<p>I’m sure this has been covered somewhere so I apologize in advance. Did UMich take any waiting list kids and has that process closed?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as I know, they haven’t made any announcements concerning admissions off the waitlist, but their yield was a little higher than expected, so that probably means they don’t have empty places to fill. That still could change as they go through summer “melt,” with some students who have already put down deposits changing their plans, deciding to defer a year, accepting offers off waitlists elsewhere, etc. But since they’re probably a bit over their freshman enrollment target right now, I’d expect not much movement off the waitlist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s very remarkable, especially considering that UCLA isn’t on the common app. If memory serves, about 20k of those 100k applicants were OOS/International in 2013. That doubled from 10k in 2011. All these students fill out the common app, and still go out of their way to fill out the UC one, and apply to perhaps just UCLA and Berkeley.
As soon as UC got a reputation for admitting more OOS students, applications soared!</p>
<p>If UCLA were on the common app, it would have topped over 100k years ago (it’s current like around 99.5k) and I think it’s fairly reasonable to conclude that it’s acceptance rate would also be much lower.</p>
<p>Granted, UCLA would never get on the common app because 1) it’s population and application pool is high enough that it doesn’t need it. and 2) it would **** off a ton of taxpayers and politicians in California to have one of its elites public institutions court more OOS students.</p>
<p>As a final point, i’d like to note UCLA’s increase in admits as a result of their increase in applications from 2009 to 2013. From 2009 to 2010, UCLA increased the number of students it admitted by 1k to keep up with the 2k increase in applicants; from 2010 to 2011, UCLA admitted over 2500 more students in response to an approximately 4k increase in applications; from 2011 to 2012, UCLA only admitted around 300 more students in response to 10k increase in applicants; and lastly, from 2012 to 2013, UCLA only admitted an additional 200 students in response to another 8k increase in applications.</p>
<p><a href=“University of California, Los Angeles - Wikipedia”>University of California, Los Angeles - Wikipedia;
<p>Due to yield, UCLA probably can’t admit the thousands more like it was doing in 2009 and 2010. (pretty sure UCLA was overenrolled in 2011 and 2012.) Given that it can’t really admit many more students, but its applicants keep rising by significant numbers, I can only see UCLA’s admit rate decreasing in the future, perhaps by a significant amount.</p>
<p>“Granted, UCLA would never get on the common app because 1) it’s population and application pool is high enough that it doesn’t need it. and 2) it would **** off a ton of taxpayers and politicians in California to have one of its elites public institutions court more OOS students.”</p>
<ol>
<li>It already has a sort of common application with 8 other UC schools that makes it very easy to apply to all of them with a simple stroke of a pen (pencil).</li>
</ol>
<p>UCLA (or any UCs for that matter) gets way more applicants because of the “UC common” than other schools do from common application. That high number doesn’t mean much because many of the applicants are of low caliber and they apply only because it doesn’t hurt to check the box with a simple stroke of a pen. A lot of high schools in California are simply horrendous. That’s why even with that many applicants, the stats for the enrolled aren’t as impressive as one would expect based on the volume. If I am not mistaken, UCLA’s stats are lower than Michigan’s.</p>
<p>jeez, the last time I visited this I thread I said that UMich would never overtake UCLA in acceptance rate, I didn’t delve more into it with a long-winded post to include specific details since the facts were so obvious.
But I’m glad you guys are having fun.</p>
<p>^^^I agree with you ForeverAlone. However, Sam Lee does point out how acceptance rates are not necessarily a huge factor when analyzing school/student quality.</p>
<p>Michigan also makes applicants submit two essays in their CA. That makes the upswing in the numbers of applications even more remarkable.</p>
<p>It is true that the UC schools share an application but there is a separate (and quite high) application fee for each school, so even at our affluent public high school students do not apply to all UCs indiscriminately.</p>
<p>^Lol. It’s $70 for the UC’s and $65 for Michigan. Compared to an education that you’ll drop between 100-200k on (usually closer to the high end), an application fee under 100 bucks isn’t stopping anyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s looking at things very superficially. Berkeley for example gets significantly less applications than a number of other UCs even though it’s the best in the UC system. And UCM and UCR get significantly less applications than a number of the other UCs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly many are, but UCLA probably receives as 2/3rds many private universities total applicants in just its international and OOS applicants. These people go out of their way to fill out the UC app in a way that they don’t do so with Michigan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s because it’s much more important for UCLA to admit first generation college students/low ses students/Pell grant recipients (many of whom fall under all three categories) than it is for them to admit someone that would raise their stats. UCLA could easily raise the incoming stats of its freshman, but that would interfere with its university mission.</p>
<p>beyphy, Michigan received 8,000 applications from international students and an additional 30,000 applicants from OOS students last year. I do not think UCLA receives more international or OOS applicants. Where UCLA really exceeds Michigan is in the number of in-state applicants, which is hardly surprising considering that California has a population four times larger than Michigan. </p>
<p>“That’s because it’s much more important for UCLA to admit first generation college students/low ses students/Pell grant recipients (many of whom fall under all three categories) than it is for them to admit someone that would raise their stats. UCLA could easily raise the incoming stats of its freshman, but that would interfere with its university mission.”</p>
<p>Michigan has a similar mission. Where Michigan and UCLA differ is in the strength of their relative applicant pools. While I do not have exact figures, I have observed that many mediocre and average students apply to UCLA dreaming of living in LA. Michigan does not attract such applicants. The vast majority of students who apply to Michigan tend to be good-excellent academically and apply there primarily because they desire to attend a good university. That’s certainly the case of students applying from this region (the UAE).</p>
<p>Maizeandblue. Your math is correct but many people don’t do the math. There are cultural norms at play. I can tell you that among my daughter’s friends - people who can definitely afford the fee - I don’t know any who applied to more than 4 UC’s and 2-3 is more common. Still more than UM plus MSU but not just clicking all the boxes either. Guidance counselors discuss each UC separately too. </p>
<p>UC’s will always get more applications than UM because there are lot more students eligible for in-state tuition in CA. Also, it’s CA, which will draw OOS/foreign students more than MI, regardless of school quality (note: our daughter is going to UM in the Fall so you can see where we stand on the issue).</p>
<p>“Also, it’s CA, which will draw OOS/foreign students more than MI…”</p>
<p>Pokieg, can you prove that. The information I have says otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alexandre, if those students simply wanted to live in the LA area, there are a number of other universities that they could choose from. Othe fine colleges in Los Angeles, or the near area, include USC and Occidental. And a notch (or two) below those schools could include Pepperdine, or some of the schools in the CSU system. If you even wanted to live fairly close to Los Angeles, you could live in Santa Barbara and drive to Los Angeles in maybe an hour and twenty minutes. They’re not just focused with living in the LA area, but they’re interested in going to UCLA. They’re familiar with it’s prestige, academics, traditions, etc. And those reasons, in part, contribute why they want to go to the university.</p>
<p>Like I said earlier, UCLA takes significantly large amounts of weaker students from the Los Angeles and southern California area. Its reputation for doing this contributes to its weaker applicant pool. That’s why UCLA in particular has the most Pell grant recipients of any university in the U.S. As a result, weaker students in California apply to UCLA with a hope and a prayer that they’ll gain admittance to the university. </p>
<p>Why does Berkeley, for example, have a 10k less applicants than UCLA? It could be a number of reasons: is it that more people prefer LA to the The Bay Area and Berkeley’s ‘gritty’ neighborhood? Or is Berkeley just perceived as being significantly harder to gain acceptance into than UCLA? </p>
<p>They’re both top schools, so how do you explain this discrepancy in applicants when those other 10k applicants could just ‘check the UC box’?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CA has the largest Asian population by absolute numbers and percentage(2nd to Hawaii).
So it’s no surprise UCB and UCLA receive a great reputation and applicants from Asian internationals.</p>
<p>There’s a similar thread in the Parent Forum with Michigan being heavily used as an example of what, presumably, SHOULDN’T be done in admissions. </p>
<p>talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1516236-transparency-should-public-universities-required-reveal-basis-rejection.html </p>
<p>Personally, I have zero problem with Michigan recruiting out of state. We have a significant brain drain whether it’s from IS or OOS graduates and we get pennies in the form of aid from the Michigan government. Michigan, IMO, still has a pretty darn generous admission policy towards Michigan undergrads.</p>
<p>Just thought it might interest some here.</p>
<p>I applied to UCLA just because I was already applying to Berkeley and said “hell, it’ll cost $70, why not?” </p>
<p>Was admitted to UCLA (as well as UM and Berkeley), but did not consider UCLA as a legitimate option, really. </p>
<p>So yes, the CA application does bring extra applicants to UCLA. More so than the common app, which requires unique essays for each individual school (with a couple exceptions).</p>
<p>UCLA’s yield is only like 2% lower than Berkeley’s. (37.1 vs 38.8 respectively.) Compare those yields to what’s considered the number 3 UC, UCSD. It’s yield is 18%. I conjecture it’s amount is significantly lower since a majority of its admits were also admitted to UCLA and Berkeley and chose to matriculate to one of those universities (again, though, this is just conjecture.)</p>
<p>[National</a> Universities Where Most Accepted Students Enroll - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/01/28/national-universities-where-most-accepted-students-enroll]National”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/01/28/national-universities-where-most-accepted-students-enroll)</p>
<p>From the fact that the yields are so close, you can see that the vast majority of applicants do consider it to be a legitimate option when they choose to apply to it, even if you did not when you applied.</p>
<p>And again, my main question remains unanswered. If people apply to UCLA with a ‘why the hell not’ attitude, why don’t they do the same with Berkeley?</p>