<p>I found these statements to be pretty interesting:</p>
<p>"UCLA is bursting at the seams with students. This year, we enrolled approximately 1,750 students over our target. This is largely because of the extraordinary qualifications of our applicants and our desire to serve as many students as we can."</p>
<p>Does this mean that UCLA had a very good yield? How can a university over enroll by 1750? </p>
<p>"We also will consider increasing the proportion of non-resident students...There are strong intellectual arguments for geographical diversity; non-resident students can enrich the educational experience for all. A moderate increase in the proportion of non-residents would generate millions of dollars in new revenue to protect instructional programs for all UCLA students."</p>
<p>So I guess they will be an increase in OOS admissions in the coming years but still the way Chancellor Block phrases his words makes it seem like UCLA is trying to use OOS students for money purposes only.</p>
<p>"Continue to offer the very best undergraduate and graduate students the opportunity to receive a world-class education. This means ensuring that our students progress toward their degrees and that students of all backgrounds receive the services and financial support they need to attend UCLA and flourish while they’re here. Our $500 million Bruin Scholars Initiative will play a key role in this effort; we have already raised almost $25 million."</p>
<p>Does anyone know anything about the Bruin Scholar Initiative program? I've never heard of it before but its good to read that UCLA is still dedicated to making the University available to less fortunate students.</p>
<p>Overenrolled by 1750? Are they seriously that incompotent? They admitted only 600 or so fewer applicants than last year - were they really that blind as to not see that the crashing economy was going to require a hell of a lot more than that?</p>
<p>For every student they are overenrolled by, the state gives the campus NO MONEY for those students. That means larger classes and more overcrowding in light of the budget crisis.</p>
<p>Yeah, it’s unclear whether he means just incoming freshmen or the University as a whole. They over-enrolled freshmen last year and had to cut admissions for 2009, so either it’s the latter or there was a very large jump (~15%) in yield. I find it hard to believe the jump was that big, and he didn’t specifically say freshmen in that sentence…</p>
<p>ThisCouldBeHeavn, you make a very valid point, but given that UCLA was under enrolled last year there’s a good possibility that the over enrollment is either caused by incoming first-year students or transfer students or even both.</p>
<p>I think UCLA should reduce transfer student offers of admissions. The transfer admit rate is far higher than the straight from high-school rate.</p>
<p>If they do cut back on transfers I would hope they would announce it a few years in advance. There are a fair number of people in Community Colleges that passed up other opportunities because they “knew” they could get into UCLA/Berkeley.</p>