<p>With UCLA decisions coming out tomorrow, I was looking up their acceptance rate online. Now this was more out of curiosity than anything else (It's a reach for me and I'll be perfectly happy going to Santa Barbara where I've already been accepted), but I found something disturbing:</p>
<p>Their acceptance rate for in state freshmen was 18.98% while their acceptance rate for out of state was 29.61, and their acceptance rate for international students was 32.71.</p>
<p>My parents are California tax payers, they, and I'm sure many other California tax payers would have a problem if they knew that the acceptance rate from one of our top public universities is lower for kids from California than from other places.</p>
<p>I am well aware that overall the vast majority of students who are accepted are in state, but that's because they're the vast majority of who applies. Shouldn't the bar still be higher for out of state and international students?</p>
<p>Curious to see what you guys think about this.</p>
<p>You need to post both (the actual number admited and actual number applied) in each catagory instead of percentages, which alone are meaningless.</p>
<p>^ I agree. UCLA recieves thousands of in-state applications so they can choose to be a bit more selective (hence the lower acceptance rate). That doesn’t mean that OOS students and international students outnumber CA residents on campus or acceptances.</p>
<p>Percentages are far from meaningless, however here are the actual numbers:</p>
<p>accepted/applied
In-state: 9,830/51,797
Out of state: 3,045/10,284
International: 3,107/9,499
(these stats are from 2012 by the way)</p>
<p>Like I said, the majority of acceptees are in-state, but what really matters are your chances if you apply from California or from somewhere else, and in this case the odds favor out of state and international applicants</p>
<p>I don’t dispute your claim (I even stated it in my original post), my point is just that since UCLA is a public institution of the sate of California, it shouldn’t be more be more selective with in-state applicants, and that if anything, it should be the other way around.</p>
<p>You also have to take into account enrollment rate, 40.71% for in-state 19.93% out-of-state and 32.57% international. I’d venture to say that they though the out-of-state & international numbers would be lower last year, since 2011’s was 16.24% and 25.90% respectively.</p>
<p>By the way, UCLA has capacity to enroll 5,425 freshman each year. California funds for 4,000 residents and the remaining space is made up of non-resident students (1,425). Admitting more students would lead to overcrowding, which makes it harder to get classes and provides less resources/funding for the entire class.</p>
<p>Well, first of all, it may not be more selective with in-state students – in-state students may be less qualified than other applicants. Second, California taxpayers are barely supporting the UC these days, so they really can’t complain if the UC does not give a big preference to in-state students.</p>
<p>So for all of us instaters think about it like this. Like most people in California you’ve considered the UC schools, whether they’re reaches, safeties or matches, you’ve decided to apply and have your eye on at least one of them. After spending a significant amount of time on the application, why wouldn’t you apply to on of the top UCs in case they decide to take you in? You never know. The reason why UCLA has a lower acceptance for in state is because almost everyone who applies to a UC even if they don’t think they’re qualified will take the 5 minutes needed to choose a major for UCLA and pay the 70 bucks. UCLA has a lower acceptance rate in state, because there are a lot of people who don’t really qualify but do it anyways. Unlike other private universities, because we use the UC app, it makes it pretty painless to apply and thus more applicants. Just my theory from experience. I definitely applied to a few colleges because there wasn’t a supplement lol.</p>
<p>I was going to say the same thing as Wendeli. a bunch of people in california apply to UC schools because theyre cheap, adn then just check UCLA on the app hoping for a miracle. people from out of state arent going to be interested in paying OOS tuition unless its for a really good school, meaning that they think they have a shot at either UCLA or Berkeley, so theyre going to be better students. you dont have thousands of students with 3.0 gpa’s and 1800 SAT’s whose top choice is UCMerced who jsut apply for the hell of it like you do in california</p>
<p>I apologize surferkid, you are correct. I did not read your original post correctly, I just felt a super-need to defend UCLA. (I am a bit stressed about decisions tomorrow)
Good luck to you!</p>
<p>With all due respect I don’t agree it is “in your favor” to apply OOS. I’m from MA and I’ve always, always heard that it is much more difficult to be admitted OOS. And personally I hated the UC application process because it was just weird for me. I’m from a small high school and I think I’m the second person to have ever applied to any of the UCs or something like that and there were many times I was in the guidance office asking about the a-g requirements (I think that’s what they’re called?) or those UC-approved honors or whatever. All my schools were Common App with the exception of UCs and MIT. I can’t speak for all OOS applicants because, again, I’m from a really small school, but the UC application was just bothersome for me and I agree with Wendeli. If you’re willing to put up with the UC application process and you’re willing to move far away and everything for college, you’re more likely to be seriously considering UCLA rather than just applying because it’s a UC and you finished the app anyway.</p>
<p>But I understand taxpayers’ frustration at the high OOS demographics. I just don’t think it’s because it’s easier to get into UCs as OOS–it’s just that often a larger pool of OOS applicants are more qualified.</p>
<p>Having said that, watch as I get rejected tomorrow and feel like a jack*ss for posting this lol</p>
<p>Percentages are deceiving - look at like this:
In state applicants apply to public universities because its cheaper, so naturally public universities have a higher ratio of in state: out-of-state applicants.
In our case, this pertains to California and UCLA.</p>
<p>By using surferkids stats:
In-state: 9,830/51,797 = 18.98% accepted
Out of state: 3,045/10,284 = 29.61% accepted
International: 3,107/9,499 = 32.71% accepted</p>
<p>Clearly these stats suggest it is easier to get in as an out-of-state applicant.
But this is not true. The reason this is the case, is because the applicant total from out-of-state freshmen is 40,000 less than in-state applicants.
If we were to actually work these figure out, the stats would suggest that with 15,982 total accepted applicants:
61.5% are in-state.
19.05% are out-of-state.
19.44% are international.</p>
<p>Therefore, UCLA does support California well as an in state school. 3 in ever 5 students are Californians, while 1/5 are out of state and 1/5 are foreign.</p>
<p>I might mention that the standards for admission are higher for out of state students and out of state students will pay about $55,000/ year to attend one of the UC schools. I suspect the UCs appreciate the OOS tuition since they do have budget shortfalls.</p>
<p>We are from the East Coast and my son was invited to the Chancellor’s Reception and accepted at UCSB and UCSD. We are waiting to hear from UCLA and Berkeley (long shots). I keep reading posts from people angry about the UC school’s accepting OOS, and how their tax dollars support the schools. While I understand your frustration, you need to keep several things in mind. Every state school in the US accepts OOS and international students, many at a much higher acceptance rate than the UC’s. More importantly, OOS students pay THREE times the tuition than in state students. This means that my son’s tuition of $50,000+ covers the cost of himself, as well as TWO other in state students who would pay about $13,000 to attend. If you do the math, each OOS student is paying an additional $27,000+. Multiply that by the 1900 OOS and international students and they are bringing in an extra $51,000,000…YES, THAT’S RIGHT…51 MILLION DOLLARS TO JUST UCLA ALONE PER YEAR. Times that by all the UC schools and the amount is almost HALF A BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR…times that by a four year education and it is almost 2 BILLION DOLLARS. The California taxpayers should not be complaining about the percentage of OOS based on those numbers. And, my son will be paying FULL tuition as many OOS and international students do not get financial aid.</p>