<p>I think it is fairly clear that GPA is more predictive than SAT at UCs. For USC I think SAT carries more weight.</p>
<p>Yes, that is in line with stated policies with respect to UC admissions reviews.</p>
<p>USC’s dividing line between admit and reject is quite “fuzzy”, though. The “lowest admit” line has a moderate downward slope from about 3.55,1860 to 4.55,1570, the “highest reject” line has a slight downward slope from 3.87,2260 to 4.88,2150.</p>
<p>UCLA’s “lowest admit” line is basically vertical at 4.53, while its “highest reject” line has a steep downward slope from 4.65,2200 to 4.69,2020.</p>
<p>(Vertical or steep downward slope indicates GPA priority over test scores, while horizontal or slight downward slope indicates test scores priority over GPA.)</p>
<p>Top 10 students in most cases should be looking at selective privates that give generous need-based or merit financial aid. I come from low-middle income (60,000) and I received need-based aid at 3 schools (Vassar, Wesleyan, and Uchicago,) which don’t even give the best aid, that made them a bit cheaper than UC Davis which gave me grants, loans, and some merit aid (not Regents).</p>
<p>My son was a NMF and was accepted to several CA schools - USC offered half tuition, but it was still more expensive than UC Berkeley. As a computer science major, he chose Cal even though he didn’t get a dime in merit aid. He figured the school’s reputation and connections in his field of study would ultimately pay off, and he was right. There are circumstances when accepting generous merit-based aid at a school might not ultimately be the best move financially, if that school doesn’t have a great dept in your intended major.</p>
<p>Page 181 of <a href=“http://www.pvphs.com/pdf/CollegeAcceptance.pdf[/url]”>http://www.pvphs.com/pdf/CollegeAcceptance.pdf</a> lists the acceptance rates for the most popular colleges at that high school.</p>
<p>What is surprising is that someone actually got rejected at El Camino College, a community college. Page 112 confirms that listing, along with another listed as “guaranteed transfer”. The El Camino College reject is listed as being admitted to several four year colleges.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t necessarily take everything on that spreadsheet as correct. Mainly correct but some errors and some fooling around. It is mainly a nice guideline for state u admittance for students at the school. Like naviance.
But notice all the wl at Wash U. That strikes me as true.</p>
<p>I wonder how many people were rejected from the top schools but just claim they are going to the state flagship for financial reasons. The top school’s yields don’t seem to support the conclusion that more people are turning them down. (Maybe I am wrong?)</p>
<p>I have noticed however that many people cannot even afford the state flagships in many states and have to go to directionals or other lower tier publics for merit aid. (I don’t know if yield numbers back this up or not)</p>
<p>Some of the top students at our hs go to privates, but that typically means going very far from home. Most seem to take advantage or the state schools, especially nice for the IB diploma students that start with sophomore status.</p>
<p>The high school is in a wealthy area, and the “top universities” (HYPS-type) are generally good with financial aid.</p>
<p>One thing interesting is that 11/11 applicants to the University of Alabama were admitted, but only one matriculated. But only one of the applicants (not the one who matriculated) had stats for the well known (on these forums) automatic full out-of-state tuition scholarship there (3.6 GPA, 1490 SAT CR+M; the scholarship needs 3.5 GPA and 1400 SAT CR+M). The others were 2.5 to 3.6 GPA applicants with SAT CR+M of 900 to 1210. The matriculating student had a 2.5 GPA and 950 SAT CR+M.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the comparably selective University of Arizona admitted 18/18, with 2.6 to 3.5 GPA and 760 to 1140 SAT CR+M, except for one outlier with a 3.6 GPA and 1410 SAT CR+M. But 5 of them matriculated (none was the outlier).</p>
<p>But a lot of students stay close to home, aiming for southern California UCs and CSUs, and USC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s so odd. The reality is that roughly 50% of the students at the most selective private colleges and universities come from the top 3% or so in wealth and/or income. These are kids who are trained, drilled, and prepped from pre-school on to compete for those coveted places, and who are brought up with those expectations. Most of the remaining 97% need to stumble their way into it and find themselves competitive for the remaining 50% of places only if they’re exceptionally good and exceptionally lucky. And even then they may not recognize how competitive they are, and they might not understand the advantages that might fall to them if they elect to compete on that plane and succeed. There’s just a huge cultural and informational gulf, and an equally huge gulf in opportunities to build and polish the resume that will merit notice.</p>
<p>Given all that, it shouldn’t be surprising that the most affluent states send the most kids to elite private colleges. And what are the most affluent states? Well, the top of the list is dominated by Northeastern states, plus California. As measured by median household income, the most affluent (according to 2011 Census Bureau figures) include #1 Maryland, #3 New Jersey, #4 Connecticut, #5 Massachusetts, #6 New Hampshire, #7 Virginia, #9 Delaware, #10 California, #16 New York, #17 Rhode Island, and #23 Vermont–all big producers of matriculants at elite private schools. And median household income may not be the best metric, because it understates the large concentrations of wealth in places like New York and California, where the medians are dragged down by large numbers of poor people. </p>
<p>Pennsylvania ranks #23 in median household income, well below the norm for the Northeast. Maine is the only Northeastern state with a lower median household income, and Maine sends even fewer students to elite private colleges. </p>
<p>In a world of perfect information, it would make sense for top-performing students from families with lower incomes to apply to elite private colleges that meet 100% of need in droves, especially in states like Pennsylvania where the top public universities tend to provide poor FA. Our actual world is not a world of perfect information. Most of those lower-income students have no idea what opportunities they might have. Those with the best information tend to be much higher up in SES, and many of them don’t require need-based aid. And to be perfectly candid, most of the private colleges that promise to meet 100% of need couldn’t afford to do so if their applicant pool and admitted student population reflected the demographics of the country as a whole–i.e., if they needed to meet 100% of need for the 97% of their students who were found to require need-based aid. So their efforts to reach out to lower SES students tend to be quite narrow and selective, and arguably more for show than for real.</p>
<p>There is discussion above about how many families turning down the highest cost colleges because of cost, but those colleges admission rates keep falling. </p>
<p>The reason is simple - very rich people from China, South Korea, Singapore and other countries are filling the spots and paying full sticker price.</p>
<hr>
<p>Let’s also remember that the metro areas/states with the highest average household incomes also have outrageous housing prices (and often higher income and real estate tax rates). A $150,000 family income isn’t so high if you need to spend $500,000 to buy a basic home.</p>
<p>"One thing interesting is that 11/11 applicants to the University of Alabama were admitted, but only one matriculated. But only one of the applicants (not the one who matriculated) had stats for the well known (on these forums) automatic full out-of-state tuition scholarship there "</p>
<p>I have seen posts by mom2collegekids in the past stating that a large number of fullpay kids show up at Alabama each year from California. They find that UA OOS fullpay is not too bad compared to California instate fullpay. Some of them show up as groups from one single high school, i.e., several friends deciding to go UA together.</p>
<p>My sons’ high school did well in the admissions lottery this year. Terribly my son’s year. There has been more of a trend of more kids opting to go to SUNYs, however. When I first moved here, it was really only a handful of kids at these private schools who went to the SUNYs. Binghamton was my first son’s safety school. Now, there are a significant number of kids going to the SUNYs and the local colleges, and then to the top name schools. It seems to me that there is a drop in kids going to the most expensive schools unless some money is forthcoming, and we are talking about mostly full pay families here. </p>
<p>My good friend whose DH is a doctor flat out ran out of money after sending her older two to top Catholic school, paying full freight for both. So the youngest went to Binghamton. He got into both of his siblings’ alma maters, but when it came down to it, they told him that it would be a financial strain, and that the parents would give him a cash incentive, plus he would be loan free if he went to the state school. And so he is there. Has a car, has not loans, and the parents are able to pay for this one without borrowing themselves. They borrowed, as did the kids for top priced private colleges in earlier years. The mom has told me that they wish they had not. They will owe for a long time, and the kids do not have very lucrative jobs at all, and the kids’ loan payments are a problem, even with just the Staffords. 7% interest is an awful lot. It’s been 10 years for the first one, which means what she borrowed freshman year has doubled in amount. She was able to defer paying for 3 years and is on some 25 year plan or something. So she will have owed paid back about $50K in that time, and is still struggling to make the payments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I work in a school like yours… fortunately, I went to a good public high school myself that routinely sent kids to top schools each year.</p>
<p>There is a difference, but it’s not in the caliber of students. We have equally as capable students here where I work as those I grew up with (both rural areas). The difference lies in the beliefs of the students/staff/locals. </p>
<p>Where I grew up they all knew certain kids were more academically talented than others and kids were sorted by ability around 7th grade. We were all encouraged to perform up to our ability and challenged accordingly with work. APs were offered and many of us did very well year in and year out. With the SAT top kids were expected to try for 7 as the first number for each section (only 2 back then).</p>
<p>Here it’s believed that no one except the rare individual can do that level of work - and the belief is that they will succeed no matter what the school does. All students are kept to approximately the same level of work (learning support excepted) and the top kids are literally never challenged. The foundation bar is set low, but kids & parents assume they are doing well since the grades are high. The goal for top kids is to get a 6 for the first number on the SAT sections - a 600 is “rocking good” according to the kids (top kids). AP was dropped when few kids could even muster a 2 on the tests. We switched to DE, but the content of the DE (here) honestly doesn’t compare with AP. It’s just easier to get college credit in when the teacher makes the decision vs a national test.</p>
<p>Our kids could do equally as well as those in my high school, but they never get the material nor the encouragement to do so. Scores are lower as the foundations are lower. Even the teachers seldom realize what could be and often “is” elsewhere.</p>
<p>It’s sad.</p>
<p>I HIGHLY suggest doing a bit outside of school if you are in one of these school districts and feel you have a capable (and willing) student. The few who truly succeed (high level academics) here do just that. I often have conversations with them. The two types of education are simply on different planes… </p>
<p>(As for me, I opted to homeschool my older two - and they both hit scores where they should - far surpassing their peers even though their peers were equally as capable.)</p>
<p>The 2013 vals from our district (30 of them, largest district in the state) 4 are going OOS and 2 of those being OOS publics. 1 ivy and 1 to BC. That’s it. 4 are going to in-state privates- and not the ones you would think. The rest (22) are all in-state publics. Of the 16 in-state publics only 1 is headed to a non-flagship, the rest are 9 to the engineering school and 12 to the non-engineering state flagship. And this is all the Vals. Intended careers are mostly doctor/dentist/engineer. </p>
<p>Very different from when my kiddos graduated. Much more of a mix previously, including intended careers. Never so many headed to the state flagships. No MIT, Notre Dame, only 1 ivy, no service academies, nothing farther than the next state over for OOS public and only 1 other private OOS. That’s it for 30 vals.</p>
<p>Interesting to say the least. A distinct trend.</p>
<p>Kat</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard is saying that 11% of the class of 2017 are international, and Princeton claims 12%. I couldn’t find others easily.</p>
<p>I don’t know if these numbers have increased recently, but it doesn’t look like a significant portion of the class is made up of internationals.</p>
<p>FWIW, most of the top 10 kids in my school are going to our state flagship. The salutatorian and I (#3) are the only ones going OOS if I recall correctly. The val was WL’d at UChicago and got into Cornell, but it was too pricey compared to the full ride (!) she got at the state U. But my high school is not very good (normal to sub-par public, small, low priority in the community), so that may not be the best indication.</p>
<p>I know that in my small suburban community, the majority of the top kids (and the middling kids) are going to the flagship because it’s the best school they got into and could afford. Admissions for the top schools for financial aid can be really competitive, and being in the top 5 of a 250-something class doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll get into a full-need school in this day and age.</p>
<p>@skrlvr, at MIT it is about 8%. I know that MIT has said its international admissions has a strict % because they must pay all financial aid for international students out of pocket – no US government money is used to subsidize the educations of non-citizens – so admitting too many internationals would be extremely costly (as MIT practices need-blind admissions, even internationally). I believe the case is similar for other HYPS-level schools.</p>
<p>CDS from 2006 Harvard admitted 154 non resident aliens
CDS from 2011 193 admitted were non resident aliens</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/CDS_2011-2012_Final.pdf[/url]”>http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/CDS_2011-2012_Final.pdf</a>
<a href=“http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_CDS2006_2007_Harvard_for_Web_Clean.pdf[/url]”>http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_CDS2006_2007_Harvard_for_Web_Clean.pdf</a></p>
<p>Non resident alien totals 2006-2011
634 total undergrads in 2006
726 total undergrads in 2011</p>
<p>Increased yes, by a significant number no.</p>
<p>Thanks samiamy.</p>
<p>Those CDS also show non-resident aliens who were offered financial aid. In 2006, there were 471 who received aid, while in 2011 there were 525. </p>
<p>So even though there’s an increase, there’s also an increase in the number who were offered aid, and an increase in the amount of aid offered.</p>
<p>It’s hard to say that the increased yield is the result of more full pay international students.</p>
<p>In case you hadn’t seen [url="<a href="Bloomberg - Are you a robot?]this[/url</a>].</p>
<p>I can’t think of any other good or service that’s risen to that extent.</p>