Latest Freshman Admissions Data: Only 69.7% are In-State Students

<p>Berkeley just released the Freshman Admissions Data and it looks like it's a little improvement from last year's. Here's the data:</p>

<p>Average unweighted GPA: 3.88
Average weighted GPA: 4.35</p>

<p>SAT Reasoning Test scores (25th % 75th percentiles)
Reading: 620-740
Math: 660-770
Writing: 650-750</p>

<p>California Residents<br>
38,892 - Applicants
9,345 - Admitted
(24.0%)
3,945 - Enrolled (as of June 2011) </p>

<p>Non-CA, US Residents<br>
7,999 - Applicants
3,154 - Admitted
(39.4%)
1,071 - Enrolled (as of June 2011) </p>

<p>International Students
6,075 - Applicants
1,290 - Admitted
(21.2%)
641 - Enrolled (as of June 2011) </p>

<p><a href="http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Methinks Yudof/Regents is making a strategic mistake bcos of a lack of leadership. California tax payers are needed for UC to balance its budget, but by purposely admitting rich OOS’ers to the state flagship at the expense of instaters, Cal and thus UC, will slowly lose political support. It becomes a downward spiral.</p>

<p>It is only going to get worse. Berkeley has already said it is going to increase the percentage of students it accepts from OOS and internationally with each successive year…</p>

<p>hopefully this will kill the misconception that it is easier to be admitted instate than out of state?</p>

<p>Well, I wonder if the in-state admits have higher stats than the OOS admits. I believe it’s not. </p>

<p>Berkeley students should appreciate the fact that Berkeley has gradually increased the number of OOS. OOS bring a lot of advantages to Berkeley and its students.</p>

<p>Please take note that according to the source, the data are for ENROLLED students, which generally are lower statistics compared to admitted students’ statistics. Perhaps these are the students who made a confirmation to enroll in Berkeley. </p>

<p>With the new SAT stats, Berkeley just matched Emory’s stats (1960–2250), and I won’t be surprised if Berkeley would edges several privates in the next years, including those of Rice’s, Cornell’s, Brown’s and so on. </p>

<p>[Freshman</a> Class Profile | Emory College of Arts and Sciences Admission](<a href=“http://www.emory.edu/admission/counselors/student_profile/freshman_class.html]Freshman”>Admission | Emory University | Atlanta GA)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Such as? (Besides money, which the Regents could easily collect from wealthy instaters if they had the political leadership/will.)</p>

<p>You know, some universities like UVA have less than 50% of admitted students within the state of Viriginia since 2009. I know a lot of CA residents are infuriated, but some states are even worse…</p>

<p>I could not agree more with bluebayou. The decision to go this direction is an understandable, but unsustainable path. My son, (whose account I’ve co-opted BTW), was not accepted at Berkeley this year despite being a highly competitive applicant. I’m pretty sure that he would have been admitted two or three years ago before the significant shift toward out of state admissions began. 100% certain? No, one can never be, but let’s just say it would have been far more likely than this past year. The reason the path is unsustainable is because politically connected, high income and engaged parents like me, who have been paying tons in taxes into the UC system for decades, have completely lost faith in the UC and it’s leadership. We are going to represent a formidable force agains the UC when it comes time to stick the hand back out to the California taxpayers. I’ve written Yudof and told him as much. I got the standard blow off letter, but at least I was able to speak my piece. Look, I take nothing away from the excellent students that did get admitted, they deserve high fives. But after paying into the system for many years I expected a fairer shake for my in-state kid. I will never forget that slight and the UC may not care about this particular cut, but thousands and thousands of cuts will inevitably change the political landscaps for UC in ways that its tone deaf leadership cannot curently imagine. So my son will be at USC next year, an extremely competitive school, where we will be paying lots of tuition. I guess UC would rather take that money from out of staters who have never paid a dime in taxes, rather than from me. It’s their choice, they will live with the consequences. The consequences will take time to materialize, but materialize they will, you can count on it. I’ll be leading the charge wherever I can.</p>

<p>^ Someone is bitter</p>

<p>^^ Why would they not be, they have paid taxes into the system and now their kid will not reap the benefits, while out of state students are being accepted at an all time high. That would make me upset as well. The UC’s should be for competitive CA students first, the OOS.</p>

<p>It is 70% CA Residents, so it is competitive CA students first.</p>

<p>As long as a majority of those OOS are from other parts of the United States, I’m fine.</p>

<p>does no one think that out of the entire rest of the US 3,000 kids deserved to be admitted to cal?</p>

<p>It’s called the University of California. It was not founded to educate the children of kids from South Dakota, it was founded as a California centric institution. Check the history. Walk the campus, look at the buildings. All of those buildings, built over many decades, were built principally with taxpayer funds and bond issuances supported by CA ballot initiatives from CA state residents, or from donations from wealthy alumni, who were most certainly heavily weighted to California residents. It’s not that out of state students are not qualified, of course they are. It’s just that the UC policy has shifted at the expense of in state residents. There is no denying that, it’s simple math. Berkeley is on its way to being a private (or more realisically, a Federal) university, as shocking as that sounds, it is a fact. </p>

<p>In that case, the continuing funding from the State of California taxpayers should be looked at pragmatically up agaisnt all of the other places we could put our money. Go ahead and disagree, call me bitter, whatever you want. It’s a short term move at the expense of a long term base of political support. Only time will tell if it was worth the play. We’ll see. There are thousands of other families in California that were impacted similarly, not just at Berkeley, but at many other campuses as well.</p>

<p>If the University of California didn’t admit more out-of-state students (to meet their budget gap), more cuts would have to be made somewhere else. Those cuts would impact all current and future students, including ones from California. It’s easy to criticize the change without suggesting any alternatives.</p>

<p>You know, having some more OOS students is much better than shutting down one of the UC’s.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>you don’t know that. Berkeley is a highly competitive school, and your son easily could have been rejected.</p>

<p>Even if the UCs accepted a higher rate of instaters (like 90%) all this means is that they’d have to accept less of them, which means your son might have been rejected anyway. Those OOS students you’re complaining about are paying fees which greatly support an institution that needs them. And paying taxes in no way guarantees a spot at the UCs, it never has. Your son was rejected simply because there were similar, or probably better, applicants than him, who were able to pay more money, and the instate people who were accepted probably had better stats.</p>

<p>Since when does paying taxes = acceptance to a University of California? </p>

<p>If a “highly politically connected, high income” individual such as yourself wants to buy your son a seat in college, maybe you should try a private institution such as Stanford.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If 70% of 9,345 admitteds are enrolled then the story is quite different. UCB did not force students not to enroll.</p>