<p>Because UCLA denied 57,000 freshman applicants out of 72626. If one does the math, that leaves 15626 students who did not get denied. According to the daily bruin article, it mentions that 2900 freshman applicants got waitlisted out of the 15626 who did not get denied. </p>
<p>So that translates to 12726 students who got admitted. </p>
<p>the 21.5 percent refers to the people who got waitlisted and admitted to UCLA as freshman applicants. </p>
<p>Last year, as article stated, UCLA overenrolled by ~ 600 students, which is highly significant and bad planning by the admissions people. A lot of the reason for this was because of an increased yield among some of the higher stats students, which I think was attributable to the Achievement Scholarship, which in turn was attributable to Mr. Kerkorian’s largesse. This has resulted in the implementation of a wait-list, which I thought the U should have employed all along. Just a tick upward in yield would mean an overenrollment by hundreds of students.</p>
<p>^ the article says the higher yield had more to do with the lower overlap in admits with Berkeley, which makes sense. Berkeley and UCLA usually eat into each others’ yields, so I wonder how much that will happen this year. I didn’t even know that all the UCs except UCLA and UC Merced had been using waitlists (and now this year UCLA too).</p>
<p>I also wonder to what extent the SAT II requirement could have influenced app #s. Could it be that a large # of students weren’t applying because of the SAT II requirement? It doesn’t seem likely, but I suppose that making it easier to apply could boost apps significantly.</p>
<p>I wanted to clarify my usage of the word ‘largesse,’ as to say that Mr. Kerkorian is extemely pretty self-effacing and humble, so ostentation/notority wouldn’t have been his motive per more of the pejorative/negative connotation.</p>
<p>phantasmagoric:</p>
<p>This would be undoubtedly the reason wrt Int’l admits, as has become fairly evident of late at least. UCLA has to dip quite a bit to enroll a higher qty of Int’ls because Cal has a much better name in Asia, specifically. Hopefully, I’m overstating things for UCLA, and in fact UCLA admits a high quality student from all over the globe. Of course, though, In’ts tend to do better relative to native-born students in general.</p>
<p>I would love for UCLA Int’l admissions to include a greater portion from Rome and Italy in general, exclusively females of course, with great contributions from the Norwegian area as well as Brazil. And I’m not real fond of the thematic Asian cuisine of a certain dorm, unless it were done for health reasons. </p>
<p>Essentially, the International admits to UCLA wouldn’t be anything near the students Cal admits wrt qualifications. So the yield was probably underestimated for Int’ls as well, although if a lower qualifed student were admitted, the yield would be high, regardless of if there were cross-admits with Cal.</p>
<p>But for CA students, the yield was underestimated also, again, according to a prior article from a little less than a year ago because of the implementation of the scholarship funded by Mr. Kerkorian.</p>
<p>Anyway, a very poor job by UCLA administrators as is the norm.</p>
<p>Semantics set aside. There were 72,657 applicants and 15,455 admitted students. You can do the math all day long, and the result will always be the same.</p>
<p>No answer to that question, but the solution is as simple as it is elegant. All that is needed is to copy the list and add the schools that were so viciously slighted by some CC elves. </p>
<p>CA Residents, 22.7%
Other States’ Residents, 22.6%
Internationals, 12.4%</p>
<p>UCLA:</p>
<p>CA Residents, 17.7%
Other States’ Residents, 28.8%
Internationals, 32.0%</p>
<p>UCLA is just a sieve for Int’l students. </p>
<p>UC is getting away from its promise to CA students. Very few of the non-residents will help CA grow its economy. CA will continue to suffer, will continue its downturn.</p>
And I’m not real fond of the thematic Asian cuisine of a certain dorm, unless it were done for health reasons. </p>