<p>this is ridiculous, umich is by far the better school. </p>
<p>"Trust me, students that get into UCI and UMAA will think long and hard before choosing one or the other (in-cali or in surrounding states)."
yea, kids from california. </p>
<p>If you are considering michigan from out of state and are considering any of the UC schools, then you would consider ucla and berkeley, not IRVINE. Theres a reason why umich is ~33% out of state while UC: irvine is, get this.... a whole WHOPPING 3%!!! And also get this, Irvine's percentage of the total # of accepted students who enroll:another whopping 20%. Sounds like people would really want to go there. Michigan's %yield is close to 50%. </p>
<p>If i lived in california i would consider irvine over michigan cause the cost difference is huge. But if you're from the east coast or midwest, the majority of kids would choose michigan. </p>
<p>personally, i would go to umich b/c i think it's a better education, better sports programs, and has better job opportunities. Weather isnt that big of a factor for me because im from jersey anyway. Also Irvine is over 50% ASIAN and even though i'm asian myself, i do not want to immerse myself in an environment of all asian kids.</p>
<p>KFC4U, nobnody is questioning why you would pick UCI over Michigan. Your reasons are valid and logical. The question is whether UCI is comparable to Michigan or not. It clearly isn't. UCI is a good university, no more, no less. Michigan is one of the top 15 universities in the nation.</p>
<p>The AAU (ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES) established in 1900,
The "founded members" include Stanford, U.Chicago, John Hopkins, "most" of the Ivies and three public U.</p>
<p>And the three public U. are</p>
<p>U. of Michigan-Ann Arbor (founded 1817)
U. of Wisconsin-Madison (founded 1848)
U. of California-Berkely (founded 1868)</p>
<p>UMich is among the best of best universities more than 100+ year ago, longggggg before the football tradition raising</p>
<p>Is this the case you mentioned in your post? the one and only time that UC turned away eligible students.</p>
<p>You said that every CA student that meets the MINIMUM qualifications is guaranteed a space at the UC, although it may not be his first choices (B, LA, SD). What are these MINIMUM qualifications? The only one I am aware of is that students graduated in the top 4% of their high schools are guaranteed a spot. However, according to the above article, "those students who were redirected to community college under the Guaranteed Transfer Option had an average grade point average of 3.46, compared with a 3.8 average for admitted students." I find it hard to believe that top 4% students only have a GPA of 3.46 or lower...</p>
<p>I also find it strange that GC's would advise top kids to apply to Michigan as back-up. First of all, if you can't get into UCB/UCLA as in-state, how can you be sure of getting into Michgian as out-of-state? Even if you do, how do you pay for the big difference in tuition? Michigan is not known to be generous with out-of-state applicants. It is just not good advice.</p>
<p>Btw, just so we don't stray too far from the topic of this thread... If what you heard is true...it just proves that GC's and top CA kids prefer Michigan over UCI. Top CA kids can pretty much count on getting into UCI, which has a meager 20% yield.</p>
<p>The joke...such as it is....is over--------or wait, no I guess I'm wrong; only the laughter has stopped, having been replaced by an implacable and enduring fatiguetrench, WWI, warfare Id say and equally meaningless and futile.</p>
<p>As an aside, Id say its pretty safe to say you are neither attending, nor will you attend, UC-Irvine; that is to say, you have no real dog in this fightyou just like the fight.</p>
<p>Love this:</p>
<p>"This is a ridiculous comment. The UCs are the premier public schools in the US, and UC-Irvine is a great school!!"</p>
<p>.........yes, I'm sure you are just "shocked, shocked!" a la Cassablanca.</p>
<p>"Top CA kids can pretty much count on getting into UCI, which has a meager 20% yield."</p>
<p>Well, since you want to talk numbers, how about pointing a finger at the 55% acceptance rate of UMAA...it seems as if UCI is as hard to get into as UMAA. </p>
<p>Also, UMAA is ranked 22nd - not top 15 as the moderator put it - along with UVA and just 1 spot away from UCLA, even though UVA and UCLA are clearly more selective than UMAA.</p>
<p>Anybody that discards UC-Irvine is being arrogant. It's a tier 1 school, with admit stats similar to UMAA. Students in California, Texas, Arizona, Washington state, nevada etc. would think extremely hard before choosing UMAA over Irvine. The weather of UCI, plus the fact that it's part of the best public university system in the world, and the proximity of the school from those states makes it a true contender for UMAA.</p>
<p>"Well, since you want to talk numbers, how about pointing a finger at the 55% acceptance rate of UMAA...it seems as if UCI is as hard to get into as UMAA."</p>
<p>university of chicago has a higher acceptance rate than nyu, does that make nyu harder to get into? no</p>
<p>UCLA actually has a lower acceptance rate than UC Berkeley, which one is harder to get into? Berkeley. </p>
<p>"Students in California, Texas, Arizona, Washington state, nevada etc. would think extremely hard before choosing UMAA over Irvine."</p>
<p>Read my post above. Actually, let me save you the energy and repost a part of my message here:</p>
<p>If you are considering michigan from out of state and are considering any of the UC schools, then you would consider ucla and berkeley, not IRVINE. Theres a reason why umich is ~33% out of state while UC: irvine is, get this.... a whole WHOPPING 3%!!! And also get this, Irvine's percentage of the total # of accepted students who enroll:another whopping 20%. Sounds like people would really want to go there. Michigan's %yield is close to 50%.</p>
<p>And regarding this whole "UC schools have more students in the top 10%" argument, i think it is seriously flawed. Take UC: Riverside, one of the weakest UC schools. Its average SAT score is in the 1000s, with the avg verbal barely above 500. Yet the % of students in the top 10% of their high school class is 94%?! i find that JUST A BIT odd. Harvard's % in the top 10% is only 90% and harvard is a top 3 university in the country.</p>
<p>P.S UC San Diego and Davis are both ranked ahead of irvine.</p>
<p>are you sure about that? Collegeboard.com states berkeley is 10% oos while UCLA is 6%. But let's just hypothetically say even if the UC quota was 5%, why isn't irvine 5% out of state. It should easily be 5% if the "Students in California, Texas, Arizona, Washington state, nevada etc. would think extremely hard before choosing UMAA over Irvine."</p>
<p>"Anybody that discards UC-Irvine is being arrogant. It's a tier 1 school, with admit stats similar to UMAA."</p>
<p>LOL! I don't want to sound nasty, but UCI is a place for CA students who can't get into Berkeley and UCLA. UCI hardly has any top-notch professor and good research. Pardon me for being candid, but UCI is only a third tier school, lower than GaTech or UT Austin, while Michigan is a premier university, prominent in the academic circle with top notch professors, although it has slightly indiscriminate undergrad admission.</p>
<p>Any college student or grad will know that the gap between UMich and UCI is ASTRONOMICAL. Golubb_u, my guess it's better that you get into a college first before sounding your constant-error claim.</p>
<p>BigRed: our state legislature, (i.e., taxpayers), get nervous if the OOS # exceeds 10%. SD is ranked higher than Davis or Irvine, but, given its traditional focus on bio-med, humanities types typically choose to go to D or I instead.</p>
<p>GoBlue: I wasn't referencing that specific article, but there were countless in every state daily newsrag last year. But the gist is the same. If you check out UCR's and UCSC's recent acceptance rates, you'll see that they hover in the 90% range. Essentially, they take everyone that applies, so, in a sense, if a kid REALLY wants to go to a UC, there is one available, particularly with the opening of Merced, who will likely have an acceptance rate of 99%. Of course, many of the top kids apply only to the top 5-6 UC's, using a jc as a backup. With the jc honors programs placing 90% of grads into B and LA, that is an alternative way to go, and preferable to some, over SC and R.</p>
<p>And, yes, some GCs just aren't very good.</p>
<p>btw: Two methods for Frosh eligibility: 1) statewide context, minimum for UC eligiblity is a high gpa, or 2.8+ gpa + test scores on a gradient scale, or extremely high test scores alone; local context - top 4% of HS class. The min gpa increases next year, or the year after, if I recall.</p>
<p>can someone explain this to me; regarding this whole "UC schools have more students in the top 10%" argument, i think it is seriously flawed. Take UC: Riverside, one of the weakest UC schools. Its average SAT score is in the 1000s, with the avg verbal barely above 500. Yet the % of students in the top 10% of their high school class is 94%?! i find that JUST A BIT odd. Harvard's % in the top 10% is only 90% and harvard is a top 3 university in the country. I look across all the UC's and the lowest percentage in the top 10% is like 90%. weird.</p>
<p>UCB: 99% graduated top 10% of class. Mean SAT 1320 (understandable)
UCSD: 99% graduated top 10% of class. Mean SAT 1255 (odd but still fathomable)
UCLA: 97% graduate top 10% of class. Mean SAT 1285 (not problem)
UCI: 96% graduated top 10% of class. Mean SAT 1190 (very suspecious)
UCSC: 96% graduated top 10% of class. Mean SAT 1145 (unfathomable)
UCD: 95% graduated top 10% of class. Mean SAT 1190 (very odd)
UCSB: 95% graduated top 10% of class. Mean SAT 1190 (very strange)
USR: 94% graduated top 10% of class. Mean SAT 1075 (beyond my capacity)</p>
<p>Many other universities in California have weird results lile those listed above.</p>
<p>The lesser UCs like taking students w/high GPAs and low SATs from poor (and poorly performing) public high schools, as a form of affirmative action, really.</p>
<p>Alexandre, you have to understand, in Cali many of the high scorers on the SATs (often whites) either go to private schools, magnet schools, or wealthy suburban public schools, where their class ranks will be lower than at a bad public high school. These are the students that go to Stanford, USC, etc. That's why Stanford has 87% of students in top 10%, but an average SAT of (I believe) somewhere in the 1460 range. Stanford gets the top students from the top-performing Cali high schools (who make up about half the student body), as opposed to, say, UCR, which instead of getting above-average students from wealthy schools w/high SATs that would probably excel at Riverside, decides to take the top students from bottom-feeding high schools (often minorities; 20% of the students are white, while a bit less than 60% of Cali residents are white).</p>
<p>"look across all the UC's and the lowest percentage in the top 10% is like 90%. weird."</p>
<p>...like I said, the UCs form the best public school system in the US, bar none. It's no surprise that the UCs have more top 10% students than any other public school, including Univeristy-of-michigan-ann-arbor.</p>
<p>"Pardon me for being candid, but UCI is only a third tier school, lower than GaTech or UT Austin, ..."</p>
<p>What? rtkysg, do you even know what third tier means? UC-Irvine is a tier 1 school.</p>
<p>Hey look guys....I didn't want this turning into a flame-war. I was just curious if anybody had been to both these schools to compare and contrast them. On paper, the stats looks almost exactly the same, so I wanted to get more first-hand information. But, when people start attacking UC-Irvine just because it's a few notches below UMAA, it's arrogant and unfair.</p>
<p>"...like I said, the UCs form the best public school system in the US, bar none. It's no surprise that the UCs have more top 10% students than any other public school, including Univeristy-of-michigan-ann-arbor."</p>
<p>you didn't really answer my question though. Riverside has 94% of its student body from the top 10% of their high school....the average SAT score there is in the 1000s. Asleeacn did a better job explaining than you did. At least he provides a detailed explaination while all you do is say "it's b/c the UC's are great". Well if that's your explanation then it is logical to conclude that the caliber of high schools in california is not very high. Top 10% = 1000s on SATs? Weak. My high schools' avg SAT is higher than 3 of the UC schools' average and the bottom half of my school are all stoners.</p>
<p>That quote is about California's vaunted public high schools (after all, 94% of UCI's students come from the top 10% of these schools). So, I guess UCI is "better" than Stanford, Northwestern, etc.</p>