<p>Hi, I'm new to the UCLA forum, so I don't know if this is a dumb question, but is thre in state preference for UCLA because I'm OOS. On the common data set, it says state residency is not considered</p>
<p>In a sense, yes, there is a preference, because it’s a state public college, we pay taxes to support it, and there are certain admissions (like ELC) that are devoted only to students attending secondary schools in California. </p>
<p>However, due to budget issues, the need for out of state students (and out of state tuition) has opened the door to expanding admissions to out of state students. The vast majority of students, however, remains from the California pool.</p>
<p>But it would be refreshing to get some more east coasters into the school, so please apply :P</p>
<p>I believe that for the last couple of years that the acceptance rate for out-of-state students has been higher than for in-state students. Some have argued that it is because they are more qualified. I do not know if this is true or not.</p>
<p>^I haven’t heard of the acceptance rate being higher for OOS students because it is still harder to get in as OOS, but I wouldn’t be totally surprised. I’d say many OOS applicants would only apply to such expensive, selective California public schools if they knew they had a chance. It’s much easier to just go to your own state school, so those that have looked into applying to the UC system would know what they’re putting themselves up against.</p>
<p>For the fall of 2010 the admit rate for out-of-state was 30.24% and the adlmit rate for in-state was 21.23%. Why do you believe that it is harder to get in as OOS?</p>
<p>you’re ommitting the fact that the in-state # of applicants is ridiculously higher than that of oos applicants. The larger the pool, the lower the rate.</p>
<p>e.g. if 100 instate applicants applied to UCLA, and 42 got accepted, one could say the instate applicant acceptance rate is 42%, and if 10 oos applicants applied, and 6 were admitted, you could say that the rate of admittance was 60%. however, this would lead to the erreneous conclusion that it’s easier to get accepted as oos applicant than instate, but it isn’t, there’s just a smaller sample size, which accounts for the larger percentage.</p>
<p>you can still argue, ‘but the rate is higher’ and that’s true, but the idea that it’s easier to get in as oos is absurd. Even the admitted students for fall 11 was 75% in state i believe. So, while the rate may be higher, the #s of oos admits is much, much lower than that for instate.</p>
<p>The required GPA is higher OOS but that’s not really relevant anymore, as that GPA only gets you into Merced these days.</p>
<p>beyphy-</p>
<p>What are you talking about? The sample size has nothing to do with determining the difficulty of being admitted. Assuming that the in-state and out-of–state are all similarly qualified, an admission rate of 30% (as compared to 23%) obviously means that it is easier to get in as an out- of-state applicant. The percent is the important number, not the number of applicants. If the quality of applicants is different, which is certainly possible, then that would make a difference. But, to say that it is dependent on sample size is erroneous and absurd.</p>
<p>CountMonteCristo, </p>
<p>beyphy is saying exactly that. That the OOS is more qualified because they are taking the time to apply to another state’s public education system rather than attend their own state school. I somewhat agree. Most people in state I know apply to UCLA and get rejected. OOS students might get discouraged if they are in the lower quartile to even apply based on the stigma that it is much more difficult to get in out of state. The real data that needs to be looked at is OOS SAT/GPA accepted vs. in state SAT/GPA accepted.</p>
<p>I said earlier that “Some have argued that it is because they are more qualified. I do not know if this is true or not.” and that “If the quality of applicants is different, which is certainly possible, then that would make a difference.” So, I do not disagree with what you are stating, assuming that OOS applicants are more qualified. Are they? We can’t just assume they are more qualified simply because there were fewer of them. I am sure that more students from California apply to Harvard each year then from Nevada. Does that fact alone prove that the Nevada applicants to Harvard are more qualified?</p>
<p>CountMonteCristo,</p>
<p>there were nearly 7 times as many applicants from instate freshman to UCLA as there were from out of state. when two statistics are being compared, sample sizes should be at least somewhat close to each other, and these don’t provide that at all. It’s like trying to say the rate for flipping a coin is 100% tails because you flipped it twice and got heads, online to find out when you flip 100 times you see it’s 50%. </p>
<p>Even if the admit rate is higher, the likelyhood of being admitted as an instate applicant is much higher. Californians made up 70% of all admits and nearly 80% of all applicants. </p>
<p>As i argued earlier, an increase in sample size correlates with a decrease in rate. I’m sure there’s something in statistics which says this, but i’m not actually sure what it’s called.</p>
<p>[Profile</a> of Admitted Freshmen, Fall 2011 - UCLA Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/Frosh_Prof11.htm]Profile”>http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/Frosh_Prof11.htm)</p>
<p>trying to say non-identical sample sizes doesn’t mean anything is absurd.</p>
<p>beyphy- </p>
<p>I’m done. I see no point trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn’t even understand the difference between statistics and probability.</p>