Anyone still waiting for UC secondaries?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Originally posted by 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.

RA mentioned @ 13-15% at ucsf are URM.
Souljah mentioned @ 25% of his ucsf class is disadvantaged.
I'd estimate that many of the URM students are disadvantaged, and therefore a MAJORITY of the class is non-URM.

Seems to me that some of your fears come from slightly exaggerated #'s. If as you said above, 80% are non-URMs, then there is more than "very little room" for other apps. THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE MED SCHOOL APP PROCESS IS A SMALL PRICE TO PAY COMPARED TO THE POLITICAL/SOCIAL ADVANTAGES ENJOYED BY WHITES IN THE US.

It scares me when people make judgements based on inaccurate #'s. It can lead to the "they're taking away our jobs" anti-immigrant sentiments. I found an old post that sums up well my opinion & would like to include it here:

CANES2006
Miami chica

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 775

"I am so tired of hearing people complain about affirmative action (by the way, I am not a URM who might "benefit" from affirmative action) and labeling schools that have an overabundance of minorities as racist.

How about the discrimination against minorities that goes on in MANY schools? I can tell you one thing, racial discrimination takes place alot more often than reverse discrimination does, yet many minorities don't whine half as much as you guys are doing.

Please try another perspective. I don't agree with many facets of affirmative action, but I agree even less with discrimination based solely on race or ethnicity. Yeah, affirmative action isn't always fair, but you guys are not the only victims."
__________________
University of Miami, 2002

University of Miami School of Medicine, Class of 2006

Members don't see this ad.
 
btw... i'm not against affirmative action -- just think it should be done in moderation. i do think it's important to have all kinds of doctors and give people chances who haven't had a lot of opportunity in their lives.

i looked for some numbers on the web to back up my thoughts but couldn't find any that were just for CA residents. it was definitely true that a smaller percentage of asians/whites who apply get in than other ethnic groups (something like 8% vs. 5%). that was for total uc's which doesn't take account for people who got into multiple schools, how many schools people applied to, etc... so it's really hard to make any statments about the numbers.

anyway, i don't know why i went off on this tangent. i guess it's just hard to read sdn when people say "well, you should be able to get into your state school with those numbers" -- like getting into a state school is a safety. it is in many states i guess :(
 
Originally posted by 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.

It seems like your main complaint is that admissions standards are high in California. If borderline candidates have to go to the Caribbean, why should they get into UC schools? I don't understand that statement. Excellent students do get into UC schools!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Originally posted by Random Access
It seems like your main complaint is that admissions standards are high in California. If borderline candidates have to go to the Caribbean, why should they get into UC schools? I don't understand that statement. Excellent students do get into UC schools!

yes, but many excellent students don't.
i for one, will probably not. i didn't have such a good day when i took the mcat for the first time in august (but my mcat would be fine for most state schools), but there is nothing on my academic record to suggest i'm not an excellent student. i got high gpas in undergrad & grad school (both top schools), graduated phi beta kappa, have 10 friggin years of premed experience, have several years of work experience, etc....
of course i'm not in favor of lowering admission standards. i just think admissions standards should be somewhat equal for state schools. sure, some are going to be better than others, but where are the easy to get into schools in california?
 
Originally posted by Random Access
If borderline candidates have to go to the Caribbean, why should they get into UC schools?
i don't think these students should go to uc's, but maybe they should go to finch or albany or gw or....
unfortunately they cannot b/c those schools are filled with all the excellent students from cali that could not get int uc's.
 
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)

being disadvantaged may help you slightly in the initial screening, but nothing more than that. you are blowing up the issue b/c you obviously have strong emotions regarding the criteria of admissions. they don't look for disadvantaged people and then give them a secondary. what they do is give a few extra points to someone who had to work full time during college and still managed to get a 3.6, b/c ...in their minds...it is probably just as good or better than the person who was able to study full time and get a 3.8...you make it seem like the UC system discriminates in favor of people who are disadvantaged and that is not true at all. with your thinking, you could say that UCSF discriminates in favor of those who are 'non-traditional'. Another way to look at it, is to say that most non-traditional applicants have very unique life experiences that directly benefit a medical school class. It isn't as if the non-trads don't have the numbers to get in...Their numbers are, in fact, just as high (on average) as the students who go in right from college. So, with all things being equal..it makes sense that some schools wish to create a classroom atmosphere based on unique experiences, achievements, etc...

I guess what I'm saying is that I think you have it backward. You assume that those who marked disadvantaged have lower numerical qualifications. Another ASSumption. UCSF strongly believes in the bio-psycho-social model of health and disease. From your statements, it seems that you do not. Your conservative view that qualifications should be based ONLY on numerical/academic achievements is fractured and doesn't really take a whole person's qualifications into consideration (in the eyes of the model UCSF bases its curricula and training on). As a class, we strongly belief that each person has a unique story and that it is that story that is largely responsible for our acceptance. Yeah, our numbers were all competitive..but that isn't enough. Perhaps what you are looking for in an institution is not what UCSF is offerring. Each school has a very different atmosphere and energy. UCSF is really touchy feely, with lots of emphasis not only on the physical aspects of pathology and health, but also the effects of behavior, socioeconomics, stress, etc..on well-being. Applying that sort of thinking to our lives, we all can find times when there were certain barriers in our lives that prevented us from truly succeeding academically. Some had it much worse than others (losing parents at a young age, physical disabilities, extreme poverty, etc). I guess UCSF (and most schools) tend to acknowledge that aspect of a person's life, for overcoming those sorts of obstacles may give you just as strong a clue as to the physician that they will become as the mcat and gpa does.
 
souljah1. until you can accurately and precisely define disadvantaged, using it as a criteria for selection is inherently unfair. how do you measure disadvantaged? there are way too many subjective variables in determining such a value as disadvantaged. a student may not have had to work full time, but could've had any number of other issues that aren't considered disadvantages by UC admissions committees. it's these typical liberal beauracracies that lose themselves in their own self-admiration and ultimately destroy the individual. (pretty harsh, huh?)

Legalize Freedom
 
i simply think that uc system needs more med schools or to expand their current med schools. speaking to a Prof. at one of the med school, he acknowledged that the uc's are the hardest state school to get into simply because as the population of med school applicants has grown- the schools are still small.
 
Originally posted by whyadoctor?
souljah1. until you can accurately and precisely define disadvantaged, using it as a criteria for selection is inherently unfair. how do you measure disadvantaged? there are way too many subjective variables in determining such a value as disadvantaged. a student may not have had to work full time, but could've had any number of other issues that aren't considered disadvantages by UC admissions committees. it's these typical liberal beauracracies that lose themselves in their own self-admiration and ultimately destroy the individual. (pretty harsh, huh?)

Legalize Freedom

how are individuals being destroyed in the admissions process?

i only gave one example of what is to be considered disadvantaged. if you are so incredibly against this 'disadvantaged' status, then why don't you give ucsf a call and inquire about why they do it. what seems silly is that you desire to attend a school that has "these typical liberal beauracracies that lose themselves in their own self-admiration and ultimately destroy the individual."

when people mark disadvantaged on their application it usually has to do with their socioeconomic environment, a severely dysfunctional family environment, loss of family members, disabilities, etc..i urge you to realize that the people on admissions committees aren't dumb, but are incredibly bright physicians and students who take into consideration each application as a representation of a whole person. they aren't going to fall for some lame excuse someone is trying to use in order to gain some extra points. have you ever gotten to know any of the classes at ucsf? you make it seem like we are a bunch of people who got in based on criteria that cannot be precisely and accurately defined. i hope you get to interview here and meet my classmates so that you can see that they did indeed get accepted based on their personal achievements, characteristics, and ambitions. being disadvantaged may have helped them a very small bit in getting a secondary, but it didn't help them to get an interview. it may have, however, given them experiences that helped to shape the persons that they have become so that when they went on their interview...they rocked them. the interviews are close-filed, so the intervieweres don't know a damn thing about your past, your numbers, etc..the report that is written based on your interview is solely based on their perceptions of you and how well you conveyed your views and characteristics.

my apologies to others reading this thread. i don't mean to go on and on. i just get bothered when people think high numbers are all you need to get into medical school. along with disadvantaged, how can we precisely and accurately define and measure empathy, maturity, leadership, compassion, and ambition? all these qualities are looked for with great intent during the interview process. should these qualities be overlooked and discarded b/c we cannot precisely define them the application process?
 
Originally posted by souljah1
i just get bothered when people think high numbers are all you need to get into medical school. along with disadvantaged, how can we precisely and accurately define and measure empathy, maturity, leadership, compassion, and ambition? all these qualities are looked for with great intent during the interview process. should these qualities be overlooked and discarded b/c we cannot precisely define them the application process?

souljah,

None of us could have said it bettter. ;) Don't let certain personalities on this board drive you off--do check in occasionally to offer us your sensible words. They are well appreciated. You've been one of the few who have had anything substantial & informative to say @ the UC admissions process. Thanks. :)
 
I dont think I am getting an interview from either ucla or ucsf. I completed my ucla sec a month ago...still waiting. I haven't heard from ucsf about my sec. Dont think I am getting one!! I check my statuS EVERYDAY in case they selected me for a secondary...but who am I kidding!!!
 
i just get bothered when people think high numbers are all you need to get into medical school. along with disadvantaged, how can we precisely and accurately define and measure empathy, maturity, leadership, compassion, and ambition? all these qualities are looked for with great intent during the interview process. should these qualities be overlooked and discarded b/c we cannot precisely define them the application process?

empathy, maturity, leadership, compassion, and ambition should not be overlooked in the application process; however, parental income should be. if a student wants to describe their adverse circumstances they can do so in their personal statement or secondary essays. the application process should be as fair and standardized as possible. having a separate section that not everyone qualifies for creates an uneven playing field. the whole point of the system is to somehow rectify bad luck. even if it is, as you say, a few points, in my view that is a few points too many. i am certain that all the students accepted at the UC schools are very capable and will become excellent physicians. i am also certain that there are extremely capable california students who will have to pay a lot more for their education at private schools because their parents make a lot of money. i recognize that there is a lot of subjective evaluation in this process, i just don't think money should even be mentioned.
 
Originally posted by whyadoctor?
i recognize that there is a lot of subjective evaluation in this process, i just don't think money should even be mentioned.

Please name another social arena in which $$ is an absent consideration. Sorry to tell ya that the med school admissions process is far from idealistic.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
i just went on a job interview and they didn't ask how much money my parents made at every stage in my life. and, since the process isn't ideal we should all just accept it the way it is. there's a defeatist's attitude.
 
Originally posted by whyadoctor?
i just went on a job interview and they didn't ask how much money my parents made at every stage in my life. and, since the process isn't ideal we should all just accept it the way it is. there's a defeatist's attitude.

Inferences are made based upon your skin color, education, residence, appearance, etc.

If I were a defeatist, I wouldn't be wasting my time debating this issue w/ you.
 
just called davis and they said they'll beging sending out interviewing notices in november.
 
Originally posted by Yogi Bear
just called davis and they said they'll beging sending out interviewing notices in november.

Thanks, Yogi Bear

Looks like Davis is behind the pack again this year. I'm so relieved though that it's not as bad as in previous years.
 
absolutely. inferences and prejudices are unavoidable, but they can be minimized. instituting a system that enhances prejudice, especially with public funds, is criminal. why do you support a system of inequality?
 
Originally posted by whyadoctor?
absolutely. inferences and prejudices are unavoidable, but they can be minimized. instituting a system that enhances prejudice, especially with public funds, is criminal. why do you support a system of inequality?

I realize now that you are among those closed-minded individuals whose opinions are etched in stone--so this will be my last post addressed to you. I've tried to address the questions you've raised, but you have side-skirted significant questions some of us have asked you. Re-read your posts & souljah's responses & chill out.

Look @ the big picture. For decades until the present, there HAS ALREADY been an institutionalized system of race & class discrimination AGAINST NON-WHITES in this country. AND YES, W/ PUBLIC FUNDS (I.E. BLACKS PAID TAXES, BUT JUST A FEW DECADES AGO, SCHOOLS WERE RACIALLY SEGREGATED). Though inadequate, AA & disadvantaged consideration in school admissions is trying to address these injustices.

You seem to be the one supporting a system of inequality by perpetuating stereotypes @ URM & disadvantaged applicants. As souljah mentioned, you've made many unsubstantiated "ASSumptions". If you're unhappy w/ how things are, what have YOU done PROACTIVELY to better it except for antagonistically whining @ it in this forum???

Why don't you call up the UC's & voice to them your resentment that URM's & disadvantaged apps are taking away slots from white apps & see how they perceive your "social consciousness"?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Adios, ciao, zaijian!
 
good solution: fix inequality with inequality. you're right, there is nothing that you could say to convince me that affirmative action and disadvantaged status are wholesome contributions to society. and i do act in the interest of fairness and to end segregating people by wealth, or whatever category, every election day.
 
Originally posted by whyadoctor?
good solution: fix inequality with inequality.

Not that I'm saying that this makes it right, because I'm not, but it is an Aristotelian principle...
 
Originally posted by whyadoctor?
empathy, maturity, leadership, compassion, and ambition should not be overlooked in the application process; however, parental income should be. if a student wants to describe their adverse circumstances they can do so in their personal statement or secondary essays. the application process should be as fair and standardized as possible. having a separate section that not everyone qualifies for creates an uneven playing field. the whole point of the system is to somehow rectify bad luck. even if it is, as you say, a few points, in my view that is a few points too many. i am certain that all the students accepted at the UC schools are very capable and will become excellent physicians. i am also certain that there are extremely capable california students who will have to pay a lot more for their education at private schools because their parents make a lot of money. i recognize that there is a lot of subjective evaluation in this process, i just don't think money should even be mentioned.

you obviously aren't a good listener. the term disadvantaged does not only mean that you were disadvantaged in terms of parental income. it also takes into consideration any extenuating circumstances that created extreme boundaries for (mentally, physically, emotionally). yes, the personal statement is a perfect medium for expressing any personal struggles that you've faced. your comment about an uneven playing field is silly. it is such a tiny portion of the application..let me ask something..do you think money factored in when you think about where you went to school as a child, or the social setting in which you grew up, or the college you were able to go to, or any cool research many of us are able to do in the summer, or being able to afford mcat prep courses, or being able to go to college without working full time???? you want to move any financial aspect out of the application to level the playing field, but you aren't realizing that the playing field never was level to begin with. you seem to put all of the responsibility on the individual without realizing the reciprocity that exists between an individual and their environment.

your comment about wealthy californian kids having to go out of state b/c of the disadvantaged section of the application is ridiculous. in my class, 75-80% did not check off disadvantaged on their amcas. of those that did, i'd say that majority of them have numbers that are above a 3.6 and a 30mcat (your stats if I remember correctly). you still seem to ASSume that those people that check disadvantaged got in b/c they checked disadvantaged. that is wrong. they got in b/c of their academic achievements, their mcat score, their leadership and maturity, and their personal traits that positively influenced their interviewers.

i wonder if you were to get all 5 secondaries from the UCs, and then get all 5 interviews, and then get acceptances...how much you'd still feel the way you do. maybe you are just afraid that you aren't going to get accepted, and b/c of that fear..you are looking for something to blame. that is very common when people undergo challenges that has their very ego at stake. the medical school admissions process is not something that is generally enjoyed. we are constantly analyzing ourselves, and we become so hyper-reductionistic that we tend to loose sight of things. please don't assume that the playing field would be even if there were no aspects of the application that took into consideration one's past experiences. the playing field for someone born into this world is never even.

if you want to discuss this with me any further, send me a pm..or hopefully if you get an interview at our liberal school that destroys the individual (that you ironically wish to attend) we can discuss these things in a larger group. for i am sure that many of my classmates would not mind discussing these sorts of issues with you. perhaps you'd get a deeper sense of what this place is about.
 
Originally posted by Random Access
Not that I'm saying that this makes it right, because I'm not, but it is an Aristotelian principle... [/B]


True in medicine at times too--treat poison w/ poison.
 
Originally posted by souljah1
you want to move any financial aspect out of the application to level the playing field, but you aren't realizing that the playing field never was level to begin with. you seem to put all of the responsibility on the individual without realizing the reciprocity that exists between an individual and their environment.

i wonder if you were to get all 5 secondaries from the UCs, and then got all 5 interviews, and then got acceptances...how much you'd still feel the way you do. maybe you are just afraid that you aren't going to get accepted, and b/c of that fear..you are looking for something to blame. that is very common when people undergo challenges that has their very ego at stake.

if you want to discuss this with me any further, send me a pm..or hopefully if you get an interview at our liberal school that destroys the individual (that you ironically wish to attend) we can discuss these things in a larger group. for i am sure that many of my classmates would not mind discussing these sorts of issues with you. perhaps you'd get a deeper sense of what this place is about.

Thanks, souljah! :clap: Ditto. Btw, you're too generous!
 
Posted before on this thread... received my second UC secondary today from UCSD ( the other one was from UCSF)

Can anyone shed light on the UC?s? I assumed it was more likely I would receive a secondary from UCI or UCdavis than UCSF or UCSD based on my stats but instead, no word from them or UCLA.

The UCs seem totally random, although I know one poster said they each look for different things. Any UC students know what their schools are looking for? Also is it true that UCLA favors younger students?

Thanks for your help :)
 
i'm jealous! how did ucsd contact you?
still only have ucsf.
 
sorry i haven't responded for the past few days, i know you've been dying to hear from me...

i must address one of your last, somewhat snide comments about my desire to attend a liberal school that destroys the individual. i would gladly attend a med school, any med school regardless of its destructive policies. this includes ucsf. is ucsf my first choice? no. i am hoping to get into any one of the 20 schools i sent secondaries to. it really doesn't matter to me which one that is.

also, i am not making any ASSumptions about how the URM/disadvantage policy works at any school. i think you, as well as the other SDNers who support these UC policies, will agree that they give URMs and other "disadvantaged" students an advantage in this process. however large or small this advantage is, it is there. that is not an ASSumption i am making.

also, i never said or even implied that the playing field was even from the beginning. it never will be. no one is born physically, mentally, or economically equal. you can't change this fact. especially not with these med school application policies. i see these very feeble attempts to even the playing field as worsening the current condition.

like i said before, i am absolutely positive that anyone who qualified as a URM or a disadvantaged student and got into UCSF will become a very good physician. i never said that the only reason URMs/disadvantaged students got in was because of this qualification.

i see too many problems with these policies and would like to see them abolished.

Some questions that need to be answered:

What makes someone a minority? Aren't we all human beings? Does labeling someone a minority cause more harm than good? What disadvantages should be counted as disadvantages? How do we weigh one disadvantage over the next? How do you weigh psychological damage? Are we Americans or are we Caucasion Americans or Afro Americans? Are these policies really changing thousands of years of human evolution and the evolution of society? Are they really fair? blah blah blah blah blah
 
love that ignore function!
 
UCSD secondary is complete... I'm waiting for a response.
I have not heard anything from the other UC'S.... except... oh yeah... a pre-secondary rejection from SF, which did not seem to bother me a bit. HOWEVER, I am aging as I await the arrival of the other UC's. I haven't been to SDN since my quarter at UCLA started, but I am glad I found this thread. I broke down yesterday out of frustration with the UC applications, or the lack thereof. I know I need to be patient, but it's just not happening...+pissed+
 
I also recieved pre-secondary rejection from SF...but no word whatsoever from UCI and UCD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

I am beginning to think they have "lost" my applications...
 
Originally posted by Yogi Bear
just called davis and they said they'll beging sending out interviewing notices in november.

thanks for the info! i was wondering what was going on with them
 
Still waiting for UCSD...doubt that I'll get one though. (such a damn beautiful campus!)
 
i just checked the ucsd website. i've been checking and checking, and i just got approved within the last half hour. i checked around 8:30 and checked around 9:00 (obsessive, i know), and it is up!
 
No ucSOUP for me!

Obsessively checking as well!
 
Originally posted by lola
i just checked the ucsd website. i've been checking and checking, and i just got approved within the last half hour. i checked around 8:30 and checked around 9:00 (obsessive, i know), and it is up!

lola - did you also just get the UCI secondary? Did they send you an email or did you find out on the status check page?

(congratulations, by the way!! :) )
 
uci - email & status check
ucsf - status check only
ucsd - email & status check

don't give up hope! they're still giving out secondaries
:D
 
Still no soup for me from UCI, LA, SD!
haha

No more OCD today..
 
hey my fellow SDNers
here is my status
UCLA, UCD, got them!
UCI, UCSD-no word on them. what's up with that?
 
Originally posted by lola
uci - email (and now up on status check)
ucsf - status check only
ucsd - status check only so far (but just discovered)

don't give up hope! they're still giving out secondaries
:D

Congrats, lola! Glad to see your waiting paid off!
 
hey thanks! they're not interview invites or anything, but i would have lost faith in the uc's if i didn't at least get some secondaries!
 
Lola-

Glad to hear you got the UC secondaries. Seems like you and I are in the same boat! I also just checked email and got UCI and UC davis as well. Wondering if I'll get UCLA...

I guess we just have to be patient with the UC's
 
so... i'm still waiting on uc davis and ucla secondaries. anyone else in the same boat? are these schools going to just keep us waiting? have people gotten presecondary rejections from any uc's other than ucsf? geesh. waiting waiting waiting. i'm not expecting ucla, but uc davis is one of my top choices :(
 
Lola-

I got UC Davis at the same time as the other UC's. I still haven't gotten UCLA or Drew. I called to see if they let us know if we aren't getting a secondary and the lady said UCLA continues to send them out until Jan!

Good luck, I hope you hear from them soon :)
 
Originally posted by lola
so... i'm still waiting on uc davis and ucla secondaries. anyone else in the same boat? are these schools going to just keep us waiting? have people gotten presecondary rejections from any uc's other than ucsf? geesh. waiting waiting waiting. i'm not expecting ucla, but uc davis is one of my top choices :(

well, I still haven't heard from UCSF :( :( ...but then I think you might be aware of that as I've mentioned it...uhh...'once or twice ;)
 
Originally posted by the boy wonder
well, I still haven't heard from UCSF :( :( ...but then I think you might be aware of that as I've mentioned it...uhh...'once or twice ;)

oh yeah, i think i remember you mentioning that ;) just as i'm sure you remember me mentioning i'm waiting on davis and l.a.!! i wish there were some sort of relaxation pill i could take :p
 
i'm waiting on davis and la too...goodness gracious... how long does it take to say yay or nay....
 
no secondaries for me either :( guess i shouldn't have applied there... what, with my shizzy scores and all.
p
 
Originally posted by poloace
no secondaries for me either :( guess i shouldn't have applied there... what, with my shizzy scores and all.
p

how bad were your scores poloace? please only answer if you are comfortable =D
 
3.7 38Q

i really shouldn't have applied to the UCs. HA~~~~~~~~ my scores were actually just a fraction of what i just told you. about a 3.0 and 29. nothing special... but, lots of ECs and a graduate degree.

good luck.
 
keep hanging in there! my friend got into ucsf with a 30 i believe...so it's similar to your mcat score...hope you get good news in the future soon =D
 
Top