<p>That might be the monthly low temp. The average high is in the 40’s. Winter is very endurable with just enough snow most years for some fun and skiing at Wintergreen. While I don’t think the UVa faculty is in the same league as UCB or even UCLA/UCSD it’s good enough for most undergrads. Engineering and most sciences are lackluster. Liberal arts and business very good/excellent.
The hot weather right now is tough (I’m just south of UVa in Lynchburg) but this is an epic heat wave. Nights were still very comfortable and everything has AC–except my cars.</p>
<p>“shrinkwrap, I don’t know if your post was intended my way, per your quote:”</p>
<p>Nobody in particular.</p>
<p>“That link you provided, btw, was for 2009, not 2010.”</p>
<p>Oops! Links were reversed, but '09 & '10 should be there.</p>
<p>Thanks for the links…</p>
<p>I worked backwards from the information given right after all the UC acceptances were published months ago to calculate the large increases in NCA students’ acceptances at Cal and UCLA of 27% and 24%, respectively.</p>
<p>Its an easy calculation when they detail it at the websites of both at their websites.</p>
<p>I just looked at them in detail to see if my numbers were similar via my backward calculations. </p>
<p>But a couple of things wrt Cals posting of Non-Residents and International Students.</p>
<p>Im not sure if the chart will format, but here it is, without the link:</p>
<p>Fall 2010 Freshman Admissions Data*
_____<strong><em>CA</em></strong><strong>Non-Res_International
Applicants</strong><em>38,443</em><em>7,189</em><em>4,750
Admitted</em> 9,495<strong><em>2,468</em></strong>1,044
(% Admitted)<strong><em>(24.7%)</em>(19%)</strong>(8%)
Enrolled ____<strong><em>4,033</em></strong><em>696</em>___524</p>
<p>This chart has 19% admitted for the N-Rs, and 8% for Internationals. If you divide 2.5 approximately by 10, you get 25% acceptance. The rate for N-Rs is in reality, 25.6%. The rate for Internationals is hardly 8%, but is 18.0%. Im not sure where those who calculated the %s received their math skills, lol.</p>
<p>And more importantly, I dont know how they can project the enrollment to Cal being that there are students who SIR > one campus. Most schools generally have to wait to see who shows up.</p>
<p>errrrrrrr…</p>
<p>I must have attended the same school as those who calculated the %'s: the acceptance rate for Non-Residents for Cal’s class entering 2010, 34.3% and for Internationals, 22.0%. Long day for me too. ;).</p>
<p>drax:</p>
<p>I was referring to the matriculants:</p>
<p>4033/5253 = 76.77% instate Frosh residents, on campus…(solving for residents and non-residents using admitted numbers is kinda meaningless to me).</p>
<p>Of course, some of the internationals are California ‘residents’ as well; parents moved here for jobs – they are just classified as international if they did not spend 3+ years in a Cal HS and graduate from it (in which case they are resident for tuition purposes).</p>
<p>… but I wasn’t trying to contradict anything you said. One of the things I was saying was the link you provided to Cal’s admission stats for its 2010 class was in error. This chart below should be corrected:</p>
<p>Fall 2010 Freshman Admissions Data*
_____<strong><em>CA</em></strong><strong>Non-Res_International
Applicants</strong><em>38,443</em><em>7,189</em><em>4,750
Admitted</em> 9,495<strong><em>2,468</em></strong>1,044
(% Admitted)<strong><em>(24.7%)</em>(19%)</strong>(8%)
Enrolled ____<strong><em>4,033</em></strong><em>696</em>___524</p>
<p>It should state the following instead:</p>
<p>Fall 2010 Freshman Admissions Data*
_______<strong><em>CA</em></strong><strong>Non-Res_International
Applicants</strong><em>38,443</em><em>7,189</em><strong>4,750
Admitted</strong> 9,495<strong><em>2,468</em></strong>1,044
(% Admitted)<strong><em>(24.7%)</em>(34.3%)<em>(22.0%)
Enrolled _</em></strong><strong><em>4,033</em></strong><strong>696</strong>__524</p>
<p>In other words, I don’t know where they got the 19 and 8% acceptance rates, resp, for N-R and Internationals.</p>
<p>The unusually high acceptance rate of NCA (non-Californian) students, particularly oos students, wrt CA (California) students shows that Cal (and UCLA) is (are) actively seeking to take in more full-tuition payers. </p>
<p>My only point wrt the matriculants was I didn’t know how the Cal administration could calculate unweighted and weighted gpas for the 2010 incoming class and yield numbers for N-R and Ints when classes at Cal haven’t yet started, not to counter anything you said in particular. Again, most schools probably have to wait until classes start to see who really shows up. And if the 23% NCA student representation holds for the 2010 class, that’s a significant increase over 2009.</p>
<p>For The OP, buntyugo, if you, bluebayou, can find UCSD’s preliminary numbers for its frosh class we could do a preliminary analysis of the numbers to see if SD’s NCA numbers will increase by a lot. I know for UCLA, the yield would be half as good for NCA students vis-a-vis in-staters, except for the fact the yield for NCAs might go up at UCLA and Cal if both dip into the admissions bag deeper than previous wrt grades/test scores.</p>
<p>And that’s a great point wrt internationals attending school in the States. I think that would apply to a lot of other schools wrt int students also. But to send their children across whatever ocean to attend school here, Pacific or Atlantic - or their parents have jobs here as you stated, would take a few $$, which would bode well tuition-payers - the latter because the parents are, say, in corporate. Obviously they would rather gain residence going to school here long-term to be residents. But let’s face it: A lot of internationals have literally money to burn (and I know you consider it that way by paying oos tuition at UC. ;)) </p>
<p>There are even those from oos that attend school in CA - say, the parents have businesses in CA and they might have a house or relatives here - so the kids attend high school in CA and are residents for UC and CSU, with their parents being CA taxpayers.</p>
<p>Another option for those seeking enrollment in CA publics on-the-cheap: one can gain residence, while attending a community college in CA. The student would want to work, no matter how menially service-oriented, to become a tax payer here in CA (methinks). I knew a person from Utah, who when I met him, was already attending UCLA as a premed after gaining residence after attending community college here. Oddly enough, he wanted to back to Utah for med school at I think it was more Utah State rather than University of, for the bio-engineering/med-school program they had there. So gaining residence while going to school can be done also.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Au contraire. I have posted frequently that Cal is well worth the $$ for internationals; Cal’s prestige is huge in an international (job) market where pedigree matters, a lot.</p>
<p>… would also help a lot in job-seeking.</p>
<p>If Ints-> generally wealthly-> more connections to help sons and daughters gain the ins to a job at the corp, firm, wherever.</p>
<p>This could lead to -> wider array of schools from which to choose w/o necessity of parsing due to cost -> choosing a college/university based on whatever feels right to the student, ie, experiencing a life-style, etc.</p>
<p>Not everyone who chooses a university does so by, “How does this school fit in with my seeking international prestige?”</p>
<p>This might certainly be different for someone really famous like the Imperial family of Japan or wherever (wrt college choices).</p>
<p>But for someone internationally based at a I-Banking firm or wherever, I personally think the sons and daughters of these people will have “ins” professionally wherever they go to university or even how well they do in college. </p>
<p>and because</p>
<p>why is nobody supporting UVa? It is a fantastic school as well.</p>
<p>UVA is indeed a fantastic school, with an incredible wealth of history. If the money situation were the same, I think it would be a tossup about what school would be better–each one has pros and cons. For someone who wants to stay in the east, UVA’s probably better, for someone who wants to stay in the west, Cal is probably better. My guess is that Cal would have the edge for a comp sci major (just because of proximity to Silicon Valley), UVA would have the edge for American history (how can you beat living at the epicenter of our two major domestic wars on a campus designed by Thomas Jefferson?). At both schools you will meet a range of students from conservative to liberal. They are both big enough to have lots of opportunities for culture, internships, trying new things, joining clubs, etc. By and large, the weather is somewhat better in Cal, but living in the dorms is probably better in VA. I think the difference in weather isn’t as great as some think, though. Who cares what the weather is in July–the revlevant months are September to May, and VA winters tend to be fairly mild and pleasant. And frankly, I think the perfection of the weather in Berkeley is overrated. It is often cold and foggy in the summer, and in the winter, there is a lot of cold, nasty rain. Sometimes snow is more gentle, beautiful, and pleasant than a driving rainstorm. Houses in the Berkeley area tend not to be well insulated for the weather, and many people don’t have air conditioning. In a way, I like that because it brings people closer to nature, but still, I have spent more time in California shivering and sweating than you’d think if you only heard that the weather is perfect. Another thing about most parts of CA is that the sun can be very intense, and it’s easy for Northeasterners not to understand how corrosive it can be to skin. Sunscreen is really essential, even on foggy days. </p>
<p>Anyway, the point is that they’re both great schools and if you lived in, say, Illinois, it would be hard to make a choice because they’re both pretty pricey out of state. But since you live in VA, it really does seem like throwing away money not even to try UVA (or William and Mary, or other VA schools) before dismissing it/them.</p>
<p>Heck, even if you’re a Virginian, go to UC Berkeley if that floats your boat. Likewise, if you’re a Californian and you prefer the Jeffersonian architecture and tradition of U Virginia, then go there. You’re not giving anything up in educational/peer quality in choosing one or the other. IMO, it’s all about which environment you prefer (and Berkeley/Bay Area are quite a bit different from Charlottesville).</p>
<p>Among public universities, USNWR has ranked U Virginia 1st or 2nd in 20 of the past 20 years. They have ranked UC Berkeley 1st or 2nd in 18 of the last 20 years. Both are superb destinations and students coming from either will be well regarded by prospective employers. </p>
<p>Frankly, beyond the size difference and racial composition of the respective student bodies, I think that the biggest difference is post-grad positioning. If one wants to go to Silicon Valley, then UC Berkeley is the obvious choice. Conversely, if one wants to join one of the many defense/consulting/technolgoy businesses benefited by proximity to the world’s largest customer (the Pentagon), then U Virginia would give you the advantage.</p>
<p>Hawkette:</p>
<p>There is one HUGE difference however, in net cost for most. UVa provides full financial need to OOS students, but the UCs do not. (Heck, the UCs offer poor finaid to insaters…)</p>
<p>I agree. I’m commenting based on factors outside of cost. Cost can always trump things and that would be true for less-acclaimed institutions (public or private) that might offer more attractive merit/need-based aid packages. </p>
<p>My belief is that I don’t think that there’s a dime’s difference between the relative prestige of U Virginia and UC Berkeley for undergraduate education. Both are very good. Go to whichever one you like best.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Domestically, I would tend to concur. But internationally, Cal’s prestige is huge.</p>
<p>I think in 2010, there is a major change in admittance policy for UCB and UCLA. California as a whole, colleges included is in default state. The colleges, especially public, are really putting a concerned effort to admit OOS students for their much needed extra tuition payment. I moved from NJ to CA and most of my friends in NJ have kids in the same year as my D, who are class of 2014. As I know, almost all who in NJ applied for UCB and UCLS have been accepted, they all have good stats, nonetheless. However, not too many come because the non-competitive OOS tuitions. My D, with no worse stats than my NJ friend’s kids, on the other hand, got rejected by both, but got in U of Chicago, go figure.</p>
<p>^ That’s interesting; Would you be willing to share any “stats” details?</p>
<p>You are comparing four great public universities, but if your concern is about “feel” and fit more than the other considerations then you should visit the UCs. San Diego has a different “feel” and is closer to the beach than Berkeley. They’re very different from “Jefferson’s university.” If you can pay the extra tuition (called fees in Cali), then you would get a much different experience. You would be introduced to a greater variety of student groups and spam musubi. I think the political climate on campus is probably more interesting at most UCs than at UVA, although I don’t know UVA very well. Used to be you could count on a conversation with a Maoist on the streets of Berkeley – and I can’t think of a better afternoon than taking the Bart to San Francisco and walking around the city. (OK, maybe walking around Manhattan.) I have heard (and it is only hearsay) that UCSD is affected by weekend commuters. A lot of students live within driving distance and go home on the weekends and the dorms clear out. But others may know UCSD better than I. BTW, if you want to study among the redwoods, ck out Santa Cruz, which doesn’t have the same feel as UCLA.</p>
<p>Huh…I expected someone arrogant genius to say something like:</p>
<p>Group 1:
Berkeley, UVA, and UMich</p>
<p>Group 2:
UCLA, UNC-Chapel Hill</p>
<p>Group 3:
Everything else</p>
<p>EDIT: Oh wait
And here I thought this couldn’t get any worse :rolleyes:</p>