Anyone still waiting for UC secondaries?

[T-bruin]

Still waiting for UCI and UCLA. Just wondering how many of you are still waiting too.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lola]

still waiting for UCI, UCD, UCLA, and UCSD! i took the august mcat. am hoping to get at least a couple of uc secondaries in the next few weeks hmmm... i wonder how many secondaries these schools give out. i know ucsf gives out approx 1400.

 

[ucbdancn00]

damn...

my stuff has been in since august....

and i haven't gotten 2ndaries from any UC's



and i'm in state.....oh well, gues they don't got love

 

[randomlogik]

I got the UCLA one a looong time ago, but i havent heard a word from UCSF. alas...no love from them i suppose.

 

[lola]

i got ucsf in september but submitted in july, so it took quite a while considering they didn't seem to care that i had no mcat score!

 

[qdefiant]

i got rejected from ucsf w/o a secondary....letter says "your app is not viewed favorably by the adcom" ... what a vague and mean thing to say. got all other uc sec already, but app was turned in early ... and UCs seem to be much slower than other schools anyway

 

[randomlogik]

qdefiant, when did u turn your stuff in? i think i was complete there according to their website, around the end of aug, early sept. i guess i just need to give them more time to send me my rejection letter.

 

[brutus]

i'm in state and only got one secondary from irvine. starting to worry now since my stuff has been in since late july!

 

[Gaberman]

still waiting on LA.

i'm on hold at SD
interviewed at SF
interview at Irvine
nothin from Davis

LA hasn't sent out rejections yet have they?

 

[qdefiant]

randomlogik, I think i got rejected cause I didn't have a class they require, a zoology course or something.... but i interviewed at ucsd yesterday, but not very confident about it ... will gladly anwser question regarding the interview ...

 

[Nefertari]

I've returned 2ndaries to 4 UC's. Still waiting on Irvine (they were the only UC waiting for Aug scores before sending the 2ndary). This makes me wonder @ the dynamics between the 5 UC's. (i.e. Maybe Irvine has not sent me a 2ndary b/c the other UC's have??) This happened w/ some other folks in previous years.

When sdn was really dead last week, I did a UC search for threads @ this time last year & 2 years ago. Man, I was mesmerized for hours. Seems as though the discussions were more meaty back then. I saved tons of cool threads & will try to post the links or bump them when I have more time. If you're interested, just do a search. It gives you an idea of the timeline for the UC's.

As far as ucsf, I don't think they would reject you b/c of a bio prereq. Actually, they were just able to waive some of those for me. The impression I got from reading the old threads is that each of the UC's is looking for something different. The UC's are tough to figure out.

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by Nefertari
I've returned 2ndaries to 4 UC's. Still waiting on Irvine (they were the only UC waiting for Aug scores before sending the 2ndary). This makes me wonder @ the dynamics between the 5 UC's. (i.e. Maybe Irvine has not sent me a 2ndary b/c the other UC's have??) This happened w/ some other folks in previous years.

I know someone who has gotten interviews at SD, SF, and LA, but not Davis or Irvine, and she got secondaries from all. The consensus from career services appeared to be that they don't have time to confer with each other.

There was some nasty rumor that people can't get into both LA and SF, but someone debunked that in some other thread a few days ago.

 

[Nefertari]

Originally posted by Random Access
The consensus from career services appeared to be that they don't have time to confer with each other. [/B]

Hey RA,

I hope that's true, but maybe take w/ a grain of salt. Are you referrring to a health careers office @ one of the UC's?

 

[pwrpfgrl]

I'm waiting on secondaries from all UC's except UCSD - I've been complete since late July. I got my rejection from UCSF last week but haven't heard anything from the rest of them. at what point is it time to give up hope? Early november?

why don't the UC's love us?

 

[misscalipig]

hi uc applicants =D can you guys do me a big favor and just list your stats...mcat, gpa, etc. =D thank you!

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by Nefertari
I hope that's true, but maybe take w/ a grain of salt. Are you referrring to a health careers office @ one of the UC's?

No. Career services at my school. They're very on top of things. I'm more likely to believe them than random rumors flying around on SDN, as often happens.

Random question...do collusion rules apply if they're all UC schools? I know that back in the day for undergrad, Ivy schools, MIT, and maybe another school or two, used to collude to offer the same financial aid to kids who got into more than one of the schools in the consortium. Until the feds got medieval on them...

 

[kiping]

i got secondaries ages ago from uci, ucd, ucsd- but so far have heard nada from sf or la

 

[Nefertari]

ok, UC-happy people!

Since a couple folks have asked, I'm posting the links to old UC 2ndary threads I dug up in the sdn archives. Enjoy! And feel free to bump up/add to the ones you find useful. I didn't want to do that, 'lest I be accused of padding.

UCI 2NDARY RUMOURS
http://www.studentdoctor.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8341

UCSF / MCAT / 2NDARY
http://www.studentdoctor.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13148

UCI
http://www.studentdoctor.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10910

UCI 2NDARY
http://www.studentdoctor.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11844

UCI 2NDARY SCREENING
http://www.studentdoctor.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4060

COMPARE UC?S TO PRIVATES
http://www.studentdoctor.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12818

UCSF POST-2NDARY REJECTION
http://www.studentdoctor.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1344

UCSF 2NDARY
http://www.studentdoctor.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4875

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by Nefertari
COMPARE UC?S TO PRIVATES

Hmmm...if I had to compare a UC to my privates...I think Berkeley compares well.

 

[Nefertari]

Originally posted by Random Access
Hmmm...if I had to compare a UC to my privates...I think Berkeley compares well.

Because . . . ?? Be careful, that can be construed in various ways!

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by Nefertari
Because . . . ?? Be careful, that can be construed in various ways!

Well that was the point. (I was construing what you wrote )

 

[SM-UCLA tech]

Still waiting for uc secondaries too.....
i'm getting frustrated! but oh well.....i guess most of us are going to be very good at being patient by the time this process is over.

 

[lola]

Originally posted by Nefertari
I've returned 2ndaries to 4 UC's. Still waiting on Irvine (they were the only UC waiting for Aug scores before sending the 2ndary).

are you a urm? just curious... i thought my app was really strong before the mcat (not trad, high GPA, master's degree, 10 years of premed work, EC's, etc) but have only received a secondary from ucsf.

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by lola
are you a urm? just curious... i thought my app was really strong before the mcat (not trad, high GPA, master's degree, 10 years of premed work, EC's, etc) but have only received a secondary from ucsf.

My friend isn't a URM. She just heard from Irvine that she got an interview. That only leaves Davis from which she hasn't... She's amazing.

 

[whyadoctor?]

sounds like the UC schools are superbly screwy. how could someone get secondaries from ucsf, ucla, and ucsd but not from davis or uci. totally weird. i got secondaries from uci and davis pretty early on. was recently rejected from ucsf without a secondary and haven't heard anything from ucsd, or ucla. i have to wonder how freakin poor you really have to be to get into a UC school.

GPA 3.6
MCAT 30 (10, 9, 11)

Cali resident

 

[Nefertari]

Originally posted by lola
are you a urm? just curious... i thought my app was really strong before the mcat (not trad, high GPA, master's degree, 10 years of premed work, EC's, etc) but have only received a secondary from ucsf.

lola,

Your app sounds very solid--& ucsf thinks that too! As for the other schools, as I said before, it's tough to psych them out. No, I wish I were URM. I'm Asian & they're way too many of us in CA!!! (which I love culturally, btw--just sucks for med school) I'm also nontrad, previously in another health care profession, & have had a lot of volunteer/clinical work experiences with underserved populations.

I did apply w/ disadvantaged status, & as souljah (from ucsf) has mentioned, there is some consideration, together w/ other factors in the application, given to disadvantaged apps in the initial screening. I've asked all the UC's @ this policy & they said it's true, but they also said that it DOESN'T mean that all disadvantaged apps are automatically sent 2ndaries (in case any of you are disgruntled @ this). I know some other disadvantaged apps who have received 2ndaries from some, but not all the UC's.

As far as the URM issue, just remember that we are compared mostly to other apps with similar backgrounds in certain categories. State med schools are responsible for ensuring that a class is representative of the general population, so resentment against URM's & disadvantaged apps, though tempting when we're feeling desperate, is really unproductive & a moot point. Please note that I believe this even though I'm not URM.

Right now, I have no idea how all this will pan out b/c of the aug mcat wait. I've been scared since the scores came out. Will keep ya posted!

I know a white woman who applied twice to all the UC's, but didn't make it. The 2nd year, the only school that accepted her was USC-Keck (where she is now). Incidentally, her grandfather is well endowed & he's taking care of her tuition. Now not all of us are this fortunate, but hopefully, universal order will sort things out for all of us. You have to have this kind of faith to keep going w/ the process.

 

[lll505]

If the UC?s definitely do NOT want you to complete a secondary, do they let you know or do they just keep us hanging and wondering??

 

[lola]

nefertari,
thanks for the response. i'm just trying to figure out this whole process... not that it's figure-out-able! congratulations on all those secondaries.

 

[pwrpfgrl]

how the UC's make me feel ....

 

[souljah1]

Originally posted by whyadoctor?
sounds like the UC schools are superbly screwy. how could someone get secondaries from ucsf, ucla, and ucsd but not from davis or uci. totally weird. i got secondaries from uci and davis pretty early on. was recently rejected from ucsf without a secondary and haven't heard anything from ucsd, or ucla. i have to wonder how freakin poor you really have to be to get into a UC school.

GPA 3.6
MCAT 30 (10, 9, 11)

Cali resident

whyadoctor,

i hope you truly don't believe that being poor is a prerequisite for entry to a uc medical school. just in case you don't know, the term disadvantaged includes more than just economically disadvantages, but also goes on to include social, environmental, medical, and other areas in life that may have led to certain difficulties. most of the students in my class come from atleast a middle class background, with many having lawyers, physicians, engineers, business exec's, etc for parents. a large amount of my class did in fact check disadvantaged on their application (in case you are wondering, i did not). one of the things that is very important in developing the personal skills and characteristics of a good physician is to learn not to make ASSumptions. so, please don't assume that you need to be poor to be admitted. that is a gross misunderstanding, and you are putting yourself through un-needed stress if you are thinking that the adcoms are that ridiculous.

as far as the randomness goes...my experience was totally random. ucd rejected me very early on without a secondary, while i received secondaries from the other 4 uc schools. only uci and ucsf requested interviews. uci waitlisted, then accepted me. ucsf accepted me. before you jump to any conclusions..i'm a white male, non-trad, 27 years old during the process, and have a lot of personal non-academic pursuits and interests that all have emphasis in the general area of medicine in which i wish to enter. i kind of think that each uc has a different 'typical student' that they attempt to find. So, while numbers are important for all UC schools (atleast for use as cut-offs), much of the screening/picking/choosing may be largely based on personal characteristics that they feel will add to class 'vibe' that they are attempting to create. here is one more possibility (though was not one for my appl.)...it is not uncommon for a school to reject you if they feel that you would not really attend there school if given the opportunity. so, when you hear of people getting rejected from school A, and getting accepted to school B (which is 'better' than school A) it doesn't mean the process is 'screwy'.

 

[whyadoctor?]

one's race/ethnicity or socioeconomic background should not even be a factored into determining acceptances. there shouldn't be a disadvantaged status, what the does that mean anyway? it seems to me that the UC schools unfairly favor those they deem to be disadvantaged. it's not right. students should be evaluated on their achievements and their potential alone. past achievement is the best way that schools can determine future success. giving preference to those students who come from something referred to as "disadvantaged" or under represented minority is insulting. (i guess this should be in the affirmative action thread)

 

[jtheater]

Originally posted by whyadoctor?
students should be evaluated on their achievements and their potential alone. past achievement is the best way that schools can determine future success. (i guess this should be in the affirmative action thread)

But don't you think someone who is disadvantaged and achieved the same thing as someone who had a lot handed to them shows their potential and ability that much more? I'm not saying that those of us who are not disadvantaged have had a super easy life, but I am always amazed at those people who come from seriously disadvantaged backgrounds and succeed beyond what society says they can do.

I also believe that some people play the disadvantaged card too much. We've all had issues in our lives that have challenged us, tough situations don't equal disadvantaged. Just some people have overcome extraordinary experiences and situations that warrants consideration when you look at their achievements. It makes them that much more impressive. As far as UCSF, you will notice it is the last thing on their criteria (per their website). It probably is used (as they have said) just to gain perspective on someone's application.

 

[Nefertari]

Originally posted by whyadoctor?
one's race/ethnicity or socioeconomic background should not even be a factored into determining acceptances. there shouldn't be a disadvantaged status, what the does that mean anyway? it seems to me that the UC schools unfairly favor those they deem to be disadvantaged. it's not right. students should be evaluated on their achievements and their potential alone. past achievement is the best way that schools can determine future success. giving preference to those students who come from something referred to as "disadvantaged" or under represented minority is insulting. (i guess this should be in the affirmative action thread)

As far as the URM issue, just remember that we are compared mostly to other apps with similar backgrounds in certain categories. State med schools are responsible for ensuring that a class is representative of the general population, so resentment against URM's & disadvantaged apps, though tempting when we're feeling desperate, is really unproductive & a moot point. Please note that I believe this even though I'm not URM.

 

[lola]

am i way off here or wasn't there a ruling that affirmative action is illegal at uc's? maybe that was ages ago & there has been a change...

anyway, i think the whole a.a./disadvantaged thing is a little out of hand for uc's and makes it very difficult for anyone who is not to get a spot at a uc med school since the spaces are so limited. that's not to say i don't think these factors should be considered in your app. i'm sure it is very difficult to do well in classes if you are truly disadvantaged and having to work full time, support the rest of your family, etc... these people do deserve some special consideration.

ok. i will stop talking about this issue now as it's been beaten to death

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by whyadoctor?
sounds like the UC schools are superbly screwy. how could someone get secondaries from ucsf, ucla, and ucsd but not from davis or uci. totally weird. i got secondaries from uci and davis pretty early on. was recently rejected from ucsf without a secondary and haven't heard anything from ucsd, or ucla. i have to wonder how freakin poor you really have to be to get into a UC school.

GPA 3.6
MCAT 30 (10, 9, 11)

Cali resident

Well I've heard on occasion from career services that Davis and Irvine sometimes won't accept people who they think won't go (particularly Ivy Leaguers), so it's entirely possible that someone would get secondaries from SF, LA, and SD without getting one from Davis or Irvine.

Avg. GPA/MCAT for UC Schools:
SF: 3.77/33.6
LA: 3.73/32.1
SD: 3.70/32.7
Davis: 3.55/31.8
Irvine: 3.63/30.9

If you're looking at pure numbers you're more in range for Davis and Irvine, than SF/LA/SD, so I'm not exactly sure how your "how freakin poor" comment comes into play. Obviously, I don't know enough to comment on the rest of your application, but solely based on this, your inflammatory implications don't seem so valid. The other people I know with early UC interviews have stats above those averages.

-RA

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by lola
anyway, i think the whole a.a./disadvantaged thing is a little out of hand for uc's and makes it very difficult for anyone who is not to get a spot at a uc med school since the spaces are so limited.

What do you mean by "out of hand"? Is there evidence that it's any different for UC schools than other schools? Both you and whyadoctor? seem to think so...

 

[lola]

Originally posted by Random Access
What do you mean by "out of hand"? Is there evidence that it's any different for UC schools than other schools? Both you and whyadoctor? seem to think so...

hey... don't put me in the same category as whyadoctor?!
the reason i think it's out of hand stems from the fact that there are not enough state med schools in california. because of this, the vast majority of non-disadvantaged non-URM californians end up having to go to a private school. this is just not right when many of them are excellent students.

anyway, i'm not arguing against aa, but i think it's out of hand b/c their policies might allow 20% of urms/disadvantaged to get in ( i don't really know) while 90% of non-urms get shafted.

i haven't really thought about my argument that much, so feel free to rip it apart, but i do think it is WRONG that there are only like maybe 300 spots for non-URM/disadvantaged people at UC's. in order to compete for those spots, they have to be REALLY competive. sure, it's the same at all schools, but you are not limited to the number you can apply to.

 

[Nefertari]

I remember reading from last year's threads that even with URM consideration, the UC med schools still have a WHITE MAJORITY. I don't have time to post actual % right now, but if someone has an idea, please feel free to comment.

The racial group that has the toughest time in med school admissions right now is Asians, not white apps. I have confirmed this w/ my premed advising office. The gpa's and mcats for Asians in CA have consistently been high & continue to increase.

Those of you who feel slighted by the URM/AA issue, what do think should be a racially just composition for UC med schools? If you prefer that the admissions process goes purely by merit & #'s, then the UC's will end up having a significantly higher % of Asians.

 

[lola]

i don't really have an a immediate fix, but the real solution is to build more california med schools. i don't understand why only 1 in 8 californians applying to med school gets into a UC while 1 in 2 in texas get in (or whatever the exact numbers are). that seems a little unjust unless the californians were all dumber or something, but that is not the case.

it seems very sad to me that people in california who would be competitive at other state med schools end up having to go to the caribbean or else give up altogether.

i certainly do not prefer that the uc system go entirely by merit. i think the whole person should be taken into account. i just don't think there are enough spots for everyone, particularly non-urms. it's pretty pathetic that californians don't get into uc's but get into other top 10 schools. there is something wrong here...

 

[lll505]

Does anyone know if secondary invites are received via email, snail mail, or only by checking online status sites???

Any answers would be much appreciated.

Also, for those of you who have received secondaries, about how long after UC app was processed did you receive them?
I got my stuff in kind of late so Im just wondering what kind of timeframe I should be looking at.

 

[kidsmd]

I got secondaries from Irvine and San Diego, but none from LA and Davis; SF rejected me last week . Oh well... My stuff was turned in mid-July and I got secondaries from Irvine and SD via e-mail in mid-August. Dum-di-dum.... it's crazy how slow the UCs are considering that I had heard from every other school that I applied to (and I applied to 30!!)....

 

[lola]

Originally posted by lll505
Does anyone know if secondary invites are received via email, snail mail, or only by checking online status sites???

ucsf does it only by online status check, so make sure you check regularly!!! it took them about a month or so to give me a secondary.

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by lola
hey... don't put me in the same category as whyadoctor?!
the reason i think it's out of hand stems from the fact that there are not enough state med schools in california. because of this, the vast majority of non-disadvantaged non-URM californians end up having to go to a private school. this is just not right when many of them are excellent students.

anyway, i'm not arguing against aa, but i think it's out of hand b/c their policies might allow 20% of urms/disadvantaged to get in ( i don't really know) while 90% of non-urms get shafted.

i haven't really thought about my argument that much, so feel free to rip it apart, but i do think it is WRONG that there are only like maybe 300 spots for non-URM/disadvantaged people at UC's. in order to compete for those spots, they have to be REALLY competive. sure, it's the same at all schools, but you are not limited to the number you can apply to.

I'm still looking for more data so that I can respond properly. I do know that SF is 13.5% URM. There are over 500 spots total, according to 2001 statistics:

SF:
2538 applicants from CA
176 accepted from CA
116 enrolled from CA/141 total enrolled

LA:
3131
182
102/121

SD:
3119
290
114/121

Davis:
3169
198
92/93 (lone one person not from CA)

Irvine:
3117
220
94/94 (no one from outside CA)

 

[lola]

i'm saying 20% of urms who apply get in, and 10% of non-urms who apply get in. i'm just making it up... could be different numbers, but it seems like a lot more non-urms get shafted than urms. could be wrong. i'd like to see some numbers.

80%/400 may be non-urms but i bet quite a few of those are disadvantaged. that leaves very little room for people who don't fall into one of those groups considering that those are probably the majority of applicants.

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by lola
i don't really have an a immediate fix, but the real solution is to build more california med schools. i don't understand why only 1 in 8 californians applying to med school gets into a UC while 1 in 2 in texas get in (or whatever the exact numbers are). that seems a little unjust unless the californians were all dumber or something, but that is not the case.

i certainly do not prefer that the uc system go entirely by merit. i think the whole person should be taken into account. i just don't think there are enough spots for everyone, particularly non-urms. it's pretty pathetic that californians don't get into uc's but get into other top 10 schools. there is something wrong here...

The quality of schools in California is also much higher, so it makes sense that only 1 in 8 (using your numbers) gets in. I don't necessarily see a disadvantage to having higher standards. I don't think the problem you're bring up is in UC admissions, but rather that there aren't enough schools, as you said.

-RA

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by lola
80%/400 may be non-urms but i bet quite a few of those are disadvantaged. that leaves very little room for people who don't fall into one of those groups considering that those are probably the majority of applicants.

What's your basis for saying that "quite a few," implying "a lot," are disadvantaged? (sorry for misreading your 20% comment)

 

[lola]

Originally posted by Random Access
I don't necessarily see a disadvantage to having higher standards.

the real disadvantage is for californians who are applying. there are not nearly enough spots for them at their state schools while there are in many states. as a result, they are turned away and must pay a lot of money to go to private schools even though they're california tax payers. those californians who are sort of borderline and don't get into finch, drexel, nymc, etc... end up going to the caribbean or not at all. if they lived in a different state, they'd have no problem getting into their state school. maybe i'm just bitter b/c i'm a californian , but it just does not seem fair.

of course, having higher standards is great for those people who get in. they probably get a great education!

 

[lola]

Originally posted by Random Access
What's your basis for saying that "quite a few," implying "a lot," are disadvantaged? (sorry for misreading your 20% comment)

i have no basis... just that ucsf put a lot of effort into having extra info for disadvantaged people. they must be interested in having a certain percentage of their class disadvantaged! (which, by the way, i am more in favor of than basing things on ethnicity)

again, i don't know the numbers, but i'd like to see them. i don't know how to obtain that info though.

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by lola
the real disadvantage is for californians who are applying. there are not nearly enough spots for them at their state schools while there are in many states. as a result, they are turned away and must pay a lot of money to go to private schools even though they're california tax payers. those californians who are sort of borderline and don't get into finch, drexel, nymc, etc... end up going to the caribbean or not at all. if they lived in a different state, they'd have no problem getting into their state school. maybe i'm just bitter b/c i'm a californian , but it just does not seem fair.

of course, having higher standards is great for those people who get in. they probably get a great education!

The last two sentences I agree with. I don't necessarily think it's an obligation of the state of California to ensure that the same proportion of people get into med school as in Tejas. Getting into med school is competitive; it's not supposed to be easy.

 

[lola]

i'm not saying the same % should get in in each state (it might have seemed like i was), but the same quality of students should get in. if you are an excellent student, you should get into your state school! at least you should have a better chance at getting in than you do at the uc's.