<p>The tittle says it all. Would any UCs put some kind of advantage over you if you don't apply for financial aid?</p>
<p>Absolutely! The University of California is penny-pinching right now, with the budget crisis and all. Any money they can save will help them out, even though they won’t admit it.</p>
<p>I agree with UCLAudia.</p>
<p>Does UC provide information to admission committees on whether or not an applicant has requested financial aid? I suspect not.</p>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, UC is working to increase financial aid through the Blue & Gold program. Their strategy is to raise fees for those with families making more than $70,000 per year, but remove all fees (though not room and board) for those whose families make less.</p>
<p>Public institutions have always been a great deal for the wealthy who would otherwise send their students to pricey private institutions, while the lower middle class would simply not pursue an education at those elite institutions (unless they provide significant financial aid, which they often do).</p>
<p>The objective of a public higher education system is to increase the number of college graduates. With that in mind, I’d support raising fees for families making more than, say, $200,000 per year to match what private institutions cost. Use the extra money to provide additional financial aid for those making less than that amount.</p>
<p>I got off on a bit of a tangent there. In answer to your question, I would be surprised if whoever makes admission decisions has access to financial aid information.</p>
<p>For the record, tuition has increased by insane levels across the board and financial aid has decreased. I think you’re confusing your hopes and dreams with the reality on the ground.</p>
<p>@nick… so you think that because someones parents make over $200,000 a year they should be forced to pay around $200,000 for an education? figuring out how to pay for college is going to be hard for me because i wont receive anything in financial aid, paying for college ends up being more of a burden for people who’s parents make more money because they are actually going to have to pay for school, and its not like we just have $40k+ a year to throw around.</p>
<p>A family friend of ours is an admissions officer at UCLA. He said they set aside applications from people who could pay and out of staters and gave them priority.</p>
<p>wait, cowman are you saying that OOS and people who can pay are at a disadvantage?</p>
<p>Your reading comprehension blows. He’s saying the exact opposite. OOS and people who can pay are at an advantage. The UCs desperately need the extra money.</p>
<p>Wait, what?! Since when do out of staters get priority?! (Since they can charge them more for tuition, I know, but what ever happened to their “blood is thicker than water policy” and giving priority to good ol’ Californians??)</p>
<p>That’s what I thought he said, but I asked again to reassure because it’s a fact that they don’t give priority to in-state students…</p>
<p>UCLAudia. The state budget is in a catastrophic state and won’t be in the black anytime soon. In the end, money talks. OOS have to pay higher tuition, hence being preferable for admissions.</p>
<p>For those of you that seem to either have horribly poor reading comprehension, or are naive and in denial:</p>
<p>A family friend of ours is an admissions officer at UCLA. He said they set aside applications from people who could pay and out of staters and gave them priority.</p>
<p>it’s not about having poor comprehension skills man, UCs have always been way too biased towards in-state students, so it’s just hard to believe lol</p>
<p>Even in times of catastrophe, there will always be people who benefit from it.</p>
<p>You’ve asked this before, OP =/. It would be better to check your old threads rather than creating a new one.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/uc-transfers/976032-ucs-need-blind.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/uc-transfers/976032-ucs-need-blind.html</a></p>
<p>Anywho, to reiterate what I responded with before and what some have said in this thread: Yes, they are need-blind, but they do not promise to meet 100% of need for in-state or out-of-state students. In-state students do have the promise that if they meet certain qualifications, then they will have the fees covered. Note that is just the fees and not the full need for the whole Cost of Attendance. So you can be admitted even if you have a 0 EFC (and thus a large need), but there is no promise you will be able to attend if the costs are prohibitive.</p>
<p>UCB has openly stated that they will be admitting more out-of-state students because of the increased cost to this particular group (in-state students do not pay what the UCs call “tuition.” This is only charged to out-of-state students).</p>
<p>[UC</a> Berkeley to admit more out-of-state students - SFGate](<a href=“http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-10-21/bay-area/17185901_1_gang-task-force-robert-birgeneau-uc-berkeley-materials-science]UC”>http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-10-21/bay-area/17185901_1_gang-task-force-robert-birgeneau-uc-berkeley-materials-science)</p>
<p>nick_scheu, I’m sure you’re a relatively intelligent guy with some decent ideas but that little suggestion you made in the fourth paragraph is so insanely, ridiculously stupid. It’s stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid stupid. It’s just stupid</p>
<p>That was stupid.</p>
<p>We should legalize and tax ALL drugs (as hard or as soft as they get). We can use the extra money from that to increase financial aid, reduce tuition, etc.</p>
<p>I don’t know about all drugs, but weed should definitely be legalized. The government wastes 60k per person in jail per year. Sending people to jail who were caught smoking marijuana is definitely the biggest waste of money, time and space. Something that doesn’t impair you as much as alcohol is taking away the money from the real focus, education.</p>
<p>The UCs are desperate for money because of the California budget crisis, but the state of California only pays the professors from what i remember. everything else is paid for by the UCs.</p>
<p>Universities also make a good portion of money through their research projects that they’re paid to by agencies like the NIH. They also make investments too (i remember reading that a bunch of UCLAs investments didn’t go well) I’d also imagine that they make money through donations and other sources as well. I’m not sure what the ratio is unfortunately.</p>
<p>Even if certain UCs do pull in tens of millions of dollars in revenue from students, it’s not certain how much they spend back on the students, and hence, what their profit is. </p>
<p>Officially, the UCs are need blind. Anyone who says they’re not is just speculating.</p>
<p>It’s not speculation when an established forum member’s (500+ posts in this case) family-friend is an admissions officer at UCLA, and this admissions officer has explicitly said that they set aside OOS/non-need students for priority admissions.</p>
<p>It’s one thing when it’s a low post-count member that might be ■■■■■■■■/lying/spreading misinformation. It’s another thing when it’s an established member making the claim (if only because they have absolutely nothing to gain from giving us insider information). So it can really only be to penetrate the shroud of public image, reputation, and secrecy surrounding public schools that would only hurt from having their actual practices known.</p>