No, you are not “stolen from”…she did get admitted to several schools. And, you don’t state her test scores, so I doubt they were super high. Furthermore, UCB and UCLA are looking for more than that; they use holistic admissions and are looking for unique aspects to applicants and what they bring to the school. Also, some majors are harder to get admitted to than others - did she apply to an impacted major? There are MANY applicants with the same stats as your daughter getting rejected. Just like at Ivy league schools and other world-class public universities - many students have near-perfect SAT scores, but the criteria to get admitted is far deeper and broader, because they use holistic admissions. Leadership is also a factor, and you have not stated how your daughter was a leader. It is no longer just a stats-based admissions system (and actually, hasn’t been for several years).
But non-Californians can drive on the roads in California, and Californians can drive their cars on the roads in other states.
If Cal only accepted Californians who paid taxes, is that going to be the new standard, that you have to have paid taxes (because many poor people don’t) to go to a California school? If you do pay California taxes, do you get to be a resident for admissions or tuition purposes? Many partners pay partnership tax even if that particular partner does no work in Cal or on Cal matters. A friend’s daughter is an OOS student at UCLA, but my friend DOES pay income taxes in California. She lives in Colo but is a partner in a law firm. She pays a lot in California income tax. A lot. Still pays OOS tuition at UCLA. Many people own second homes in California but aren’t considered residents for tuition purposes.
Not sure where you got the statistics about 50% of the 2017 Freshman class was non-resident., but according to the UC Info center, the number is closer to 40% of OOS and International applicants were accepted but only around 20% of those admitted actually enrolled. It makes sense to admit a higher percentage of these applicants since they are full pay and the UC’s are aware that even fewer will enroll due to the OOS costs.
The UC’s do have their issues and no college admissions will be perfect and satisify everyone, but also as stated by many posters, as California residents we are lucky to have such a huge range of college options. The Regents have capped the # of OOS/International applicants that can be admitted/enrolled so we should see better #’s for in the in-state applicants in the next few years.
This is copied directly from the UCLA admission page of 2017:
Undergraduate Enrollment:
- California: 24,207
- Outside California: 6,795
- Total undergraduate: 31,002
Where you go for Undergrad will not define you, it is the opportunties you take advantage of that will make you successful.
Your statistic is wrong.
The UCLA freshman class had 6,037 students. There were 4,359 CA residents, 1,021 from other US states, and 657 internationals. That makes 27.8% OOS, not “about 50%”.
UCLA posts the numbers here: http://www.admission.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/Frosh_Prof17.htm
As previously shown (in Post #6 above), UCLA could admit maybe 2,000-3,000 more CA-residents if they limited or completely eliminated OOS freshmen. So that’s true. Unfortunately, it’s also true that 2,000-3,000 more CA-resident admits isn’t going to move the needle much, when UCLA is rejecting 50,000-60,000 California residents every year.
No, probably not.
Davis had room for 4,209 CA-resident freshman last year.
They got 51,424 CA-resident applications for those spaces.
Obviously there is a huge mismatch here.
Your proposed “solution” is to cut back on the number on non-resident freshmen. But that would barely make a dent in the mismatch. There were only 5,868 freshman slots at UCD total last year. Even if UCD turned every single one over to CA residents, 5,868 slots is still a huge mismatch with 51,424 CA-resident applications. As at UCLA, this “solution” will barely move the needle.
Under the California “Master Plan for Higher Education”, the UC system owes the following to state residents:
- If a CA-resident applicant is in the top 12.5% of high school seniors (as measured by either the local or statewide contexts), then that applicant is guaranteed a spot somewhere in the UC system. There is no guarantee of admission to any specific campus.
- If a qualified CA-resident applicant is rejected from their preferred choice of campuses, then they are still guaranteed a slot at UC Merced. In fact, under the "Count Me In" program, the UCM slot is offered even to those who did not apply there.
- All UC campuses are guaranteed to deliver a quality education to CA residents, at a discounted level of tuition, supplemented where appropriate by financial aid, and to provide a credential with the well-known and respected "University of California" brand name.
Does the UC system deliver on these pledges? As far as I can tell, they do.
If a CA-resident applicant was in the Top 12.5%, got an offer from at least one UC campus, and was allowed to pay the discounted in-state tuition rate, then the UC system worked. Nobody in that situation is, for lack of a better term, “screwed over”.
But here’s the thing. For example UCLA gets 110,000 applicants a year. I’m sure they can find schools that are not as rigerous out of state where the grades are inflated and the students look like they have preformed at a higher level when they have not. I contiplated at one time sending my daughter to a below par private school at $30,000 per year. She wanted to go there because she had a friend that went there. I wasn’t willing to pay the $30,000 because I didn’t feel the school was worth it. I offered to pay the tuition for a school in our area that is ranked in the top 25 in the country but she did not want to go there. In hindsight, I should have paid the $30,000 per year for her to go to the lower level private school. It was in a lower income area and I am confident she would have been in the top 5. I have a friend who’s son went to a private catholic school and graduated 5th out of 100 kids. Got into UCLA and tracked into the lowest level math class and flunked it. So if you look hard enough you can find someone that has the GPA and the money out of state/country.
32 ACT, only took it once. 2 years Tennis team, 2 years band, girl scout gold award, President of Debate Club, Chess Club. Hours and hours of community service, member of Jounior Mensa. That is just a portion. Didn’t expect to get into UCLA or Berkely. You don’t think that should have been enough? At least Davis, Irvine, Santa Barbara or San Diego. Her grades and scores were not in the middle of the student profiles. In my opiniin there is nothing holly about the holistic approach. It is something they can hide behind so they can do what they want. When you call up the admissions office they won’t give you any clue why they think your child might not have been admitted. Also, every admissions officer I have spoken to seems to be very young. Which makes me wonder whether they have the maturity to pick who is a good student to admit. They also appear to be very biased against students from high performing schools. To be fair, I have only spoken to 5 or 6…
No one wants to go to Riverside or Merced if they have better choices. Give me at least Davis, San Diego, Irvine or Santa Barbara and I would have been happy.
I was told there were 3,000 students on the wait list. If only 1,500 were out of state/out of country then she had at least a 50% chance
It’s true that there are schools with grade inflation, but they exist both in-state and out-of-state. That’s exactly why universities also look at SAT and ACT scores – which are standardized. And UCLA can show you that their OOS students have higher test scores than the CA residents.
A generation ago, UCLA students had significantly better stats than their cross-town private-school rivals at USC. Now that situation has flipped – USC students have the better stats. How did USC do it? They did it by packing the school with highly qualified OOS applicants who wanted to come to California. Most USC undergrads are OOS now, and the percentage is growing. In contrast, UCLA, as a state school, has a much lower percentage of OOS students, and the number has been “frozen” because the UC system imposed a cap.
The point is that OOS students don’t hurt the academic profile – on the contrary, they boost it. Other top California private schools, like Stanford or Caltech, are majority OOS as well.
My daughter did apply to other schools at the same level and was accepted. I have met many parents that agree with me. I would be happy to get over it if we could put it to a vote. If the majority of Californians disagree with me then I would gladly say nothing more. Sorry for the incorrect spelling, I went to school back East.
First of all you are touching on a very delicate subject in my opinion. I grew up poor with two disabled parents in a very rough neighborhood. I was a first generation college student. I suspect that part of the issue is that I feel that I have worked very hard to give my family a better life. That said, we have an obligation to help those less fortunate and if my daughter did not get in but a Californian from a poorer community did I would be OK with it. Yes, tourists use our roads but they also provide sales tax which benefits us.
Yes
I think the logic here is: if a CA-resident student makes the waitlist, it means that they were close to being admitted. So if there were even just a few more CA-resident slots, it could have been enough to tip that student from “waitlist” status to “admit” status.
The problem with this logic is that the “waitlist” group is a lot bigger than you think. For Fall 2016 (the most recent available data), there were 3,112 applicants on the UCD waitlist – but UCD actually offered waitlist spots to 9,381 applicants. In other words, UCD actually identified nearly 10,000 applicants as “waitlist” candidates, but most of them didn’t bother to accept (probably because they decided to accept offers from other schools).
Under California’s ballot initiative system, you probably can put it to a vote. However, you should acknowledge the following facts as part of the campaign:
(1) OOS students contribute a disproportionate amount of tuition revenue. So the UC system will suffer significant financial losses without them, unless taxes or in-state tuition are increased to compensate. What will you suggest?
(2) OOS students boost the UCs’ academic profile. So UCs will likely slip in the rankings without them, relative to CA private schools (like Stanford, USC, or Santa Clara) that do not discriminate against highly-qualified applicants on the basis of zip code. In the long run, this will hurt the value of UC degrees.
(3) The most popular UCs have vastly more in-state applicants than they have total freshman slots. The imbalances are enormous. So in-state admissions at those campuses will remain awful, even if some or all OOS slots are switched to in-state slots. There simply aren’t enough OOS slots to do more than budge the needle.
(4) The UCs already have low OOS caps by national standards. To my knowledge, only UT-Austin and the UNC system enforces lower caps. Every other top-ranked state university that I’ve checked – including Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, Ohio State, Georgia Tech, Virginia, William & Mary, and Washington – enrolls higher percentages of OOS students than the UCs.
There’s not just one incorrect spelling in your posts - your posts are full of grammar and spelling errors. “Who’s vs. Whose” and “Berkely”, “opiniin”, etc. And the comment about “went to school back East” - huh - you are presenting yourself as uneducated with the errors, and blaming where you went to school - hmmm. UC schools actually like first generation students that have overcome adversity in their childhood, so the adversity you mention should help her. The fact is, her EC’s are typical (and not even all 4yrs on several), 32 ACT is good but not excellent and there is nothing unique in her profile. She’s a solid applicant for many schools, but perhaps not the top UC schools.
Sounds like your DD has several other options. You might want to read “Where You Go Is Not Who You’ll Be” and learn to love the school that loves your child.
I am typing from a phone and trying to do so quickly. I don’t believe I have been rude to you. Why are you being rude to me. I am just stating my opinion. That said you are a good example of what I feel I am running it at the UC System. A lack of oppeness to other opinions.
Also, her accomplishments are above average compared to the student profiles. Many students are being fooled by the profiles shown on the school websites. They think some of the UC schools are saftey schools. At a minimum they need to do a better job of presenting the information.
If you learn what is required at highly selective schools, it is much more than stats. It is EC’s, leadership, uniqueness, rigor of school and classes, and more.
You have good points and I am not disputing what you are saying but my answer would be that I would deal with it. I agree that the state does not support the UC System as much as it should. My understanding was that non-resident student enrollment has increased 4 times since funding was cut around 2008. Have the UC schools increased that much in rankings in the past 10 years?