<p>I know there has been an increase in applicants to all UC's, but im focused on UCLA becuase it is my dream school</p>
<p>"Tran also noted a dramatic increase in transfer student applicants. This years applicant pool includes 18,743 transfer students, compared to 16,587 in 2009 and 15,075 in 2008, increases of 13 percent and 11 percent, respectively. These increases, Tran speculated, result in part from UCLAs increasing competitiveness."</p>
<p>makes me wonder how much the average gpa is going to raise for transfers </p>
<p>More people applying does not NECESSARILY mean that the QUALITY of the academic pool is also getting better. Besides this, some of the additional people applying may be other than California CC students, which will not have a dramatic impact on CCC transfer students. (I am, of course, assuming that you’re a CCC transfer). </p>
<p>That said, it is likely that the quality of the academic pool is also better, but I seriously doubt it will be a HUGE difference. For instance, if the earlier gpa average for a particular major was, say 3.5, it may now have increased 0.1 point to 3.6.</p>
<p>EDIT: Sorry, I posted before I actually read that article. It does say that academic competitiveness has also increased quite a bit…Not good news at all!!</p>
<p>Well, it is bad news, but there’s not much else we can do at this point except to wait until April.</p>
<p>By the way, I’ve heard it mentioned on this forum that slots for transfer applicants (as well as for out of state/international students) were increased for Fall 2010. I haven’t seen this mentioned on the UCLA website so I’m not sure that it is an accurate statement, but I’ve heard various people talking about it—both here on College Confidential and also at school.</p>
<p>We’ll know what the damage is, and which majors suffered the most, once the prelim admission stats are posted. It can also give you a better idea of whether or not you were accepted.</p>
<p>hmm…i hadn’t heard anything about slots for transfer applicants being increased, i heard they increased them last year and were simply maintaining the number of slots this year while they decreased freshmen slots…</p>
<p>The increase is not significant enough for transfer students to worry. What you should worry about is retention rate. Right now, not enough people who are admitted to UCLA actually commit to going there. Harvard, on the other hand, has a 98 percent retention rate. Now, if applications increased for Harvard, yes I would be very worried. UCLA generally can offer admissions to more people than they can handle, this is because not everyone commits, nor will there ever be a period where literally every applicant admitted will commit. Look at the trends for poof. Just under 60% of freshman admitted students actually enroll at UCLA. Imagine if 98% of them enrolled, that would leave VERY little room for transfers two years later when they become juniors, not that particular year. So, when retention rates for freshman increases, you can expect that two years later…transfer admittance will be VERY competitive due to the tiny amount of junior seats available. Your dreaming if you think freshman retention rates have zero impact on transfer competitiveness.</p>
<p>you’re confusing retention with the yield rate. yield rate is the percent of admits that actually enroll. retention rate is the percent of freshmen that stay enrolled for their next year. Harvard’s yield rate is around 80% while its retention rate is around 96%.</p>
<p>you should be comparing the 80% harvard rate to the 62% ucla rate. Even for schools like princeton, their yield rate is 70%. Only 70% of the people that get into princeton actually enroll there.</p>
<p>Yield or retention, it still makes a difference in space available to transfers. You can’t predict in absolute terms how many spaces will be available, you can only approximate. If, for some unexplained reason, a tsunami of freshman and transfers enroll at UCLA in a single year, far more than predicted, and those student all stay at UCLA for two years and beyond, do you think that won’t have any impact on the admission process two years down the line? You think they offer admission to the amount they can handle? I doubt it. UC’s can barley handle the amount of students that are in the system now.</p>
<p>If the yield rate is higher from one year to another and they exceed their enrollment target they just cut back on enrollment the year after i believe if you go to the U.C video’s on youtube one of the admission officer talks about it in that sense</p>
<p>I remember listening to a uc counselor’s conference where they discussed increasing transfer slots and reducing freshmen slots. I’ll try to drudge up the link when I get home tonight.</p>
<p>An increased number of applicants ABSOLUTELY DOES mean the quality of the academic pool is getting better. If you do not understand why it NECESSARILY dictates that the quality of the application pool is going to be higher, look into some advanced statistical theories. </p>
<p>But you and I will ABSOLUTELY be accepted :)</p>
<p>I wouldn’t use common sense if it’s not defined. Then again, common sense can’t be defined. At least not intrinsically. If one means social norms, well then the word is a euphemism that evolves through years of English use, and geographical adaptations among various tribes and cultural populations. Of course, who uses common sense anymore? And if one doesn’t, are they to be looked at differently? On second thought, maybe I’m interested in the lure of common sense and it’s aesthetic propriety. Blissful excess really. It’s so efficient, and one must strive for efficiency, it’s common sense. And if one doesn’t strive for efficiency it is a just act to ignore all ones written sinful forms of common sense including this very informative paragraph that has used up your attention to turn you in the right direction and into the arms of Jesus Christ.</p>