<p>As for actual numbers, I’d personally like to see teh graphic that accompanied this DB article, and if you can read it, please print it. (I tried copying to a word process program and tried to expand the borders, etc, to no avail.)</p>
<p>So if you can link the article as far as SIRs, we can settle this. But one thing doesn’t make sense as to what you stated: if enrollments have gone up, “largest frosh class,” etc, and NR’s have gone up from 14 to 18%, one would think there would be a decent increase in NR enrollment.</p>
<p>UCB, so in other words, what was Bluebayou referencing:</p>
<p>Los Angeles
California 4,092 88.6% 4,098 85.1% 4,921 81.7% 823 829
Out-of-State 367 8.0% 356 7.4% 413 6.9% 57 46
International 157 3.4% 364 7.6% 686 11.4% 322 529
Total 4,616 100.0% 4,818 100.0% 6,020 100.0% 1,202 1,404</p>
<p>Look at the marked increase in SIRs. 6,020 from 4818, 2010 to 2011. I thought the DB article stated > 6,000 SIR’s, but I couldn’t be sure. Thanks for the link.</p>
<p>This shows the undershot yield of CA residents by UCLA’s admin, especially since they targeted 5300. Expect some of teh 6000 SIRs not to show, but frosh enrollment should be ~ 5800 or so, ~ 500 more than projected, ~ 1200 more than last year.</p>
<p>Bad planning by the admin. Shows, that they need to incorporate wait lists, etc.</p>
<p>I disagree. Full pay buyers should be aware of forced tripling, particularly since they will have other great college options with standard dorm arrangements (for the same price, or cheaper).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just clicked on the links at the bottom of the press release that RML posted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not surprised at all. Indeed, I predicted same 3+ years ago when this idea was first floated. Cal’s prestige is huge internationally, particularly in the Pacific Rim. For those internationals that can’t get into HYPSM…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, yeah, sure, when current Frosh are married and out of grad school. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The fact that high school kids are ignorant of what is going on in the UC System is hardly surprising. They are the least reliable indicators of college quality.</p>
Blue, obviously Cal is attractive to domestic out-of-state students as well. 816 domestic student increase over 2 years, over 3 times the increase in number of internationals.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why you’re trying to save your arguments, bluebayou, albeit with selective references to what you stated prior.</p>
<p>With regard to an earlier comment of yours, which I’ll address now, and since I some people use “oos students” as being synonymous with “non-residents”:</p>
<p>I’m not sure what relevance your bringing only OOS students to the table has, especially in light of the fact that int’ls pay full price also. Yes, UCLA’s OOS yield is very poor, but a lot of this is probably because the administration is probably concentrating on more wealthy int’ls. Save for a few areas outside of CA, in parts of the northwest and northeast, there aren’t a lot of wealthy pockets from which to draw. Id like to see UCLA recruiting efforts stepped up in various places around the US and well see if this is done.</p>
<p>Concerning the dorming issue:</p>
<p>My intimation, if I didnt make it clear, was that weathy intls can generally afford to pay for apartments and even condos and houses in the immediate area around campus and wouldnt have to dorm in triples. Ive heard of foreigners BUYING their kids condos and even houses in the area for their kids to attend school at UCLA, and this is not unusual. And just so youll know, theres a way out of tripling as some of the students on UCLAs board will be able to inform anyone who is interested in such.</p>
<p>Im sorry that tripling is in the immediate and affects those who are enrolling and will be applying this fall. But some have grown to like the aspects of tripling. These are probably more of your social personalities.</p>
<p>I like your takes a lot, although I can’t figure whether you’re for UC or not. Either you’re for us or dead set against us. But let’s try not to goad others (me) into arguments by not painting a full picture of UCLA"s enrollment statistics. Thanks.</p>
<p>You’re one of my favorite public u defenders on this board. I remember things like, approximately, “Let’s get some public higher-education grads from this board and beat down those silly little private schoolers.” This is highly embellished… What’s going on? ;)</p>
<p>I didn’t realize that my arguments needed “saving.” But I have been called clueless before. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not use that same synonym; I separate OOS and Internationals (and perhaps that’s why my arguments need saving?)? :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Guilty. I happen to think on-campus housing for Frosh is important, particularly for OOS. It can be a real PIA to furnish a condo/apt from 3,000 miles away. Living in an off-campus condo diminishes the collegiate experience, IMO. I assume others agree as well since many, many colleges tout the advantages of their on-campus Frosh experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can’t I be allowed to swing both ways? I am “for” ALL public colleges and their students, but I just happen to be against what I perceive are moronic policies established in Sacto/Oakland. For example, I am “for” the students and faculty at UC Merced, but strongly “against” the campus even existing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My apologies. I had no intention to “goad” anyone into anything…</p>
<p>I’m planning on applying to these two schools as an OOS student who will have to pay full tuition. I guess budget cuts really suck for everyone in the long run, but in this situation, I feel like I have a pretty good backup option that will still let me get into a reputable school, even if the teaching quality will be poor.</p>
<p>Indeed, not sure what to make of the 3 year trend (except that Cal is absorbing 2/3rds of the OOS students and thus UC is balancing its shortfalls by restricting instate admissions to Cal):</p>
<p>Cal acceptance rates: 2009 & 2011</p>
<p>Resident: 30% 24%
OOS : 16% 38%
International 17% 21%</p>
<p>By goading, I meant in reference to teh following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really don’t know what I stated in my originating post, #6, that caused you to fire off your post #15, with a somewhat off-topic reference to oos students and this quote. I don’t think my post #6 was off in any info that I provided.</p>
<p>This is what I meant by saving your arguments and similarly being selective. But we’re cool…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That Int’l acceptance rate for UCLA seems low for 2011. For UCLA"s you might have copied 2010’s.</p>
<p>UC doesn’t act as a team, as you stated, to restrict instaters at Cal and increase them at UCLA. Each UC entity formulates its own admissions plan wrt demographics, including geographic origins.</p>
<p>So the increase from 4,100 range to 4900 at UCLA for instaters has nothing to do with Cal’s small decrease. I think a surge in yield (and this is what it was, especially in light of that UCLA only targeted 5300 frosh and received 6000 SIR’s) could have been because of Mr. Kirkorian’s donation to UCLA, which I’m sure the U is using for instaters only… something about top 5% getting this scholarship. Typical instate yields to UCLA are ~ 40%, and I haven’t done the numbers but it had to increase by a decent amount.</p>
<p>I was challenging the validity of your post, that Cal “will enroll more freshmen students this year than in any year in its entire history.”</p>
<p>If just 20 folks fail to materialize next month, Cal will not enroll more Frosh than any year in its history. And my comment about the internationals was just one example of summer melt–20+ could easily fail to obtain a visa in time to enroll. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I am fully aware of that. But one also has to recognize that Riverside and Merced just aren’t gonna be too attractive to OOSers. Thus, if UC is to reach is systemwide $$ goal, then Cal & UCLA have to accept the lions share of the burden.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes it is; good catch. (No, I didn’t use last year’s numbers…I just miskeyed by HP12c.)</p>
But let’s try not to goad others (me) into arguments by not painting a full picture of UCLA"s enrollment statistics. Thanks.</p>