Those are probably inaccurate information! We have a really big sample here. No one from in state got in today.
@Shdjdgd . . .
I caught your post kind of late, but I wanted to finish a response before getting some zzzzzz’s.
Let’s go over the contents of this link:
https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/files/CC2019/plenary-and-campus-updates.pdf
Campus…W/L Offers…….W/L Opt-Ins….…Accept.…….Enrolled…A/R……Yield2
UCB…………….7,535……………3,975, 52.8%…1,094, 27.5%…?..17%…45%
UCD…………10,641……………3,458, 32.5%…1,971, 57.0%…?..39%…20%
UCI……………17,019……………8,483, 49.8%………1,496, 17.6%……….?..27%…24%
UCLA………11,943……………7,153, 59.9%…965, 13.5%…?..12%…43%
UCM……………N/A………………N/A………………….……N/A…………………N/A.….72%…12%
UCR………….….?..4,015………………….…1,363, 34.0%…?..57%…17%
UCSB…………8,863……………5,865, 66.2%…604, 10.3%…?..30%…18%
UCSD…….…20,000…………………?..4,300.………………….?..32%…19%
UCSC…….…12,859………….7,576, 58.9%…4,686, 61.9%…?..51%…13%
A/R is overall acceptance rate for all the schools and Yield2 is the overall yield in admissions. There’s about a -80% correlation, i.e. – a strong indirect relationship between A/R and yield because the higher the yield rate, the lower the A/R needs to be.
You make a good point, rather an inference: if a UC campus is not going to be able to pull decent amounts from its W/Ls, then it’s going to employ them less or not at all. Case in point, UCM is not ready to employ them because it wouldn’t be worth the effort for them to offer W/Ls at this time if small percentages accept and enroll.
So the answer is to essentially to blindly accept a lot more students off of historical yields and see how many of those enroll and hope it’s close to the intended target enrollment.
Generally, though, if a campus’s overall yield is low, by employing W/Ls, then it can still reduce it’s A/R by employing a large W/L strategy like UCSD and UCSC. If neither employed W/Ls, SD’s and SC’s acceptance rates would be a decent amount over 32% and 51% respectively, and they would have a less predictable class makeup.
The difference between UCB’s and UCLA’s W/L strategies is that UCB culls the WL-prospects before offering them a spot, and UCLA tends to offer more spots. This is why UCLA’s acceptance rate off of W/L is about half of what UCB’s is.
Both UCB and UCLA have a good yield for those who are accepted off of W/L, which makes its employment very beneficial to both. I’m going to guess that UCLA has about a 65% yield off of those to whom it sends offers off of W/L and UCB’s might be a bit higher. By offering W/L acceptances later, both can control their freshman class demographics better too: the number who do enroll, the makeup between the geographic cohorts, and the numbers in each specific departments. None of the other UC campuses can really do that with all that much precision. And because they don’t get a good yield from W/Ls, they have to continually offer until they get the target enrollments for their frosh classes. This is one of the reasons why they offer early and probably not late because would they be worth forfeiting a deposit over in the minds of a prospective student? Probably not.
You’re right though, whether a W/L acceptance is offered early or late doesn’t really have complete significance as related to yield because if they just blindly offer in regular admissions and send out a lot of offers, that would still work. But it does in a way because both UCLA and UCB offer late, as they have the best yields of the UCs. This way they can count SIRs through the end of April and make better adjustments in the W/L offers in May.
I agree with you!
What’s A/R?
Acceptance Rate
@Livingonhope oh HAHA I am so dumb lol. Thank you! 
For the class of 2025 and others who will be seeing this thread:
Today (Tuesday, April 28), we had the first of wave of admission. Similar to last year only OOS and International students were accepted from the waitlist. It seems to us that this was the “big” wave for OOS and International students.
@Shdjdgd I love the idea of helping future sleuths. I’d caution Class of 2025 against putting much stock in anything that happens this year, though, since it’s an outlier for obvious reasons.
@firmament2x Another thorough analysis. Of course predicting enrollment isn’t an exact science, much to the dismay of the schools, with a classic example being UC Davis going from taking 24 people off their list one year to almost 2,000 the next.
Best of luck all around. Almost there.
Heyy so I mentioned this research award I received in the additional info box, but didn’t elaborate on it much. Considering that I’m international and that the ao will most likely not be aware of it, should I send an email briefly detailing it or nah?
Should we expect another wave today or is it after May 1?
In the past threads have there been waves on consecutive days?
Last year 2023, looks like the first wave came on April 23rd, the second April 30th and the third on May 1st…then it was pretty scattered. This year the first wave was April 28th so wondering if within May 1st we will have any luck. Keeping fingers crossed and once again congrats to all those who got in. I seriously want this to be over with specially with COVID and May 1st deadline not happy that anxiety is building up.
I apologize if I missed it but any waitlisters got any rejection letters yet? I am wondering if that will happen after May 1st or even prior…
I am really hoping that this Tuesday’s wave won’t be the only OOS wave…
Last year there were two OOS waves, one on 4/23 and 4/30. So i hope there will be another one, possibly around 5/1-5/4 because the waitlist opt-in option closed later this year, at 4/20 instead of 4/15.
Opt-in closed on April 15. Current date on UCLA website is NOT correct. Mystery why date was changed.
@otto12345 No, the opt in closed on April 15th. As @CaliBoy2024 stated, it was wrong on the UCLA website.
I am hoping there’s another wave today afternoon
There won’t be today