<p>Alright so, maybe the word "succeed" may not be the appropriate diction but are out of state student more likely to do well academically and extracurricularly at UCLA than an instate student because generally aren't out of state students more qualified than those who are instate? When I visited UCLA, I talked to a few students and when they asked me if I was from northern California or southern California, I told them I was out of state and then they said I must be a genius. So in your experience, do out of state students generally do good at UCLA. Have any out of state student and perhaps even international students become valedictorian? Just curious.</p>
<p>i think out of state/international students are more inclined to do better because its harder to get in, so naturally they would be more “qualified” than the average in state student.</p>
<p>also i think they would be more passionate since they wanted to come to UCLA specifically and were willing to pay the out of state tuition.</p>
<p>there wasnt really a “valedictorian” named at graduation. there is a student speaker which i guess you can consider to be the valedictorian, and this year’s happened to be an in state student. im sure there has been an out of state or international student that spoke at graduation sometime in the past.</p>
<p>We out of state have to pay alot more so i guess we’ll be working harder. For example I want to complete undergrad in 4 years instead of 5 so naturally I’ll have to take more classes and study harder etc. But being out of state doesn’t mean you have to be a genius. :)</p>
<p>no to thread question- i dont see any difference being out of state other than having to pay more. averages for admits overall are already pretty high as is, and im sure the standard deviations are considerable</p>
<p>Like others have said, I think out of states students generally do perform better than instate because they wanted to come to UCLA in the first place whereas many instates were somewhat forced to attend because of the bargain instate price. In addition, if you think that SAT score correlate with possible future success in college then yes out of states student probably will have a better chance of succeeding than an instate student. I think the average admit SAT for instate is around 1850 or so and the out of states is 2100+.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>completely agree. we don’t pay over $40k to just be average. </p>
<p>i don’t know if this is significant, but i believe i’m one of the only officers in TBP who’s out of state…i can probably think of one other one.</p>
<p>as an oos student… yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ummm, not really. Just because somebody has wealthy parents who will pay the OOS tuition doesn’t mean that the student will be any harder working or intelligent. In fact, you could argue quite the opposite: that somebody from a poor family would be more motivated to work harder and succeed.</p>
<p>I attended a top ranked private college in Calif. Come time for graduation, the highest achieving students were all from Calif.</p>
<p>"I attended a top ranked private college in Calif. Come time for graduation, the highest achieving students were all from Calif. "</p>
<p>If you attended a private university then everyone paid the same tuition so in this case everyone in that college came a from a wealthy family. So I think the reason why the highest achieving students were all from California is because a larger population of California students enrolled in that school.</p>
<p>In a diverse school like Stanford, I would expect the top students to be out of states and international just because the out of state student ratio is greater than the in state.</p>
<p>Exactly UCLA Band Mom! this whole “people who pay more will be more likely to succeed” is stupid. you have more money (or willing to spend that which you dont have) so you have more options than other people- whoop de do, good for you. doesnt mean you’ll be any more successful than in state students</p>
<p>Thanks for all the replies. If some of you didn’t know, I am an out of state student so I can tell you guys that I will definitely be working hard my next few years at UCLA to get the most out of my tuition money. Also the assertion that out of state students do better at UCLA because they chose to freely attend UCLA and are passionate about their school also holds true for me. I chose UCLA over many many great university: UVa, Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, NYU, University of Michigan, Johns Hopkins just to name a few.</p>
<p>
Quite an ignorant post… most of my out-of-state friends (and this is my situation as well) are taking loans. It’s a tough decision for us to choose UCLA since it’s a public school and we’re paying as much as we would for a private school. We choose UCLA because we think it’s the best college for us - in terms of academics, social life, and opportunities. The fact that we have a strong liking for UCLA and are willing to pay so much for the school encourages us to work hard and succeed in our college years. This doesn’t mean that we’re smarter that in-state students…I’m just trying to make a point that we’re more likely to work harder due to financial pressure.</p>
<p>
.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that’s quite an ignorant narrow-minded post yourself. nobody comes to college to fail. everyone is going to work hard. even in state folks need to take out loans so to say that one is going to work harder or be more successful just because one is paying more is ridiculous- both groups are losing money and one is not going to work that much less or be less successful because they still have a lot of money at stake irregardless. and money is a poor judgment meter like ucla band mom already pointed out- there are quite a few first generation poor students who may be so poor that they actually will get grants to cover their costs but being in their situation will make them work all that much harder knowing what they or their parents etc did not have growing up. im not going to say if this latter group is going to work harder than out of state folks who take out massive loans or people who are in state and are rich enough to not need any financial aid though, because all these folks are going to work hard and they have worked hard to get into ucla, and also to try to say which of these folks work harder than the other would be plain ignorant of me</p>
<p>Madeinchina does have a point. A good amount of students at UCLA graduate in 5-6 years instead of the normal 4 years. Of those student who do graduate in 5-6 years, I think a good percentage of them are instate students just because no out of state student is going to be paying another 90,000 a year to graduate two years later. For instate students, the cost of graduating two years later is probably at most 30,000. </p>
<p>Now to answer the original question, yes I believe that out of state students will for the most part do better than the average UCLA students. Their credentials are generally better. As you all can see by collegeundergrad previous post, many out of states applicants are superb students. Many of those out of state students are also accepted to other great universities that many instate students could never dream of getting accepted to because they are competing with other top students and are not given the leverage of instate status.</p>
<p>Are there instate UCLA student who get accepted to better universities that UCLA but choose to attend UCLA for financial reasons? Sure, but for the most part out of states students that are accepted to UCLA also got great offers from other school. They choose to come to UCLA because they want to be here.</p>
<p>oh please- there are a lot of in state students who turned down other, more prestigious universities to stay closer to home</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ucla has a large population of california students enrolled</p>
<p>
Nope. At the time I attended (late 1970’s), there was a California State Scholarship program that awarded private school attendees the full amount of scholarship money to make the cost equal to that of attending the UC’s, which at the time, was $600 a year. The reason the state did this was because it was cheaper than building new UC’s to accommodate all of the baby boomers. So, nearly all of the in-state students from California were there on vastly reduced tuition. The out of state students were not eligible for the state scholarships. Also, the vast majority of California students were from public high schools, whereas the majority of out of state students were from private prep schools.</p>
<p>
28k vs. 7.5k for tuition is a huge difference. Would you really not feel more financial pressure if you had to pay almost 4x as much for tuition?</p>
<p>And I said your post was ignorant because you said this:
</p>
<p>and im saying its ignorant for someone to say that because they willingly chose to pay a higher amount, they will somehow be more successful or work harder than someone else who has to pay less. first of all, 7.5k is nothing to laugh at either and they still have to pay it off so they have financial pressure too to get their degree</p>
<p>its narrow-minded because different people have different pressures and driving forces so to think that people who pay more will work harder or be more successful than that other person simply because they are in-state is ridiculous. people who want to continue on in their education for i.e. medical or law or some other graduate school or those who had more humble beginnings will have just as important of drives than someone who simply pays more money and to judge simply based on finances is extremely narrow-minded and ignorant, especially when the person paying more willingly decided to pay more</p>
<p>I’m out of state. I wouldn’t say that we’re more likely to succeed than an instate student because I’m sure everyone wants to be the best they can be including myself. Do I consider myself smart and hardworking? Yes and yes but so are a lot of the people who are instate. The university itself is an elite institution so everyone is pretty smart, but based on statistics I would give the edge to out of state students just because it is slightly more difficult to get in.</p>
<p>Relatively speaking, both the 7.5k tuition and the 28k tuition may feel the same financial burden. I’m guessing the latter case has more ability to get parental help which lessens the financial burden. Sure, your family pays it but there’s a big difference between your parents paying(all or some) and you feeling bad/financial pressure and the other case of you paying your whole bill (7.5k) yourself. The latter case really feels a massive burden because when your parents cant pay anything, you feel immense stress.</p>
<p>All I know is if you are oos and you came here, you have some sort of ability to afford it (parents or whatever). People stay instate because they can’t afford to go elsewhere (this is me). If you pay 28k for tuition and just throw in an apartment for 7k a year, that’s 35k a year. That’s 140k if you magically get interest free loans. I just can’t imagine many oos choosing to come here on full loans. But maybe there are many oos who do, and yeah in that case they will work hard, but how can you judge their relative ability to work hard when a person who pays 7.5k views that as an impossible amount and works hard as a result? </p>
<p>Oh man there’s so many what ifs/general statements with this…I probably erased my response like 4 times trying to phrase it right but there’s too many external factors.</p>