@bluebayou, so by the same token, CA residents should ask their legislators why they haven’t increased UC spending enough so that OOS/international tuition isn’t required, right?
@Desiree2 yes, as I mentioned the UC budgets don’t work that way. That said, they could - in a way. If the UCB budget was simply increased by the 24k for every OOS they cut back on, and the UCSC budget was allowed to keep the extra 24k (or whatever it is) you have a wash. Now, politically and practically it’s a much more difficult thing to do, of course. But the theory is pretty simple and those numbers could easily be balanced over time.
Many of those schools where students are not directly admitted to engineering majors force all engineering hopefuls to go through a weed-out process where they must earn a high GPA or go through another competitive admission process to enter their majors, because the engineering majors are filled to capacity. Examples include Washington (although a few may get direct admission to some majors), Purdue, Texas A&M, Minnesota, Virginia Tech. Wisconsin admits to the major, but has progression requirements of a high GPA to stay in the major. Most would say that this can be excessively stressful on the students and can promote cutthroat competition.
It does seem rather common that the engineering majors being filled to capacity is mostly at flagship-level public universities, though some highly selective private universities may also have this situation. Less selective schools have a higher attrition due to course and curricular rigor, while some of the private schools are well-endowed enough to afford to maintain enough excess capacity in every major to keep them open for all interested students (such maintenance of excess capacity would be seen as wasteful by a budget-limited public school).
Expanding capacity is another potential solution, but engineering is probably more costly to expand (when hiring faculty, must compete with industry, and labs and equipment also cost more money than would be needed in subjects like math and English). Expansion in an existing university needs to also consider the university’s overall capacity constraints. At a new university, there may be more flexibility (within the constraint of cost) of choosing department size; UCM does appear to have a greater percentage of engineering among students than most other UCs besides UCSD.
Then, we have the same situation as your daughter again. An angry parent calls up UCs saying why isn’t their daughter accepted to UCSC - her dream school. Why is a spot for my daughter given to an OOS, who has higher stats and would have been attending UCB or UCLA if there wasn’t a decrease of OOS admits in UCB.
@sevmom perhaps, but you still can’t ignore that the UC engineering show up way, way, way down any list of % of women and URMs admitted or graduated from undergrad engineering programs. That’s not an accident.
Some of it is 209. But some of it is structural. The L&S system, which allows more flexibility, seems to encourage female and URM participation. The UC “apply to the major” system seems not to.
Why no one has thought to try to change it, I don’t know. Some schools do a bit of both - a percentage apply to “undeclared” a % to the major. UCLA has a very, very low number admitted “undeclared.” I think UCSD can elect to put you in that pot.
But whatever the cause, there is clear statistical evidence that the UC engineering schools are very poor at admitting women and URMs. This is not something I’ve discovered. Nearly every dean of every engineering school has said as much. It’s just no one seems to want to actually make the structural changes that could work toward rectifying the imbalance.
@Desiree2 sure, you can’t make everyone happy, but if you are going to sell your seats, why would you sell the most valuable ones - ESPECIALLY since at the moment the % of OOS and internationals are highest at UCB and UCLA.
Once it gets to PAR across the campuses, then you reassess. But, of course, at the moment you are saying to the resident kids whose parents pay taxes: Oh, Riverside is awesome - it’s great for you… but not, of course, those 30% OOS/Internationals we send to UCLA and UCB.
Get all 9 campuses to 25%. Then we can talk.
UCB allows students to apply to CoE undeclared. However, the number of students admitted to CoE undeclared is small to avoid causing any CoE major to go over capacity when they (freely) choose their majors later. Hence CoE undeclared is probably more selective than the CoE declared majors in frosh admissions.
UCSD may admit engineering applicants as undeclared, but it can be very difficult to change from undeclared into an engineering major later, due to the engineering majors being filled with direct admit students.
As described in #302, many other universities admit all or most engineering hopefuls into undeclared or pre-engineering, but do not allow free entry into the engineering majors due to capacity limitations. Instead, students effectively have to pass through a weed-out process and earn a high enough GPA or apply to a competitive admission process to get into the desired major.
@CaliDad2020 The most valuable seat is the one that is a low reach for a student. The number of people happy/ unhappy remains the same. The number of valuable seats remain the same. For a kid who is a match for UCR, the valuable seat is UCSC. For a kid who is a match for UCSC, the valuable seat is UCB.
Once, it is 25% at all campuses, you are still saying Riverside is awesome to students who would have got in at UCSC or UCSD if the OOS rate did not increase.
Your approach is merely moving the top portion of mid UCs admits to UCB/ UCLA and the bottom portion back to Riverside. All you are doing is making yourself happy by letting your daughter go to a school where she was rejected from.
Non-residents probably have a steeper drop-off in their desirability ratings for the “lower” schools in the perceived UC “hierarchy” than residents do*. So it will be harder for UCR and UCM to add to their non-resident enrollment while maintaining broadly similar or higher levels of non-resident admit qualifications compared to residents than it will be for UCB or UCLA to do so.
*Think of it this way – do students in California commonly apply to out-of-state publics other than the flagship (or second most selective as well for some states)?
@desiree2 There is actual evidence as to the salary value of a given degree, on average.
Now, should that be the only driving factor? I would say not. But why should one or two UCs have lopsided OOS/International admit numbers?
Wouldn’t a more fair approach apportion those OOS/international slots equally across schools?
I don’t see why it wouldn’t.
Because you can’t, the data for UCI shows 5000 out of 7500 OOS were accepted, and only around 1000 of them choose to attend. So let’s say 7000 of the OOS were accepted - barring those with extremely low scores and GPA.
You would only have a 400 more OOS. That is not enough to raise the percentage to 25%. There simply isn’t enough OOS students applying to weak UCs.
Salary does not mean valuable seat, the increase in salary means a valuable seat. If an OOS student can attend his or her state flagship for an avg salary of 60k vs UCB of 65k. The seat is only 5K more valuable. However, if an instate can attend UCSC for an avg salary of 55k vs UCR of 50k. Then, the seat is equally valuable to both of them because they get the same increase in salary. If you moved the OOS from UCB to UCSC, you are robbing the UCSC of the valuable seat (5k increase)
@ucbalumnus I’m not sure which schools you are talking about, but UMich, for instance, allows you to select any engineering major so long as you meet their minimum academic eligibility. I believe the same is true for NYU-Tandon, USC, UPenn, etc. Stanford, Brown and Princeton, I believe, don’t even admit to an specific school. You could choose painting or Civil Engineering. Other schools have all variations on the extremes.
But the fact remains: UC engineering have a “problem” - the dean’s words, not mine - with gender and URM diversity.
They have a structure to their system that seems to help maintain that “problem.”
No one seems interested in changing it.
The “problem” persists and the UC rate of women and URM’s admitted and graduated stays lower than many, many comparable schools.
Occam, have at it.
@desiree2 Ok. let’s start with adding 200 to each of UCR, UCM, UCSC. 600 kids. Cut 600 OOS/International out of UCB/UCLA 300 each.
I’m ok with starting there. And I bet, with a few more accepted. A few kids going home and saying how great UCSC is and how close Riverside is to Coachella… You’ll get to 25% pretty quickly.
Sounds like a plan!
Also, why is there any incentives for the UCs to adapt your approach. No matter how they move the spots around, there are going to angry parents calling them. They are just doing extra work of moving the budgets around so the group of UCB rejects’ parents can be happy, while a group of UCSD admits who are now not being accepted due to increase in OOS students can be angry and protest.
At first you are saying that the UCB chairman should be voted out because of all the OOS money filling her pockets. But now once UCB accept your daughter and decrease the number of OOS students. You have no problem with UCSC’s chairman filling his or her pocket with OOS money.
Also, there is a reason why UCB does not want to accept more in state because there aren’t enough good applicants.
My daughter’s numbers were similar to your daughter numbers. Her math scores were higher.
She didn’t get into Berkeley. She didn’t get into UCLA.
It is way harder now then when she applied.
That link I posted in post 313. Look at how many out of staters really want to go to UCR. Look at how many really want to go to Merced.
Even UCLA… For out of staters …look at how many students matriculated. That was why the admit numbers were the way they were.
From the link in post 313.
Analyzing the trend; Click here for the FULL REPORT on UC Admissions Decisions data for Out-of-State, International and Residents from 2009-2014. The trend will change this year and next; the UC has made a commitment to increase resident enrollment by 10,000 students over the next two years.
The following table outlines the time periods for the 2016 UC Admissions Decisions. University of California campuses will notify both freshmen of UC Admissions Decisions for Fall 2016 on the following dates.
Good news for Cali residents applying to all UC’s this year; including UCLA and Berkeley. The UC plans to increase enrollment of residents this year and will admit a higher number of residents (freshmen and transfer) applying for entry Fall 2016 and 2017, compared to 2015. (Thanks to Governor Brown)
308, Yes. For example:
https://nau.edu/PAIR/_Forms/Fact-Book/Current-Fact-Book/C-Student-Characteristics/
@desiree2 It is your last point that is the problem. There is 0 evidence that there are no in-state applicants who have equally good slots. If you have some I would like to see it.
The “incentive” for the UCs is if they are forced to do it. I believe the UC deans much prefer to run their schools as much like a private university as they can. (And the UC Davis Chancellor who I called out did not line her pockets with OOS students - or at least it wasn’t only that way. Have a look at her conflict of interest record and judge for yourself. It is easy to google.)
You don’t have to like my idea. I happen to like my idea.
But I am interested in your claim that here are no “good enough” resident applicants to take those slots. I’d like to see that data.
Dean Sastry, the actual, you know, Dean of the actual UC COE does not seem to agree with you. - Sastry said, “There’s roughly twice as many students who would meet all of these extremely high GPA requirements that we were not able to admit.” http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/07/18/university-of-california-not-producing-enough-engineers-dean-charges/
But maybe you have evidence that refutes his claim.
If there are enough good applicants. Why is the average SAT/ GPA for in state lower than OOS for UCB and UCLA.
COE is just a small part of UCB. Let us not focus on COE just because your daughter did not get in and focus on the school as a whole.