I know, it was just an extreme example to make my point. My D was a NMF, 2370 SAT and got rejected as OOS to UCLA. She got in later on appeal, but obviously they’re still applying their holistic voodoo to OOS regardless of test scores and GPA so I don’t think they’re fretting too much over resident vs OOS score disparities.
There has been a lot of legislative comment today regarding the auditors report. It has not been favorable. There are attempts to limit the amount of OOS students and also to make sure legislatively that standards for OOS students are not reduced to less than instate students. There is a strong feeling in California that UC is there to serve the states students first
They have always offered some scholarships (e.g. Regents’ scholarships) to out-of-state students as well as in-state students. In addition, there are outside-funded scholarships (Drake, Stamps) run by the campuses that out-of-state students are eligible for.
As for differences in GPAs, I believe that OOS students’ GPAs are penalized more by the recalculated UC GPA than IS students. If I remember correctly from a couple years ago when my son applied, the UC GPA gives a boost to APs and certain Honors classes, but the Honors classes have to be on an approved list of CA classes, so the OOS students do not receive the same boost for their Honors classes. I could be wrong, but I think that is how the UC GPA worked.
@proudparent26 Sorry, I should have said MEDICAID, not Medicare. The Medicaid program is ran jointly by the State and Federal governments. In California, the Fed’s fund 56% of Medicaid, while the state funds 44%.
The state flagships have two COMPLETELY separate markets and admissions pools that they address. Because the prices and applicant pools are very different.
To get OOS students at the OOS price, UCLA and UCB are competing with UVA, UM, UNC, maybe UT. Plus elite privates. So the admissions criteria and price for UCB and UCLA have to be comparable to their competition. In this OOS/private market, the OOS applicants don’t care what the price and admissions standards are for in-staters. They only care about the price/value proposition of UCB/UCLA OOS as compared to their other available options.
If UCB and UCLA want to sell higher priced seats, they (just like UM and UVA and UNC) need to set their OOS price/value/admissions at a level that’s competitive. At some state flagships (UM, UVA, UNC) that means that OOS admissions standards can actually be higher than in-state. At other flagships, that means OOS standards have to be lower. In some places, a lot lower.
UCB and UCLA are in a pretty good market position. They can sell OOS seats while still having very high admissions standards. Just a tiny bit under their very high in-state standards.
It’s a market folks.
It may be a market but its not a free market.
1 percent fewer instate students? In order to bring in more money? I don’t see a big problem here.
I think UCLA is doing ok. 97,000 freshman applicants for fall 2016.
Indeed, it is, but I don’t believe that you have defined the market correctly, since the demographics of each state are significantly different. Thus, the market is really different. The vast majority of kids attend college within a half-days’ drive from home.
UC is not competing with UNC. It just ain’t. I’d bet that the cross-applicant pool from OOS is less than 50, if that high.
Michigan is generally easier to get into OOS than Cal and UCLA are instate. Plus, the high school population in Michigan is barely growing, so they need to continue to seek top students from neighboring states. Different applicant cohorts. Plus, unlike UC, Michigan doesn’t offer need-based aid to OOS’ers.
UVa is top dog in a region with not highly valued publics. (‘Anything but Rutgers’ (or Maryland) is a common refrain on cc.) 'Rents will pay more to send Johnny or Susie to Charlottesville, but not across country.
If they wanted to “sell higher priced seats” they would not discount them to attract the OOS’ers. 
Actually, isn’t it the other way around? UC is stopping need-based aid to out-of-state students (although such aid did not cover the out-of-state additional tuition anyway), while Michigan recently added good need-based aid to low income out-of-state students.
Just want to point out that the kids who can afford OOS tuition at UCs/UMich/etc. will almost certainly not be like the vast majority of college students, so I would not be surprised at all if the UCs are indeed competing with UMich/UVa/et al for OOS students.
Just anecdotally, from looking at various threads on CC, that seems to be the case.
“If they wanted to “sell higher priced seats” they would not discount them to attract the OOS’ers.”
But are not discounted OOS seats still higher priced than in-state seats?
UCB and UCLA presumably are setting their OOS price and OOS admit standards at the place where they need to be to hit budget for revenue and academics. If they could sell OOS seats at a higher price to kids with higher stats, they would be doing that. Right?
UCB and UCLA may not compete head-to-head for tons of OOS students looking at UNC and UVA due to regional factors. But they definitely are competing for OOS-ers looking at places like UT, UM, UW. As well as privates like USC, Stanford, etc.
A friend’s kid here in Colorado targeted three schools – Stanford (denied), Cal (wait list) and Michigan (attending). Another friend’s kid is studying comp sci at UW – kid looked at UCB but liked UW better.
And OOS also includes internationals. They are beyond a half day’s drive.
Why am I not surprised? Prop 13 way back in the late 70s was the beginning of the end as far as education funding goes.
“Back in 2009 the Academic Senate at UCSD advocated closure of UCR to help bolster the budget and preserve the “real” flagship campuses”.
Yes, and UCR responded by opening a new medical school in 2013. Also, Davis has a football team and recently transitioned their athletics up to Div. I. All the non-Berkeley+UCLA UCs are trying hard to establish themselves “real” flagships along side their sister campuses in Berkeley and LA. If you were going to play Devil-take-the-hindmost with the UCs you’d probably start with Merced and then move on to Santa Cruz.
“They have always offered some scholarships (e.g. Regents’ scholarships) to out-of-state students as well as in-state students.”
Yeah,but the Regents Scholarship at UCB is more honor than cash - only $2500. By contrast, a Regents at Davis will get you $7500. Combined with the lower cost of living in Davis vs. Berkeley, that’s a significant boost. If you were a smart OOS student pondering whether going to Berkeley makes financial sense, I doubt whether $2500 is enough to turn the tide in Berkeley’s favor.
Yes, UNC-CH has received some of the highest state funding per in-state student in the US among all universities. However, now they are facing budget cuts.
UVa has had 1/3 out of state students among undergrad for many decades. One of the reasons is that out of state alums have often become the biggest donors to the U. after graduation. Also, many top out of state UVa grads stay in Virginia - it is the opposite of a “brain drain.”
UVa says that much of the excess tuition that is charged wealthy out of state students is used to provide financial aid for less affluent out of state US students. UVa also transfers large profits from its health care system into its academics.
UVa and UNC-CH are the only two publics that meet 100% of the proven need for all US students.
Regents’ scholars at UCB who have financial need will get full need met (against FAFSA EFC) with no student contribution – basically about $8,000 better than regular financial aid for a high need in-state student. This applies to out-of-state students as well, including coverage of the out-of-state additional tuition that was not otherwise covered with regular financial aid when it did exist for out-of-state students.
Prefer the diversity you create at public flagships letting in American students from various states than so many international students from places where phony credentials and cheating is rampant.
I think you have to be very careful with using the meeting of 100 percent need numbers.
There are more students with need at UCB and UCLA. Compared to UVA and UNC, the numbers or percentages aren’t close.
Columbia’s numbers blow me away too.
“Columbia’s numbers blow me away too.”
Columbia has long tradition of accommodating very smart, poor kids from NYC. It’s the Ivy League commuter school.
The people of California would be just as happy if there were no OOS students at UC. That is why many members of the legislature were unhappy about the recent auditors report . A number of bills have been introduced to limit the number of OOS students at UC
Is there any State Flagship Universities that admits to setting lower admissions standards for OOS students??! Because the UC doesn’t (which is one reason they are attacking the auditors report). They may say they need to recruit more OOS for revenue, but they will not admit to lowering admissions standards (and rejecting better qualified in-state students).
These flagship universities are state public institutions. They don’t have the option of treating admissions as if it’s a laissez faire “market place”.