<p>Pell Grants by definition, only use Fafsa and 1040’s. Congress sets the rules for defining reportable income. Do people play games with income? Do people falsify 1040’s? Sure. Are you suggesting that there are more ‘gamers’ in California who apply to UC? Are you suggesting that California has more small business owners than other states? Are you suggesting that UC finaid administrators use their professional judgement to override the fafsa formulation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UC Santa Barbara is also 31% Pell grantees.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Never looked at UT, sorry. But I’d guess the obvious answer is two fold: 1) Texas top 10% rule which squeezes out anyone not in the top decile; 2) UC gives big bonus points to low income applicants, unlike other state flagships. (Sure, some/many of those applicants have zero income and lotsa assets, perhaps even offshore, but that is the failure of fafsa, and not UC.)</p>
<p>Bb, why do I think you know what I meant to say? </p>
<p>Fwiw, I spoke about trends at UCSB. What was the percentage of Pell in 2008? Any changes in the diversity ratio as the Pell percentage increased from 24/25 percent?</p>
<p>As far Texas, the ten percent rule does hinder lower income students. Texas has about 20/21 percent Pell grantees.</p>
<p>I don’t know for sure but I know California has a lot of small business owners. My friend has 1 house, 1 business property, 4 cars. His business has 4 employees and receives a lot of cash payments. His children get financial aid from the UCs. His youngest kid is waived for application fees this year. My kids had to pay all application fees and had no financial aid from the UCs.</p>
<p>This is exactly what I mean. I am curious to know, when it came to decision time, what other “peer” institution the OOS/int’ls turned down (and if there really was one) in favor of spending $55,500 at Cal, and what was the determining factor.</p>
<p>It makes more sense to me that a CA student/family would be willing to pay more to stay in-state, but maybe the draw of CA is the determining factor for others.</p>
<p>To be sure, I have no clue on what you mean to say. I’m just trying to understand your posts, particularly this one: </p>
<p>
[quote=xiggi]
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./quote]</p>
<p>And this is a disproportional California issue? Do you have any supporting documentation? </p>
<p>According to UCSB’s website, the race/ethnic makeup of the campus since 2004/2005: White students went down 10% (58% to 48%) and Asian increased 2% (17% to 19%), while Chicano/Latino students increased from 19% to 23%. What conclusions can you/do you draw from such a change?</p>
<p>btw: one other factor in Cal and UCLA’s high proportion of low income students is location. Both campuses are in the state’s major urban centers, which are readily accessible by public transport. Thus both campuses have a lot of commuters. Many other state flagships are a distance from their state’s major population centers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With billions of internationals, there are plenty who have the means to pay sticker to attend an American school. Given its science/engineering pedigree, Cal is particularly attractive to Pacific Rim countries.</p>
<p>The UC’s appeal isn’t just limited to STEM…even among those from the Pacific Rim. They also have strong humanities/SS programs…including East Asian related fields where they rank at…or sometimes even above the Ivies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the mid-'90s at my NYC public magnet high school, their second choices would often be other elite universities…including HYPSMC and elite LACs…including SWAR. Then again, that may have changed if the UCs…especially Cal and UCLA has dramatically eased their OOS admission standards compared to the mid-'90s.</p>
<p>Cal also dropped out of top 10 and now top 20. I remember when I first landed in US in 1980s and spent a week with a family in the bay area, the hot topic was how it was so much cheaper to attend Berkeley vs Stanford while both were ranked in top 10 and how the Asian admit numbers were being controlled at Berkeley as a percentage.</p>
It’s a complete misconception that Cal dropped in rankings. In the 1980s, USNWR ranking methodology was entirely peer assessment. Today’s rankings using the same methodology have Cal at #6. Cal’s standing has not dropped, the ranking methodology has changed.</p>
<p>It is definitely harder for anyone to get into Berkeley or UCLA now than in the 1990s.</p>
<p>However, the relative difficulty of in-state versus out-of-state may have changed. In the 1990s, it is possible that some in-state applicants may have gotten in with high school GPAs below the out-of-state minimum (now 3.4, may have been 3.3 then), which is basically irrelevant these days for Berkeley and UCLA (but still relevant for the less selective campuses like Merced).</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad - I have not kept track of how USNWR has changed their methods over the years or going by Xiggi’s disdain for USNWR rankings, if they even meaning anything. All I can see is that USNWR finds a way to keep dropping the public schools out of the higher rankings. Nothing stopping them if they find a way to rank Harvard as the number 1 engineering school in 5 years by adjusting the methodology.</p>
<p>OTOH - there are millions out there who go by USNWR rankings as the gold standard and admissions deans seem to be rewarded in 6 or 7 figure bonuses based on a change like going from 9 to 5 because USNWR waved a magic wand and said 5 schools can be 5.</p>
<p>Bay, responsive to your #165, sorry I was unclear, my observation that it’s hard to justify paying for Cal “considering its financial issues” has nothing to do with the stated COA. While high for a public, the published annual cost to attend is +/- a few thousand of “the usual suspects” a top applicant will have on his/her list (assuming the vast majority of OOS/int’l are full pay applicants). So when it comes to deciding which offer to take, many will throw out cost as a factor because they’re all in the same ballpark.</p>
<p>However…if you look beyond the stated cost to value for price paid, the UC system’s financial issues come into play, which should bother a California resident the same way it bothered me coming from OOS. Budget cuts mean compromised services and, as forecast in our admission package, the possibility that classes will not be available as needed to graduate in 4 years. So, that’s why our family concluded it would be hard to justify paying for Cal compared to peer schools that appeared to offer greater value for the same/similar COA. </p>
<p>Of course, many people don’t look at the cost issue that way, and even those that do can rationalize “but it’s Cal, it will be worth it, warts and all!” And you’re right, the decision might come down to something so simple as “it’s in California!” for some kids. But all in all, I believe most admits weigh the choice to attend Cal against other peer schools on the usual grounds that contribute to selecting that school which looks like it will be the best personal fit.</p>
<p>I don’t think the stats will support the muse that Cal is dropping its OOS/int’l standards to enroll more of these money makers. Although StatFinder’s data tables with resident vs. non-resident detail end with the Class of 2009, the published GPA and SAT figures for the current Class of 2011 are consistent with a continued upward trend from the 2009 non-resident figures, which is inconsistent with the theory the addition of OOS/int’l students has brought Cal down. In fact, it looks like average GPA and SAT will be record high for this Class of 2011–early estimates were 3.88 ave unweighted and 75th percentile 740 CR, 770 M and 750 W.</p>
<p>Cal’s always attracted top kids from all 50 states and internationally. I can’t imagine that ever changing.</p>
<p>TPG, for the record, I have ofen written that USNWR offers a very valuable service by collating the information in a useful format. I have also written that despite their shortcomings, the publication remains the very best there is in terms of measuring various undergraduate schools, especially when compared to the biased garbage that has come out of China or London. It is also important to recognize the role played by USNews (along the College Board and Peterson’s) to bring us more transparency. </p>
<p>What I have decried has been the over-reliance on a manipulated and asinine metric, namely the Peer Assessment. My current “disdain” for the work done by Bob Morse has come from their obvious refusal to ferret out the blatant manipulation in submitted data (think Cal and Middlebury obfuscating admitted students,) and deny that the “expert” source they “contract” are not “experts” in the vast field Morse asks them to measure. What schools make out of the Peer Assessment was made clear when the lack of integrity at the Wisconsin or Clemson was revealed. Tip of the iceberg, I’d say! </p>
<p>As far as the changes from the early eighties, the downfall of public institutions was expected as very few of the metrics (except for the reputational index) could support a ranking in the top 20 undergraduate schools.</p>
Umm, their rankings focus on research and graduate education… important factors in a competing global society vs. the fluff that supposedly makes a wonderful undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>Perhaps “fit” works for US students/families. But for International students, so-called “fit” = prestige, which generally means PA scores (sorry xiggi).</p>
<p>I think Cal lost ground to HYPSM at NYC STEM magnet schools when stories circulated that Cal STEM students often got shut out of required courses and could not easily graduate in 4 years. In addition, most NYC magnet school students come from financially disadvantaged families, and HYPSM financial aid packages usually beat out Cal’s.</p>
<p>So what are the “peer” schools for UCLA/UCB/UCD/UCSB/UCI/UCSD if money is no object? Interesting graph on page 102 of a Google book on college statistics from another thread (manifesto something) shows that U Illinois Urbana, U Wisconsin, U Michigan, Case Western and a few others have similar student stats but much higher acceptance rate. UCLA is actually way off the graph for having low admission relative to the average SAT scores. But convincing a CA kid to head east is probably going to be a major obstacle.</p>
<p>Don’t know how those stories get credibility, but a quick look at [University</a> of California: StatFinder](<a href=“http://statfinder.ucop.edu%5DUniversity”>http://statfinder.ucop.edu) shows that 4 year graduation rates at Berkeley have been rising from the 1990s to recently.</p>
<p>4 year graduation rates by most recent major:</p>