<p>UCLA is by far my number one choice right now, but as an out of state student, we haven't received much. How did other middle class out of state students pay? Just take loans and work on scholarships? Also, with a ~biology major (specifically, Pre-Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics), how quickly could I land a job after graduation (on average) and what would be my starting salary (this would be in conjunction with grad school). </p>
<p>I genuinely plan on living in California for the rest of my life. How successful are the determining residency in California, as I've heard that that is a difficult process? Or should I just marry someone by freshman year so that I can pay instate tuition? Any insight would be greatly appreciated...thanks!</p>
<p>Not gonna happen unless your parents move into the state to make it their home.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the most part, they don’t attend UC at OOS prices. For the others, well, there is always PT Barnum, since one truly is born every minute. :)</p>
<p>sorry to be harsh, but the UC’s specifically target OOS kids to be close to full pay, to offset the state budget reductions.</p>
<p>Hm, sounds frustrating…but there has to be middle class OOS students who have successfully graduated from UCLA with little problem…right? And what about the job prospects right after graduation for a bio major? And the marrying thing? I’ve heard a rumor that if you marry in state in California then since you’re legally independent you will be charged less…at in state price…I think? How valid is this and how quickly could this take place?</p>
<p>job prospects for a bio major are probably the worst of all STEM majors. (There are a gazillion bio grads who die not get into med school, so they are scrounging for any lab job that they can find.)</p>
<p>yikes…even in the los angeles area? how about as a lab assistant/research student since I’d be majoring in Pre-Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics?</p>
<p>I agree with blue, this is the worst major for employment.
2018dad, I’m kind of upset that UCLA admit students that can’t pay. Why? The reason UCLA lower the bar to admit these OOS so that they can pay OOS tuition.</p>
<p>Does UCLA admit need blind (it should - how unfair would it be to admit only those OOS who can afford if someone like me who is genuinely considering the school is trying to find ways around it in order to attend)? And are OOS students really “lowering the bar?” Ouch, that burns…</p>
<p>Yeah it’s an unfortunate truth that the only reason UCLA admitted you is to have you pay full tuition. It isn’t worth it and is certainly something most Californians would NOT pay. UCLA’s a great school, but it simply isn’t worth that kind of money.</p>
<p>Just wondering, but what are your other options?</p>
<p>There you go again, trying to spread misinformation about UCLA again. Wrt the bold, there were 16% of the incoming class of 2013 who were from oos.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How are you doing beyphy?..</p>
<p>I don’t think UCLA admitted the OP just because he/she is oos and a full-payer, because this seemingly implies that he/she, to me at least, doesn’t have the qualifications to attend UCLA (and I know that’s not what you meant). Unversities like ASU and other state u’s have been admitting lesser q’ed oos students because they can pay full price and because they have lesser amounts of options.</p>
<p>But I would agree that OP shouldn’t consider UCLA because I like to see two things for oos students to attend the U:</p>
<ol>
<li>An express desire to attend college in CA, particularly in SoCal and UCLA.</li>
<li>An explicit ability to be able to pay full-sticker price, which would be manifest in financial docs.</li>
</ol>
<p>OP, I see 1, but I don’t see 2. I particularly like your statement taht you want to settle in CA, but the only way I can see this happening is if you were to gain independence from your parents to work in CA and to gain residency yourself. </p>
<p>Also wanted to add, that if you want to major in something like MIMG at whatever college, and are specifically looking to be employed right after instead of pointing towards a grad-school appt like m-school, that you attach a bus-related minor and do the whole internship thing to become employable in case whatever you wanted to do with MIMG falls through. </p>
What he said. The union card for a good job in the sciences is a PhD. </p>
<p>The UC system, UCLA included, made a conscious decision to admit more OOS students because of the money they bring.
There</a> is no financial aid available for the OOS tuition. If your parents cannot afford it, then you are not part of the students that UC is courting. </p>
<p>Picking up the additional OOS tuition (about $23,000 per year) could still be attractive.</p>
<p>In practice, not many of the OOS students who qualify for any UC financial aid will be able to afford it, since the UC financial aid will be $23,000 short of meeting need based on FAFSA EFC. A “maximum financial aid” OOS student will still see a minimum net price of about $32,000.</p>
<p>You both are missing the point. UCLA doesn’t admit oos students based on ability to pay, and thereby lower admission standards for these students at all or at least materially. The admissions readers don’t look at a student’s app and say, “This applicant is from Greenwich, CT,” and then proceed to place him/her in the auto-admit file despite said student having low grades and low scores because of his/her parents’ ability to pay. </p>
<p>Admissions would, though, admit students on a macro level with regard to the oos group, to target enrollment of these students based on past yields, which are typically significantly lower based on the full tuition price tag. Unfortunately these yields are hard to predict, which has led to UCLA to overenrolling these specifically targeted students or Int’ls often in recent times. </p>
<p>The admit rate for instate students was 18% and for oos students the rate was 34% in 2013, but the qualifying floor for admittance among the latter is higher, which makes up some of the difference. </p>
<p>The low rate of acceptance for instate students was mainly due to the high no. of students who apply who attend bad high schools. But UCLA would rather that they do apply despite some of them having woefully low stats, so the U can cherry-pick some under the holistic approach of admittance, with whom the administration feels it can work, to bring up them up to speed.</p>
<p>Of course oos students who choose to enroll are expected to pay the full bill; however, the administration doesn’t involve itself in determining how these students do so. I would rather hope that it would involve itself in such to prevent them from taking on a high debt load. As such, hopefully the word can continue to spread to prevent students from making foolhardy decisions based exclusively on feelings instead of money-wise ones. </p>
<p>Heh, ironically enough, a girl in one of my undergraduate classes actually WAS from Greenwhich, Connecticut. </p>
<p>I think you may have misunderstood what I said. That has to do because of how I phrased my statement. Why would UCLA give a potential OOS student the chance to attend when they could give an instate one instead? It’s mostly because they want those students to pay OOS tuition. If the UCs were adequately funded and they didn’t need those OOS students, many of these students now admitted would be rejected. That’s because the UCs would give priority to instate residents with similar, or worst stats.</p>
<p>The way the administration words things would be approximately:</p>
<p>Admittance of non-resident students is added on top of in-state residents, with the approximate target of CA students being around 4,000. </p>
<p>So the 4,000 is a constant, some years as much as 4,500, regardless of how many non-residents choose to enroll, which of course means that UCLA has a serious problem of over-enrolling recently. Look at the years prior to the U targeting non-residents. CA enrollment has been fairly constant at around the 4,000-4,500 figure, and if that was the predominance of enrollment, the U would take more transfers. </p>
<p>The problem that UCSD has is that it has a low yield for incoming frosh and transfers. All publics and most privates have low yields, certainly, compared to the Ivies and some others, but SD has a woefully low yield for as great a U as it is. Because of the low instate resident yield of SD, nonresident enrollment has actually eaten into instate rates. </p>
<p>Nice “talking” with you and hopefully no hard feelings.</p>