doesn't make a long term difference for the educational outcome (test scores, achievement in college, career success, etc.) for children of college educated parents who have a fair amount of economic resources.
A lot of the focus on real estate in neighborhoods with greatschools 10/10 rankings comes from an anxiety about doing one's best for one's kids that is not really supported by any real evidence.
My takeaway is that the high school you attend doesn't matter as much as people think. Kids get admitted to colleges from everywhere, and the GPA cutoffs are pretty similar regardless of high school.
Well, yes. And that's by design. The University of California uses a comprehensive review process to insure that similarly qualified students from ALL high schools receive similar consideration in the admissions process.
Keep in mind that the UC system starts by saying that every student at every public high school who is ranked in the top 9% of their high school class (based on UC GPA, not overall GPA) is eligible for admission to the UC system. This is called "eligible in the local context" (ELC).
So, it shouldn't be any surprise that there aren't huge differences in the GPAs of those admitted from different high schools.
If a student isn't ELC, they can also be considered as eligible in the statewide context if their UC GPA and test scores puts them in the top 9% of students statewide based on the UCs statewide index.
But in addition to that, the UCs use a comprehensive review process to determine which eligible student is admitted where. This is based on both "hard" factors (like GPA, test scores, etc.) and "soft" factors. It's the "soft" qualification evaluation that many people don't understand. They allow UC readers to take a much more nuanced look at each applicant. This is where things like demonstrating specific academic/intellectual interests, deep involvement in extracurriculars, and special "talents" are evaluated. But, the comprehensive review process also looks at the applicant in other ways too, including how they have taken advantage of the academic opportunities available at their high school. This "levels the playing field" between high schools too, as a student who attends a poorly performing high school with limited AP courses but takes advantage of everything available *may* receive more consideration than one who attends a "top performing" school with 15 or more AP courses yet doesn't take advantage of all of the opportunities available.
And, each UC campus has its own slightly different way of emphasizing different elements of the UC comprehensive review process, so it is entirely possible for a "top" student at a "top" high school who is eligible in the local or statewide context will not to get into a specific UC campus.
So, just looking at GPAs from different high schools doesn't really tell you much about why students have been admitted (or not). And that means that no student --- no matter how high their GPA --- is guaranteed admission to any specific UC campus.
By the way, the UC system is not unique in how it reviews applications. Most private colleges and universities have their own "comprehensive review" process when they read applications. Each school has its own needs and goals for enrollment, and those are factored in when reading applications. And, most private colleges and universities are similar to the UC system in that they DON'T want to only admit students from a selected number of high schools. So, again, just looking at GPA and test scores from different high schools doesn't give you the full picture of why certain students get in and others don't.
That said, there are universities and colleges that only look at "hard" data (GPA, test scores, sometimes class rank and/or curriculum). The California State system is a good example.
There are a lot of educational studies that suggest that going to high schools with tippy top test scores (say Palo Alto level) doesn't make a long term difference for the educational outcome (test scores, achievement in college, career success, etc.) for children of college educated parents who have a fair amount of economic resources.
A lot of the focus on real estate in neighborhoods with greatschools 10/10 rankings comes from an anxiety about doing one's best for one's kids that is not really supported by any real evidence.
Yes! I'm a retired private college admissions counselor and have also worked as a school counselor. So, I've worked with thousands of students from all sorts of high schools across California and the U.S.
The high school that a student attends matters in the sense that one high school may offer academic and extracurricular activities that another one doesn't for a motivated student to take advantage of. One high school may also offer a social environment that another one doesn't that make it easier for a motivated student to stay motivated, such as being surrounded by similarly motivated peers.
I emphasize the word "motivated" because that really is the key. Because no high school *makes* a kid successful or gets them into a "top" college (or even the UCs). The kid has to do that themselves. (Having college educated parents, or just parents who are actively involved with their kids can help, of course).
And there are motivated (and not so motivated) students at every single high school.
Some of the most intellectually engaged and talented students I've worked with have attended pretty horrible urban high schools, but they had an inner drive to make the most of everything offered. And, conversely, I've worked with kids attending so-called "top" high schools that seemed to have "everything" and who had wealthy, college educated parents who just kind of puttered along into oblivian (or worse).
For both types of students, it wasn't the high school that made the difference; it was the individual student.
Sometimes there is also an advantage to attending a high school that is still "good" but which has a less competitive environment. It's easier for an "average" but motivated kid to build confidence and maybe rise to the top. Of course, most parents don't want to admit that their kid is "average." But the truth is, most kids (and most of us) are "average" -- that's what "average" means. There's no shame in it.
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions. The information that is missing from this graph is the enrollment in the school and/or the size of the graduating class.
Mount Pleasant's 2014 enrollment was 1,514, and they had 54 applicants to UC campuses (3.5%)
Just up the hill, Piedmont Hills' enrollment was 2,206, and they had 193 applicants (8.7%)
Pioneer's 2014 enrollment was 1,648, and they had 125 applicants (7.5%)
Nearby Lynbrook's was 1,770, and they had 371 applicants (20.9%).
If nothing else, they are more likely to be surrounded by other students who are focused on academics at the better schools, because they are pursuing higher education. There is a negative side too, since they will also experience fierce competition in the AP courses, whereas a school with a smaller AP program can still provide a strong curriculum without being so severe. It's that kind of pressure that contributes to teen suicides in Cupertino and Palo Alto.
Even though Pioneer is not considered a top of the top school according to test scores, it's likely that it would be a more balanced experience for the students who do want to pursue higher education. I know that was the case at Live Oak in Morgan Hill, which had a small, strong AP program and a very low overall college participation rate.
College application was more than 25 years ago for me, but I can't think of much (besides good grades and test scores) more important to college entry, whether at "competitive" high schools or not, than the participation factor mentioned here by RosieSD. It's like the old Woody Allen saying, "80% of success is showing up".
Because so much has changed in that time - the population is so much bigger, that the competition for entry to UC is just incredibly fierce. And even within the pool of accepted kids, the best programs are "impacted"...so it is a degree of intensity that just didn't exist. Plus, there is a significant amount of "social engineering" going on that muddies the waters...that was really only just getting started when I went thru. And grade inflation has been a factor too.
However, one thing has NOT changed, which is that when you look at the yearbooks, you see there is a small pool of the kids that seem to be in every club/activity/sport. And you know what rarely comes through in the yearbook? If they were any good at any of those things. But just based on looking at my own yearbook and knowing the kids in it, these people today, tend to be more successful in their adult lives than the student body at large.
It also definitely helps to be unusual ...even at just one thing. Maybe you're a fair juggler or maybe you love to be on stage. So participate in the school talent shows or go out for some plays or musicals. Even if you're not the star, you tried and you put yourself out there. You didn't follow the herd, maybe, and that also stands out.
Anyway, I feel the non-academic part of the formula is less about where you went to HS, than what you did there, to a point. Obviously, grades and test scores are the bulk of the score. But, they can't take all the kids with 4.0 (and higher) GPA anymore...there just isn't enough space at competitive schools. And unless you're some kind of box-checker "under-represented person" you'll be out of luck. Seen it happen recently to some really smart kids, who saved their interests for their private lives, instead of finding outlets in organized activities or groups at school, and they got passed over while their "I'm in five clubs this year!" classmates made it.
You really have to show up/be involved these days, more than ever before. I sympathize with teens today - just because it "feels" and looks to be harder and more complicated than it used to be to get into a good school.
Hi Rosie,
I just want to say thank you, for your constructive & positive postings to the forum.
You are knowledgeable and a key resource when it comes to education matters in CA. Please keep on posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosieSD
Well, yes. And that's by design. The University of California uses a comprehensive review process to insure that similarly qualified students from ALL high schools receive similar consideration in the admissions process.
Keep in mind that the UC system starts by saying that every student at every public high school who is ranked in the top 9% of their high school class (based on UC GPA, not overall GPA) is eligible for admission to the UC system. This is called "eligible in the local context" (ELC).
So, it shouldn't be any surprise that there aren't huge differences in the GPAs of those admitted from different high schools.
If a student isn't ELC, they can also be considered as eligible in the statewide context if their UC GPA and test scores puts them in the top 9% of students statewide based on the UCs statewide index.
But in addition to that, the UCs use a comprehensive review process to determine which eligible student is admitted where. This is based on both "hard" factors (like GPA, test scores, etc.) and "soft" factors. It's the "soft" qualification evaluation that many people don't understand. They allow UC readers to take a much more nuanced look at each applicant. This is where things like demonstrating specific academic/intellectual interests, deep involvement in extracurriculars, and special "talents" are evaluated. But, the comprehensive review process also looks at the applicant in other ways too, including how they have taken advantage of the academic opportunities available at their high school. This "levels the playing field" between high schools too, as a student who attends a poorly performing high school with limited AP courses but takes advantage of everything available *may* receive more consideration than one who attends a "top performing" school with 15 or more AP courses yet doesn't take advantage of all of the opportunities available.
And, each UC campus has its own slightly different way of emphasizing different elements of the UC comprehensive review process, so it is entirely possible for a "top" student at a "top" high school who is eligible in the local or statewide context will not to get into a specific UC campus.
So, just looking at GPAs from different high schools doesn't really tell you much about why students have been admitted (or not). And that means that no student --- no matter how high their GPA --- is guaranteed admission to any specific UC campus.
By the way, the UC system is not unique in how it reviews applications. Most private colleges and universities have their own "comprehensive review" process when they read applications. Each school has its own needs and goals for enrollment, and those are factored in when reading applications. And, most private colleges and universities are similar to the UC system in that they DON'T want to only admit students from a selected number of high schools. So, again, just looking at GPA and test scores from different high schools doesn't give you the full picture of why certain students get in and others don't.
That said, there are universities and colleges that only look at "hard" data (GPA, test scores, sometimes class rank and/or curriculum). The California State system is a good example.
When I went to UCSD we had the parents with the highest median incomes at the time. The campus was heavily white and upper middle class.
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.
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.
But the truth is, most kids (and most of us) are "average" -- that's what "average" means. There's no shame in it.
