<p>We've had so many debates here on UC admissions, and no one has ever questioned that it was harder to gain admission for OOS students. So I was surprised when a student posted this chart for last year's admissions at UCLA showing an admit rate of 28% for OOS vs. 22% for in state:</p>
<p>I never noticed that but there it is in blue and white! 10% apps are from out of state and 28% acceptance rate. Wow. Well IMO we need the OOS tuition however my kids didn't benefit from any of it:( I actually like having some kids around from different parts of the country, it increases geographical diversity. The problem is is that so many well qualified in-state students get turned away. The future doesn't look much better it seems.</p>
<p>I don't know that this was any major secret. I suspect, even though the admission rate is higher, that the OOS students have somewhat better "stats" than the in-state students, as a group. Berkeley and UCLA, like other top-line state universities (Michigan, Virginia, UNC within its statutory limits) have always sought to attract high-quality OOS students, in the interest of having a more vibrant, more cosmopolitan, more diverse, and higher achieving student body. And I believe that all of them, in one form or another, have some limited pool of merit scholarships to use to attract the most desirable candidates, and which are not restricted to in-state students. See the discussions recently about Robertson and Morehouse Scholarships in NC, and I know that the UCs will award Regents Scholarships to OOS students, and that Michigan has 100 or so significant merit scholarships for which OOS students are eligible.</p>
<p>In the case of the UCs, if you think about it, there shouldn't be any controversy whatsoever. I would be willing to bet that, if you looked at OOS students at UCLA and Berkeley over the past 50 years, so many of them have remained in California after graduation, and become high-income California taxpayers, that any long-term economic difference to the state between in-state and OOS students is minimal (taking into account the higher base OOS tuition). The high-quality UCs are a great tool for recruiting high-value "immigrants" to California, and I'm certain that OOS students, net of all grants, are (a) a profit center for the universities, and (b) a valuable long-term asset to the state of California.</p>
<p>Admissions rate at UCLA has been a little higher for OOS for years. Same at Berkeley. And I've pointed that out on many previous threads. Where it is "harder" for OOS is reflected in the stats of those admitted. Admitted OOS kids have significantly higher mean GPAs and SATs than in-states. Thus the OOS applicant pool is more of a self-selected high-achieving group, whereas the in-state pools has some kids with more modest stats who are giving it a hope-against-hope shot. Net result: higher admit rate for OOS.</p>
<p>However, maybe a greater percentage of OOS do not followup with attendance because of the out of state tuition. Dealing with that issue. DS was rejected at UCLA and UCSD but accepted at Irvine. Now is the program and future at that school worth the extra tuition?</p>
<p>Base admission rate isn't the whole story on selectivity. I think it would still be quite safe to say that UC admissions is more selective for out-of-state students than for in-state students. (I do know Minnesotans who have been admitted to and have graduated from UC Berkeley.) I'll post my FAQ about that issue here: </p>
<p>SELECTIVITY </p>
<p>It's NEVER a valid procedure to compare base acceptance rates alone to derive an inference about selectivity. That's because different pools of applicants apply to different colleges, based on their own estimates of their chances. I'll repost here an example I have posted earlier.</p>
<p>If Podunk Community College started a more vigorous marketing campaign, and encouraged many more applications than it has received before, it might find that the number of applications submitted was far above its capacity to enroll students, and thus find, even taking into account less than 100 percent yield of admitted students who actually enroll, that it could not admit all applicants. If Podunk has a 10 percent yield, a new first-year class size of 1,000, and receives 200,000 applications, it might issue a press release, after it admits 10,000 applicants, saying "Podunk admission rate down to 5 percent, lower than any Ivy League college." But a thoughtful reader of that press release, even one who believes everything that Podunk reported, might still have genuine doubts that Podunk is more selective than Columbia, not to mention Harvard. Base acceptance rate is one interesting statistic about a college's annual admission cycle, but it is not the sole competent evidence about which college is most selective. Scholars of the college admission process have some genuine disagreements about how to show which college is most "selective," but NO ONE thinks that base acceptance rate is the last word on that subject.</p>
<p>How do we know the OOS pool has higher stats, is this published anywhere?</p>
<p>And yes Lucy55, the yield for OOS is less than half of the in state yield. Is Irvine worth the $46K? Not IMO.</p>
<p>I'm not against taking kids from OOS and do think it benefits all plus the money is needed. Yet I've believed all of the talk about how hard it was to get in and that there are no grants available. </p>
<p>If anyone has related stats, please post them. But the anecdotal evidence from reading the UCLA and UCSD posts this week here isn't showing me higher stats and suggests grants that are not Regent's scholarships.</p>
<p>"However, maybe a greater percentage of OOS do not followup with attendance because of the out of state tuition."</p>
<p>That looks like a critical factor. Enroll rates for in-state and OOS were 41% and 22%, respectively. Maybe this is an enrollment management issue where UCLA wants to end up with around 300 OOS students, and adjusts admit rates accordingly. You have to go back to 2005 to find a UCLA freshman class where the admit rate was higher for in-state.</p>
<p>The "anecdotal evidence" from CC isn't evidence at all. Not only is the population not typical -- it isn't for any college, as far as I can tell -- but it is so atypical that one suspects that there is a certain amount of "stats inflation" (and EC inflation, too) in the self-reported information here.</p>
<p>The UC website actually includes lots of detailed admission statistics. If you look, you will see that in 2007 the admission rate for OOS domestic applicants (24.8%) was slightly higher than the overall admission rate (23.6%) and the California admission rate (23.8%). It doesn't have good comparisons of statistics, but it does look like California resident GPAs and SATs are ever so slightly below the GPAs and SATs of all enrollees. It's tough to draw too much of a conclusion from that, because the yield for California residents is much higher than for OOS students, and in both categories the yield for high-stat students is much lower than for not-quite-as-high-stat students, so that comparative statistics for enrolled students don't really give you a sense of what the pool of admitted students looks like.</p>
<p>(Cross-posted with SlitheyTove, with the same point: This is not a change.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
How do we know the OOS pool has higher stats, is this published anywhere?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, the data is available on UC Statfinder, but it takes a little manipulation. And, no, OOS do not have "higher stats"; well they are slightly higher, but that could be an income factor since matriculants need to pony up big bucks. And/or the UCs give big admission tip to low income kids (who tend to have lower test scores). Given the poor finaid for OOS kids, 33% Pell Grantees per campus have to be 100% all instate, lowering the instate numbers.</p>
<p>In answer to your question about grants: Yes students can recieve grant aid. But, someone from OOS will recieve essentially the same grant package as someone instate (unless Regents); even with an efc of zero, that means a max of $16k in grant aid. If OOS, someone would have to come up with another $30k in self-help with a zero efc.</p>
<p>By the way, those nifty statistics from the University of California confirm a long-held belief: That for selective colleges, the "middle 50%" of SAT and GPA is not a good guide to what constitutes a match for an applicant. Looking at the Berkeley and UCLA charts, students with SATs over 2100 represented about 25% of the enrolled class (slightly less at UCLA, slightly more at Berkeley), and students with SATs between 1800-2099 represented about half of each enrolled class. However, in terms of admissions, students in the higher category were admitted in much greater numbers and at a much higher admission rate. At Berkeley, they represented 45% of the admitted student pool and had an admission rate of over 50%, while the next highest category (half the enrolled class) represented 40% of admitted students, and had an admission rate less than half of the higher group's rate. At UCLA, the numbers were similar, and the differences in admission rate were even more extreme.</p>
<p>The point being that the median SAT score of admitted students was pretty close to the 75% level of enrolled students, and it looks like students with SATs close to the median for enrolled students have significantly less than an average chance of being admitted based on the overall admission rate. Berkeley or UCLA would be a "match" only for a student near or above the 75% level of enrolled students for GPA and test scores.</p>
<p>^^Except that the UCs do not place as much weight on SAT/ACT scores as do many other colleges. Actually, what's fun about the UC Statfinder is one can really find match reach by slicing and dicing data. Sort for ELC, top API school (9 or 10), and 2100+, and watch safety pop-up, even at Cal and UCLA. </p>
<p>Of course there are always the 'huh' questions after all is said and done. For example, Shrinkwrap's D was denied at UCLA, but accepted at Cal and Duke. This year, our high school has a kid who was accepted Stanford EA, but rejected by UCLA. But that's why 'safety' is only a 85-90% chance in my book.</p>
<p>Interesting discussion. My DS got the good test score (except for writing). His friends thought a 33 on the ACT would get him in anywhere he wanted. This is not the case obviously. There are certainly kids on this board that have more stellar applications. My DS has a couple of C's on his transcript--doesn't alway want to work so hard. He had no community service (would have helped at UCSD) but spent a great deal of time in extra curricular music. It appears to me that kids had one up on him because they knew what was important in the application process. I wish I would have looked at CC before he started applying to colleges.....sigh...</p>
<p>Based on the tables, it sure looks like the UCs place a fair amount of emphasis on SATs, or at least on an SAT/GPA matrix. Maybe not as much as some others, because they do look at other factors, but it seems pretty clear that SATs correlate strongly with admission chances. The Naviance plots I've seen confirm this, too. Unlike HYP, high grades + high test scores = high chance of admission.</p>
<p>Like a couple of other posters, I wonder if the slightly higher OOS admit rate is due to the significantly lower enroll rate and partially due to the slightly higher overall stats for OOS.</p>
<p>I think that the 'surprises', kids who got into more highly selective schools but not UCLA, can be due to the fact that LA can not consider race.</p>
<p>More like 50 percent at Berkeley last year. The top 25 percent was a little of 2200. Also OOS admission at Cal was more competitive than instate. Instate admission rate was 22% and OOS 17%. International was 22%. So it may be easier at UCLA, but not Cal. That could change this year.</p>
<p>hmom5, I agree with you that factor tends to account for a lot of the admissions contrasts.<br>
Another factor weighted more heavily by many private schools than the UCs is athletics. My sister-in-law (white) was rejected by UCLA and accepted by Stanford, and she knows that her coach played a role in her acceptance.</p>
<p>Think of it this way – for every OOS full pay student UCLA accepts, they can afford to support (with school funds) one or two California kids at UCLA who need financial assistance.</p>
<p>When I attended UCSD and UCLA, fees were trivial – on the order of $230 a quarter – and the state funded the bulk of the operating costs of the school. Today UCLA operates much more like a private school, getting very, very little of its funding from the state, and very heavily reliant on endowment, grants, student tuition and fees, and the incredibly high fees paid by OOS students, who more than fully cover the costs of their education. </p>
<p>I suspect that the math is such that if UCLA admitted NO OOS students that they’d actually have to reduce in-state enrollment because there just isn’t the funding to cover the costs. Sad but true.</p>