<p>^Can you link me? I had difficulty digging up the info. -.-</p>
<p>Per Dunn’s numbers of median family income:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reason why Cal’s jumped so much in 2009 was because that was the year I believe that it started to make the non-resident enrollment push. Also it wasn’t as known a fact in 09 and maybe 08 and Cal wasn’t going public either.</p>
<p>UCLA actually started more in 2010 to actively increase NR enrollment as a consequence to lesser state $’s to fund undergrad education. So give a point to Cal’s administration for having some foresight, which doesn’t surprise me about UCLA"s lack. Add that Cal has a better name internationally.</p>
<p>As Bay stated in one of his/her earlier posts, NR family income enrolling at Cal is around $150K.</p>
<p>And actually, too, UCLA is using holistics now to enroll more economically under-represented students who don’t show forth in grades/scores, etc, but rather ‘potential,’ etc. We’ll see if the university’s going too far in this direction if dropout rates increase, etc, becasue of the fine balance in high diversity v wasting state monies, and more cost to academic services.</p>
<p>There was a time, as someone told me, a grad of BHHS and UCLA - I think the time frame was 20 years ago - when UCLA would enroll > 100 students from Beverly High. Now UCLA is making them jump through some hoops by their attending SMC first and xfering later. Consequently around 1/2 of the graduating BHHS student body opts for SMC and hopes for UCLA later on (besides having a large Persian population and these students putting family first and not (generally) wanting to go away to college, etc). The ones that do make it into UC do very well > 3.3 gpa, which is one of the considerations to one being a UC feeder school, which makes it fairly under-appreciated now. </p>
<p>Alamemom:
</p>
<p>I hear you alemamom…</p>
<p>I use some of those same numbers when I compare UCLA and USC wrt apps to med school and the production of attys by CA state bar certification to show why UCLA is stronger than USC in the premed and prelaw fields (And yes I realize there are no majors with these titles.).</p>
<p>Or are you giving me the same treatment becuase of my penchant for numbers? ; ) </p>
<p>I was just wondering if Bay thought USC was a university the size of Stanford the way he worded things.</p>
<p>And I think USC says it has 16,500 undergrads (~17k per USC’s rounding process), unless you’re counting part-timers, which I wouldn’t think it would count (I mean really true part-timers).</p>
<p>
no… the data I pulled was for CA residents only, not OOS. I think Berkeley’s Family Income average is so high because it is located near Silicon Valley, where secretaries make $70k and 3 bedroom, 2 bath homes built in 1955 cost $1.3 million.</p>
<p>I wasn’t talking about research dollars…the context of the discussion was undergrad student population.</p>
<p>
Only because they count the Advanced Physics Lab research.</p>
<p>If you want apples to apples, Berkeley + UCSF + LBNL + LLNL would get you on a level playing field… ;)</p>
<p>… and found that statfinder did list the incomes of non-resident, domestics and Internationals under CA residents.’ It didnt appear to be significant numbers when I ran admits quantities, but it just caught my curiosity, nonetheless.</p>
<p>These are the trends to Parental Income, Constant Dollars for the top four UCs in the last five years listed at the site:</p>
<p>Berkeley:</p>
<p>2009 109,047
2008 102,112
2007 95,250
2006 91,760
2005 89,257</p>
<p>Los Angeles</p>
<p>2009 95,896
2008 97,988
2007 98,975
2006 88,096
2005 83,448</p>
<p>Santa Barbara</p>
<p>2009 96,250
2008 97,682
2007 101,068
2006 97,573
2005 93,350</p>
<p>Santa Cruz</p>
<p>2009 99,623
2008 101,794
2007 96,523
2006 90,415
2005 91,223</p>
<p>Theres generally a rise in all of them, with UCLAs falling a bit from 2007-09, which seem to be a pre-set plan to increase under-represented student enrollment under the holistic approach to admissions.</p>
<p>But Cals FI have spiked quite a bit in the last two years, with increases of > 7% and > 6% in the last two years listed. Im just curious what would have caused this for just CA residents, because family income in a lot of the counties have increased for Cal.</p>
<p>It appears the difference between Cals and UCLAs parental income is mainly that UCLA burdens itself with more students from the poorer schools from LA County, which all the UCs follow in their own parts of the state, but we know that LA-C is the largest county in CA, so UCLA has the largest burden. The family income from LA-C for UCLAs incoming frosh in 2009, was ~ $75,000 and for Cal, $92,000. The students from LA-C also have lesser grades/scores, which is the main difference between Cals and UCLAs mean grades/scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>RML, do you have a source for such statement. Or if you do not have a soiurce, perhaps you could offer your estimate for the following elements:</p>
<ol>
<li>Number of admitted students at Cal and at Stanford</li>
<li>How many students represent 25% of Cal admits</li>
<li>Number of cross-admits for Stanford and Cal</li>
<li>Percentage of students who select Cal over Stanford, and vice versa?</li>
</ol>
<p>I am curious to see how your numbers might add up. For some reason, I thought that 25% of Cal’s admitted pool is larger than the entire admitted pool at Stanford. While we know that the number of students who select Cal over Stanford when cross-admitted is insignificant, it would seem hard to believe that the entire admitted pool at Stanford happens to have secured an admission from Cal as well. Not that the Cal admission per se would be the issue … the cross-admit is.</p>
<p>Less than 10% Cal admits. Let’s face it.</p>
<p>From my kid’s school Naviance over couple of years:</p>
<p>Stanford 9/130 (admitted/applied)
UCB 175/490 (admitted/applied)</p>
<p>Go to Stanford or other top colleges if you can, otherwise UCB is a good choice.</p>
<p>UCB - Stanford cross admit:</p>
<p>From my kid’s school:</p>
<p>4-5 years ago: 100 % UCB/ 0 % Stanford (3 admitted to Stanford but chose UCB because of money issue).
In the last 3 years: 0% UCB/ 100% Stanford</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the statement answered the percentage of Cal admits who also are admitted at Stanford, the percentage is probably just below 5%. In 2010, the number of cross-admits was around 600. From those 600, the number of students who opted for Cal is probably a single digit one. </p>
<p>RML might have been confused by the fact that 26% of Stanford’s admits were also admitted at Cal, something that is totally expected from the strong regional appeal of both schools.</p>
<p>Tipically 30-35 admitted to UCB and 1-3 admitted to Stanford per year. 5% is about right.
Some stronger public HS could have 10% Stanford/UCB admitted. But there are not many of these in CA. Maybe 2 or 3 per city.</p>
<p>Top private college prep HSs may have 26% Stanford/UCB because students in these schools have money and prefer private colleges.</p>
<p>… I don’t have any interest in this normally because both are NorCal, but…</p>
<ul>
<li>I think the people at Cal would probably have more personality. There’s a reason why a lot of people refer to Stanford students as Stepford children.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>Bands like Counting Crowes started at Cal; I don’t see Stanford’s students as doing these things.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Cal’s undergrad bus program is top five. Architecture the same. At Stanford one majors in lit or whatever then goes to bus school. At LSJU, one majors in, say, engineering then goes to architectural school. Cal grad is two steps ahead of LSJU grad.</p></li>
<li><p>If oos student is pondering being a CA resident, then the comraderie of Cal alumni here would be a lot more fun than being a LSJU grad. More Cal alumni, more get-togethers social events at one’s firm. Group outtings to football games, etc. Not enough Stanford alumni, except at a few firms because LJSU alumni are more internationally and nationally spread out, etc, in addition to not being nearly as many. There are a lot of prestigious firms in CA where Cal alumni outnumber LJSU’s by 7 or greater to 1.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
These high schools do not matriculate nearly enough students to validate UCBChemEGrad’s statement.</p>
<p>^Can you link me? I had difficulty digging up the info. -.- </p>
<p>Sure sentimentGX4. Here it is:</p>
<p>[University</a> of Michigan top in nation for research spending at public universities - Crain’s Detroit Business - Detroit News and Information](<a href=“http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20100928/FREE/100929866/university-of-michigan-top-in-nation-for-research-spending-at-public-universities]University”>University of Michigan top in nation for research spending at public universities)</p>
<p>“If you want apples to apples, Berkeley + UCSF + LBNL + LLNL would get you on a level playing field…”</p>
<p>You mean apples + oranges to apples right UCB? Defactos don’t count, otherwise they would be listed as apples. ;-)</p>
<p>xiggi:
</p>
<p>In one of my posts, I mentioned 600+. Because it was a Stanford report, the numbers must be based on their data. </p>
<p>According to the Stanford report, Stanford shares 26% of cross-admits with Berkeley. According to the same report, Berkeley wasn’t even in the top 20 of those schools Stanford admits went into, or enrolled in. So, I guess it’s safe to assume that only quite a few chose to attend Berkeley instead of Stanford.</p>
<p>Now, if Stanford admitted 2,500 students this year, that means, 650 of those admits were also Berkeley admits. If Berkeley isn’t one of those 20 schools where those Stanford admits enrolled, then we can safely presume that almost all those 650 students ended up enrolling in Stanford instead. There maybe quite a few of those students who chose to attend Berkeley instead, but I don’t think 50 or more of them did. Otherwise, Berkeley would have landed in the top 20 schools of those who did not attend Stanford instead.</p>
<p>
Review my posts. I mentioned 600+. Read back a few pages. I mentioned it there.</p>
<p>Post #46 on page 4 of this thread says;</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>RML, I am confused by your post. You are simply repeating the numbers I quoted. Obviously, you can safely assume that I have read the numbers shared by Dean Shaw. </p>
<p>My posts addressed this statement of yours “Stanford alone steals about 25% Berkeley admits.” Obviously, even if every one of the students admitted to both Stanford and Cal decided to attend Stanford (as opposed to ALMOST all of them) the loss by Cal if ITS OWN admitted pool would be extremely small, and well below the 25 percent you presented. </p>
<p>Hope that clears that up.</p>