<p>Here are the released numbers for the UC system for 2008</p>
<p>Applied ..Admitted ..Rate ..School
38,740 ....8,615 ..22.2% Berkeley
37,747 ...19,762 ..52.4% Davis
39,247 ...19,214 ..49.0% Irvine
46,678 ...10,319 ..22.1% UCLA
.9,980 ....7,658 ...76.7% Merced
21,224 ...16,316 ..76.9% Riverside
42,233 ...16,992 ..40.2% San Diego
43,023 ...21,367 ..49.7% Santa Barbara</p>
<h1> 25,746 ...19,138 ..74.3% Santa Cruz</h1>
<p>304,618 .139,381 ..45.8% Total</p>
<p>However, the sum of the parts do not tell the entire story. Here are the numbers of unique applications and admitted students for the university-wide system.</p>
<p>The truth should never be a problem. It's nice to see that the best school system in the world only rejects 25% of its applicants. Selectivity does not mean the same everywhere.</p>
<p>Those numbers are probably helped by students such as myself who applied (stupidly) to a number of UC's as back-ups because it was so easy and I was in the top 3% of my graduating class.</p>
<p>Given the published requirements to get into the UC, maybe the scare off most other applicants? DUH. I'm sure if the tried they could drum up another 75,000 applicants to reject. But why do all that paperwork.</p>
<p>^ Barrons is right. The UC system publishes an objective index indicating which students will be deemed "qualified" based on their combination of GPA and test scores: the lower the GPA, the higher the test scores required to be deemed "qualified." Historically the UC system has been committed to finding space for all "qualified" applicants somewhere in the system, though not necessarily at their preferred campus. This information is objective and transparent; every HS GC, every parent, and every graduating senior in the state can look at it and determine whether a student is "qualified" given their own GPA and test scores, and there's simply no point in applying if you're not. The effect, then, is to pre-screen the applicant pool down to those who can be expected to be placed somewhere in the UC system. The 25% who apply and aren't admitted are presumably just applications filed in error by applicants who don't meet the standards to be considered "qualified." </p>
<p>Of course, the bone-headed US News ranking system punishes the UCs for this; they'd rank higher if they just said "anyone can apply and we'll consider all applicants," because that would make them more "selective" by virtue of rejecting more unqualified applicants, rather than telling them in advance not not to bother to apply because they won't get in. Dumb, dumb, dumb.</p>
<p>I'm assuming that includes the OOS people who probably mostly just applied to places like Cal, LA, SD, etc. which probably makes the percentage of CA students accepted even better.</p>
<p>Its sort of a bizarre world. California is a HUGE state, not only in geographical miles but in population. MILLIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. Most of whom want to attend a UC school because they are such a good value. But they dont know where they will get in and who will give them the best offer etc...whether thats the top students fishing for scholarships or the medium to upper medium student looking for "the best of the rest" school etc, or just an average kid simply looking to improve themselves and get in where they can. So it engenders HUGE numbers of applications. Then they get the thousands of kids OOS who dream of California living, or the prestige of UCLA or Berkeley. (and in others, private USC). The mission statement is to educate the people of California, as many as they can, for as cheap as they can. Nothing wrong with that. </p>
<p>Its interesting how the selectivity thing all got started and when. But I know kids with pretty decent stats (not stellar, just real solid) that got left out in the cold completely from the top tier UC schools (UCLA, Berkeley, UCSD, UCD, UCI) and is now attending private University of San Diego. So it goes.</p>
<p>Back in my day, UC qualified students were allowed to submit only one application to the UC system, naming the first choice and second choice UC campuses that they wished to attend. If there was no room at either of their two top choices, they were redirected to other UC's where there was still room available. I think that this system made a lot of sense, most people ended up at the campus they wanted the most, and the multiple applications (and fees) did not have to be submitted.</p>
<p>Another factor contributing to the self-selection of the applicant pool is that there is a clear pathway from two-year colleges to UC institutions. If you're underqualified or iffy, you've got an acceptable and promising alternative: go prove yourself at a community college, and get into a UC school later.</p>
<p>By definition, the Univ of California accepts 100% of every minimally-qualified in-state applicant. Thus, the 75% could easily be higher if: 1) kids included Santa Cruz & Riverside & Merced on their list; 2) fulfilled all a-g requirements, with a 3.0, and corresponding SAT/ACT scores; 3) completed two Subject Test scores; 4) didn't catch senior-itis.</p>
<p>lunitari: Yes one application, just like the Common App. For the 'UCCommn App', a student must check off all campuses of interest and pay $60 per campus. Acceptances are made by individual campuses.</p>
<p>UCB, should I have included UCSF in the list of admissions of California high schoolers to the UC? </p>
<p>Should I apologize for refraining to be a vocal --or biased-- cheerleader. And as far as your question "Don't you go to Claremont McKenna?" the answer is ... NO. It's summer after all. ;)</p>
<p>PS Was my post factually incorrect or pejorative? The information is copied verbatim from the UCOP. Where is the problem?</p>
[quote]
Under current policy, a large group of students with strong enough grades and test scores can achieve what is called UC eligibility. They may not get into their first- or even fourth-choice school but are guaranteed a spot at a campus with room, usually UC Riverside or UC Merced. Faculty</a> split over proposal on UC eligibility - Los Angeles Times
[/quote]
To digress a bit (and go into the main point of the article) the UC system is reconsidering this guarantee, part of a back-door process to bring back affirmative action. First step is remove the guarantee, because in the longer run they need to free up spaces. If the UC system is required to put those eligible somewhere they can shuffle what campuses kids get into, but not the overall pool from which they pick. They've already watered this down once, with the ELC rule; if you're in the top 4% of your HS and you've taken the required SAT tests and meet the A-G requirements, you're eligible. But that didn't go far enough, hence the current proposal. Once adopted the next step will be to gradually relax the standards to allow more and more kids who didn't meet the standards to apply, although of course they will claim they're just using a "broader" measure to select top students. You can see why they need to get rid of the guarantee; if they want to take thousands of kids who aren't even eligible today, something has to give. These kids will displace those currently eligible and guaranteed a spot. If you don't think this is where its going, think about how the courts have been able to redefine common-sense words; "prevailing wage" clauses in government contracts have been interpreted for over 75 years to mean the local union wage and not what people are actually earning, and Title IX which is supposed to prevent discrimination against women in sports has been interpreted to require equal numbers of participants.</p>
<p>I'm not so sure about that. There's a persistent myth, pervasive on CC and elsewhere, that the UCs are almost impossibly difficult for OOS applicants to get into, "more difficult than HYPS," it's sometimes said. Yet the statistics don't bear that out. For the 2007 entering class, UC Berkeley reports it admitted 25% of in-state applicants and 20% of OOS (US resident) applicants:</p>
<p>The total "non-resident" figure is pulled down, however, by a much lower 10% admit rate for internationals. Now 20% is lower than 25%, to be sure; but Berkeley's 20% OOS admit rate is nearly double the admit rate for HYPS and higher than the rest of the Ivies (except Cornell, depending on how you count), and roughly in the ballpark with schools like Duke, WUSTL, Rice, and Georgetown---schools which no one dismisses as impossibly difficult to attend.</p>
<p>I don't have the comparable Berkeley figures for 2008, however.</p>