Thanks, @coolweather , So you can’t apply to more than one UC at a time? Or more than one CSU at a time? What does the UC application involve?
fwiw: The number of out-of-state applicants grew by nearly 11%, and applications from international students increased nearly the same percentage. Four campuses — Irvine, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and Davis — saw applications from international students rise more than 20%.
Merced had the greatest % rise in all applications, although it still only 19000 or so.
Yes you apply to more than one UC on the same application, but there isn’t a way to rank your choices…
Thanks for clarifying that , qialah. That is definitely different from Virginia . There is no connection at all between UVa, W & M, or Virginia Tech. Separate all the way in terms of application and admission.
Re: #558
No, there is no ranking. Applicants use a UC application but can apply to any number of campuses (selecting division or major and paying fee for each campus). Each campus does its own admission readings, rankings, and decisions.
If a California resident who meets certain eligibility criteria happens to be shut out, s/he will be offered admission to a campus with space available (in practice, this means Merced). Non residents are not eligible for such a consolation prize.
CSUs have their own application that is conceptually similar, though there is no consolation prize admission. CSUs also have preference for local area applicants.
Thanks. So, separate application fees and reads for each UC. So there is a guarantee to get into a UC like Merced if nothing else if you meet UC eligibility criteria, even if you did not apply to the school iniitially? Are transcripts , SAT scores sent to the UC system in general or do they have to be sent to each campus separately? Those costs add up.
Many state systems are overburdened . California has such a large population with many high achieving students. It does sound like a tough admissions landscape, that’s for sure.
Au contraire. I’m shocked, shocked that 8 suckers would pony up. PT Barnum was right. 
I raised that question years ago. But the answer is political correctness. Think about it: if Merced was super low cost – I’d make it zero tuition for instaters – it would attract a disproportionate number of low income kids, and that just can’t be in an Lake Wobegone State. (All the kids are above average.)
Alternatively, increase the cost of the big two/three, and even more for the 'vocationa’l schools (engineering, business, architecture…)
bluebayou, You repeatedly seem to try to link the term “vocational” with certain professional degrees such as engineering and architecture. These are professional degrees.
Yes, I do use that term purposely, sevmom, bcos that is the correct name for it in the world of education. (as opposed to a “liberal education”.)
And that clarifies your opinion. It is your opinion . Thanks.
Re #565
The consolation prize of Merced is offered to shut out California residents who meet either top 9% statewide or top 9% in high school. Note that these are by a UC recalculation, not the class rank calculated by the high school.
One set of test scores for UC and one set for CSU. No transcripts on application, since courses and grades are self reported. Final transcripts are needed if one matriculates.
Thanks, @ucbalumnus . The top percentages formulas sound interesting. Texas seems to do that/is doing that. SAT’s seem easier to prep for if you really want to improve your chances.
But this is already the case, Merced has close to 60% Pell grant eligible, followed by UCR. Kids with $ shut out from the top & middle UC campuses tend to go Cal State /U Arizona or Oregon/ Oregon State- the latter options offering decent football as a perk. Plus the regional OOS campuses offer generous merit awards to CA kids to bring the cost on par with UC.
@CaliDad2020 - I don’t believe the lower-tiered UCs are drawing from the same customer base as private colleges – two different consumers. There aren’t very many OOS kids who are weighing UC Irvine vs. Kenyon, or Santa Barbara vs. Carleton. Comparing the value of a non-selective UC to a comparable private is not a helpful exercise. You’re going after a market that doesn’t exist or is very tiny if it does exist.
I still stand by the earlier argument that the lower-tiered UCs simply are not compelling values to OOS college buyers. There is very little market for them — especially among those students with high stats who are the most likely to cross state lines or pay for a tippy-top selective private. I won’t argue against your facts that the lower-tiered UCs do get OOS students – they obviously get some, but they are not high-stats kids that will contribute to the bragging rights of these schools, which is part of the incentive to admit them. Instead of focusing on the number of applicants - focus instead on the OOS yield. The OOS yield at the lower-tiered UCs is very low, which tells you the whole story.
Unlike the lower-tier schools, UCLA and Berkeley can attract high-stats OOS kids away from their respective flagships. They get the bonus OOS dollars without sacrificing bragging rights. You can’t say this about the other UC campuses.
I’ve lived in California and paid California taxes, and many family members are UC grads (me included). I’ve experienced first-hand the value of a UC education. However, as the mother of a high-stats kid weighing UC cost for OOS against our own well-respected in-state campus, I would not pay for UC Irvine when I can get that experience cheaper in-state.
@PragmaticMom You can stand by your argument all you want, but the stats are the stats. The fact is that Irvine has plenty/too many OOS/International applicants and the number is growing by over 10% each and every year. It cannot admit more than 50% of them - and that’s anticipating the historical yield.
I don’t know how long ago you left the state, but the numbers are easy to find and are clearing rising at a very rapid rate. Acceptance numbers are plummeting at all campuses. Application numbers are through the roof at all campuses. Merced had a 20% increase in applications. “Bragging rights” are not the issue, 38,900 clams per head is the issue.
The only question is whether Riverside can rise to the level that Irvine and Santa Cruz were a few years ago. In this competitive international college environment, I think it probably can over the next few years.
Merced is obviously a bigger problem and is unlikely to be able to increase its OOS/International enrollment by much.
But your statement about Irvine is simply no longer true, if it ever was. You can see the growth here:
http://admitguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/UC_Admissions_Trends_2009-20141.pdf
Irvine and Davis from 600 international to 4000 + in 2014 and it has more applicants again in 2015 and 2016. Irvine has more OOS/International than UCB (as UCB is a smaller school.)
If you want to see the admit rates and the matriculation rates for UCs by campus over time these two sites give a pretty good snap-shot:
This is matriculants filterable by campus, gender, major etc.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-headcounts
This is admissions by residence area: (CA/OOS/International)
http://admitguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/UC_Admissions_Trends_2009-20141.pdf
Shows the almost 10 fold growth in International at Irvine and Davis, as well as the increases at other campuses.
If I’m reading this right a quick look makes it look like Irvine OOS yield is about 34% (in the range of total yield for UWash, Washington at St.L, Rice etc.) and combined OOS/International yield is 40-50% or so. (which is pretty high, actually)
The chancellor of the University of California at Davis has been placed on leave.
When reading this story, keep in mind the budget pressures that caused the “boom” in international/OOS enrollment, stagnant faculty salaries, and recent layoffs…
Not sure I see anything but possible nepotism, which itself maybe a no-no, but may not be a budget buster.
My point is that budget pressures would only matter if: 1) Daughter-in-law was significantly overpaid for her position; and/or 2) Daughter-in-law was not performing up to the level required for a Chief of Staff; and/or 3) a Chief of Staff is unneeded. (Do other campuses have similar function at similar pay rate? I have no idea.)
In other words, if Gator was Chief of Staff and making that same salary, which was market-based, and performing exceedingly well, there would be no budget issue, assuming that the position was necessary.
Yes, the optics are bad, but what were the salary increases for the other Vice Chancellors? Were they all given 20% raises, or just her DIL’s boss?
btw: her son is an epidemiology grad student. Big deal? Not likely, since Davis is not an Epi powerhouse, so its not likely that competitive to get in.
We need more facts, which of course, UC won’t proffer.
“UNC-CH has a cap of 18% out-of-state students, and therefore the OOS kids are generally much better qualified. It’s a bitter pill to swallow that the UC institutions are actually being filled with inferior students than our own.”
This is a complex issue. In the case of California, I believe the State voted to end all merit aid to OOS students. As a taxpayer, I understand that. Additionally, the UCs need a certain percent of full pay international and OOS students to make ends meet. However, now they are surprised that to attract those needed full pay students, they have to bend the admissions requirements.
Additionally, other top publics (I am thinking of Michigan) will sometimes offer a distinguished OOS student a merit scholarship that is effectively for the difference between the OOS and in-state rate to attend. It is a way for them to compete effectively for top talent with the Ivy League and peers. It is my understanding that Cal schools no longer have this arrow in their quiver. Over time, the reduction in student quality is likely to translate into lower rankings and further impairs the schools ability to compete.
In the long run, as States continue to reduce support for public universities, they have to decide whether they want to fund a Flagship University at a level that will allow them to compete effectively with the top Private Universities and has a more National profile, or whether they are happy with a lower ranked school for in-state students. I the priority to attract top students nationally, or to use OOS and international students as a funding source to achieve the budget targets.
There is an additional cost to using OOS and international students as a funding source if you don’t want to bend your admissions standards. In that case you will have to disproportionately allocate the best seats to OOS and international full pay students. For example, I am told that Illinois is extremely difficult to get into for Computer Science, because it is a top program that they use this as bait to attract the full pay OOS and International students that they need.
In that case, they are not bending the standards, but they are admitting may fewer in-state students because they can sell the seat for more money to OOS students.
There is no right or wrong, but each decision has a cost.
@much2learn the UCs are still cheaper (by quite a bit) than UMich or even UWash. And UCLA had over 100k apps this year. UCB and UCSD not far behind.
I think it is unlikely that, since the number of OOS/International is supposed to staying constant or decreasing that there is any reason the stats should go down. The reason the stats HAVE gone down is that Irvine and Davis, in particular, have increased their OOS/International admits exponentially over the past 10 years. If they hold at current levels or back off them a bit, there will be no further erosion in OOS/International stats.