<p>How do stats for instate matriculants to UC compare to those from OOS? Are instate higher or lower than OOS?</p>
<p>Probably less selective for in-state at Merced and perhaps other less selective UCs.</p>
<p>For Berkeley, it seemed indistinguishable in 2009 on [University</a> of California: StatFinder](<a href=“http://statfinder.ucop.edu%5DUniversity”>http://statfinder.ucop.edu) between in-state and overall, but there have not been any newer stats than 2009. Presumably, more recent stats, filterable the same way, would be of interest to this discussion.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is just so simple as to compare the the total instate-OOS numbers, however. I believe a proper analysis will require comparing similar demographic groups.</p>
<p>UC holds approximately 33% of campus spots for low income students (Pell Grantees), most/many of which also have lower test scores (if one believes CB’s self-reported data). Of course, we can assume that 99% of the Pell students are instate.</p>
<p>Thus, the OOS students are competing with the higher income instaters for the other 2/3rds of the class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those numbers are as clear as “yi de ge mo zhi.” See <a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Calligraphy-Black-Ink-100G/dp/B005XOYZ54[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Calligraphy-Black-Ink-100G/dp/B005XOYZ54</a> for a better imagery. </p>
<p>It is virtually impossible to draw reasonable correlations from the data on test scores and income in California, as they seem to contradict most national statistics, and are the probable result of the “creative” reporting used by many in the land of fruits and nuts.</p>
<p>xiggi:</p>
<p>not sure what your post is attempting to say (I’m not that sophisticated), but the number of Pell Grantees is a real number counted by the Feds (since it is their money).</p>
<p>According to ipeds – a federal data source – Berkeley is comprised of 32% Pell Grantees. UC Riverside is nearly 50% Pell Grantees.</p>
<p>Or do you dispute the income-test score issue?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You missed my basic point which is that if California’s only willing/able to fund 11% of UC’s budget, Californians don’t have much leverage to have their complaints amount to much. </p>
<p>UC has to figure out a way to cover the 89% shortfall and would prefer to find it from families/students who’d be willing to pay OOS prices with little/no complaining…OOS/international students with no claims to “in-state pricing” rights…however illusory it is increasingly becoming…</p>
<p>Moreover, UC can only raise tuition by so much before their pricing becomes so uncompetitive with other comparable schools…including Ivies that smart, but poor students end up opting for private elite universities/LACs with far better FA/scholarships or well-off kids who don’t want to attend a school where they overwhelmingly dominate the campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find it interesting you included Boston College in the same list as the other universities. Back when I was in high school, the kids who had a decent shot at getting into Georgetown or Yale wouldn’t even consider BC as a safety. </p>
<p>Most kids who applied and attended BC tended to come from the middle to upper bottom 50% of my graduating class who aspired to humanities/social science/pre-law majors, BC sports fanatics, or those who “Must be in Boston” for college. Even now, no one I know would place BC on the same level as Cal, UCLA, or Georgetown.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry for the Chinese Ink reference. I will try to be more direct. </p>
<p>I do not dispute the reports; I do dispute the accuracy and integrity of the original sources. In so many words, the high number of Pell grantees in California seems to be pegged to the systemic (and convenient) underreporting of cash or not-so-legal income, especially among recent and second generation immigrants. Wonder why the numbers might not correlate well with other states with large and constant immigration? Why are the Pell numbers for Texas and California not more similar at their respective flagship schools? Wonder why the trends in the historical Pell numbers are different at Cal/UCLA and say, Santa Barbara? </p>
<p>As far as the high income vs high scores correlation, how would reconcile the purported high scores by Asians at the UC flagships and the highest percentages of Pell in the nation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know, I don’t either, although it is getting close. The reason I mentioned it is because coureur intimated that there are not enough smart, rich CA kids to fill the 35% of spots going to OOS/internationals at Cal. This particular student was a valedictorian at one of the most highly competitive public CA high schools, who was rejected by Cal. He wanted Cal, but ended up choosing BC for its religious bent. My point is that this student is undeniably capable of doing the work at Cal and is full-pay, so I counted him among the other examples I used. I also subsequently remembered another full-pay student who was admitted to UCLA and Princeton, but denied at Cal. He chose P. I’m sure there are countless other smart, full-pay students who had/ will have a similar experience. There are also plenty of students at our high school who do not get into any Ivies, and end up at Cal, which evidences that Cal is not more competitive than those colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also have wondered about this, particularly because people on this site have stated that Asians in America are one of the most, if not the most, financially successful when looked at by race. I don’t know if this is true, but it seems to be repeated a lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see your point, xiggi: Pell Grants are for poor kids; Asians get into UCs because they are smart; If lots of Asians have Pell Grants at the UCs, then there must be a lot of smart, poor Asians. However, since in California Asians are actually fairly middle-class and not generally poor, we can assume (a) Asians make good money in the underground cash (non-reporting) economy and (b) Asians have low reportable income and so take advantage of Pell Grants for the poor, leading to the ultimate conclusion that the Asians are cheating and gaming the heck of the UC and Fed loan system. Once you realize this, you almost appreciate Harvard for only having 16% Asians vs. the almost 50% at Berkeley: since we know Asians are prestige-crazy, so they all apply there, Harvard must be doing something to keep the cheaters out (“holistic admissions”!), while Berkeley isn’t. This latter paragraph is basically politically incorrect xiggi, restated.</p>
<p>Another approach is to have a family member in another country have the ownership of family wealth so that the family living in the US looks asset-poor. An asian coworker told me about this approach that a friend of his used to greatly reduce their college costs. My friend was not particularly happy about it as his son is full-pay.</p>
<p>Of course to do this - you’d better be sure that you can trust your foreign family not to abscond with the money. I think that this sort of thing would be a lot harder to catch by the IRS and Treasury than the swiss banking stuff that they’re currently prosecuting successfully.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Remember that federal financial aid is more income than asset based. The rules are different at schools that use the IM methods. </p>
<p>And, fwiw, in addition to segregate the “various” types of reportable income, family-owned businesses can play musical chairs with income through the college years.</p>
<p>Oh well, I said it!</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>I am shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on here!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being capable of doing the work at Cal or any peer elite institution is an exceedingly low standard. </p>
<p>Especially when I knew of dozens of classmates from my NYC public STEM magnet high school who exceeded that standard at topflight LACs/universities like Reed and Columbia as transfer students despite having graduated near the bottom of our respective graduating classes with C/D level HS GPAs. </p>
<p>If one attends a high competitive high school, I would hope that all of its graduates be “capable of doing the work” at any respectable/elite college.</p>
<p>What I would really like to know is, which colleges were the second choice of the 1,438 (35%) freshmen OOS/Int’ls who chose to pay $55,500 to attend Cal?</p>
<p>Not sure about other countries but the fullpay kids coming from India are targeting schools that are highly ranked in engineering.</p>
<p>MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, Cornell, Univ Illinois UC, Georgia Tech, UT Austin, Purdue, CMU etc. There are some scholarships funded by an Indian company at Cornell (4 or so each year?).</p>
<p>Bay, not sure what you mean? Their second choice schools will be peer institutions in the field of interest, e.g., my 2011/15 OOS admit didn’t enroll, but the decision came down to Cal and a handful of other schools of comparable caliber in natural sciences. </p>
<p>Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk</p>
<p>I know a local kid who is attending berkeley because electrical engineering is number 3 although both Rice and UT would have been cheaper.</p>
<p>^ Yup, our list included those less-costly options (Rice and in-state tuition at UT) plus other national private unis that cost same/more than Cal. It is challenging for an OOS/int’l to justify paying for Cal considering its financial issues. We parents were relieved decision to say “no thanks” to Cal turned primarily on factors on the merits.</p>
<p>Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk</p>
<p>Georgia Girl
clear your pm box</p>