@10s4life : thanks for the reminder. I just felt I had to respond, especially, numerous times when the poster obviously had clear bias for UCLA.
That is why in my first post on this topic issue, I stated:
"BTW, this post is not about UCLA vs. USC, the topic which I am sure has been over exhausted in other posts. "
@UCBUSCalum Sure thing! Both are great schools.
Uh, no. I’ve been on cc a long time and I can guarantee you no one has every accused me of presenting the company spiel. (I’m usually the cynic around these parts.)
I’m a finance guy and look at purchase decisions based on value – my perceived value since I’m paying. Like I posted earlier, I just don’t see the value of paying for UC OOS with the exception of a few special programs. And I’ve been posting that on cc for years. You have a different opinion, so we can agree to disagree.
I never made any “call”. I made a suggestion for an OOS’er to consider – that’s all.
btw: be careful when viewing a college’s CDS. Some report weighed GPA’s on the form as the instructions can be interpreted in a couple of ways.
@bluebayou . . . Okay, I’ll play because your post is pertinent to the OP since he/she is oos, though he or she didn’t specifically bring up the cost factor.
I don’t care if you’re a finance guy or not; my problem with you is that you’re picking and choosing what you want to address in my previous posts. I stated somewhere before that a parent who pays the installment costs of UCLA (or UCB) with Amex and doesn’t think much of it, is the type who would be amenable to his/her son(s) or daughter(s) attending UCLA. Additionally, if the $250k pricetag is more like $2.5k with the decimal translated over a couple of places (edit: to said parent(s), or per their perception of the valuation of a dollar), then why shouldn’t UCLA be in contention?
You’re kind of like the one person who’s trying to uphold his own standard within what’s, say, proprietorial, when public colleges taking oos students is happening all across the state and nation. There are numerous CA high school students, e.g., from my high-school alma mater, who choose to attend the University of Oregon – there are 5,000+ undergrads from CA at the school; U of Arizona; ASU; U of Washington; Colorado; as well as many who are leaving the state to attend privates like TCU or SMU, as well as the Ivies and other elite colleges. Granted, the cost of the publics I mentioned is less than the UCs, but to shut UCLA out is counter to the trend that’s occurring nationally.
This represents a blurring of private and public colleges, because there is a blurring of the educations at both of these, except for those who attend the small liberal-arts type colleges which are more personally based; but with these, they’re going to be left behind for not offering a full set of programs.
Are you referring to UCLA’s freshmen having 47.7% (if I remember correctly) w/ 4.0s? No, this is unweighted it is presenting because if one cross-checks its CDS in 2019 with its admissions website, the 3.94 uwgpa descends to the 39th percentile. The median gpa is indeed ~3.98 (off of inference) and the mean/average is 3.90 because the small percentage of students (presumably athletes) that UCLA admits and others with < 3.50 gpa.
I am from Chicago and our college prep public schools (selective enrollment, test to get in) here offer so many AP classes and it is not uncommon for students to graduate with 12-14 AP classes and yes 10 AP classes junior and senior year are common. These schools are also offering all Honors classes. So kids are taking all honors + APs = very high GPA. The students grind it out and in addition to all of those classes a lot of the kids are dual enrollment kids so they are ALSO taking classes at the local community colleges for free in addition to all of the work above. Highly motivated, very talented students.
That’s one thing students from the city need to do here is dual-enroll at their local community college. That’ll make up for the deficiencies of their local hss. But it sounds like Chicago’s doing a great job.