Vent about UC decisions

[citivas]

@Data10

UCLA’s out of state admit rate was 3.3%. UCB was 3.6%

Where did you get this data? Is that for this year? Last year I saw more like 8.x% for OOS

[Gumbymom]

@Data10

These are the overall UC admission rates from the UCOP data for 2022 applicants.
2022 Freshman admit rates

Campus	CA RESIDENT	OUT OF STATE	INTERNATIONAL
Berkeley	14.5%	8.6%	5.5%
Davis	32.3%	59.8%	43%
Irvine	18.2%	36.6%	21%
Los Angeles	9.2%	8.9%	5.8%
Merced	100%	78.6%	81.7%
Riverside	66%	88.1%	68.%
San Diego	23.8%	31.5%	15.5%
Santa Barbara	26.7%	28.8%	19.7%
Santa Cruz	43.2%	70.7%	55.4%

[Medea1]

I think a lot of this is luck as well. Different readers read different apps. Maybe a certain reader resonates with one person but another reader wouldn’t have found the student’s profile equally strong. Sometimes I wonder.

[Data10]

@rota32

Thanks for the link. Assuming the USNEWS (not particularly a standard bearer of objectivity) list is correct, I would say that the record of UCB is pretty deplorable and while UCLA is not so bad, it is not really impressive. These two UC schools are doing even worse than state schools in the states whose governments may not even want social mobility. And what about the amount of taxpayer money? Certainly these two UCs receive far more taxpayer funding for education than those large state schools in FL and TX who are doing better in social mobility index.

Why would you assume USNews ranking of social mobility is correct? I’m not entirely clear what they are doing, but my guess is 50% graduation rate for students receiving Pell grants and 50% graduation rate for Pell compared to non-Pell with an unspecified degree of boost given to colleges with more Pell (boost magnitude is likely chosen to avoid knocking HYPSM… from expected position on overall ranking). This is not what I’d consider to be the “correct” ranking for social mobility.

I think it’s more reasonable to look at how colleges do in specific criteria related to social mobility and generally focus less on graduation rates. At all of the discussed highly selective colleges, the overwhelming majority of Pell grant kids graduate. That isn’t the main problem for highly selective colleges that are affordable after FA. The bigger issue is the vast majority of students come from wealthy families, and few come from truly lower income families.

For example, the Chetty study lists the following ranking for portion of students that move up at least 2 income quintiles above their parents. Most highly selective colleges have the vast majority of students from top income quintile, so they do not do well in this metrics. Many highly selective publics are not much better than privates in portion NOT in top income quintile, but UCs do better than most. Note that the Chetty numbers are several years out of date.

Portion of Students who Move Up 2 Income Quintiles
CUNY – 51% (2nd highest among all 2000+ colleges)
Cal State LA – 47% (5th highest among all 2000+ colleges)
…
UCI – 27% (top 9% among all 2000+ colleges)
UCLA – 24% (top 16% among all 2000+ colleges)
UCB – 22%
Rutgers – 22%
RPI – 20% (portion receiving tech degree is important for income measures)
NYU – 18%
Pitt – 18%
MIT – 16%
GeorgiaTech – 15%
UNC: Chapel Hill – 12%
Harvard – 11% (bottom 7% among all 2000+ colleges)
Michigan – 10% (bottom 5% among all 2000+ colleges)
Princeton – 9% (bottom 2% among all 2000+ colleges)
Colby – 7% (bottom 0.4% among all 2000+ colleges)

[UnsentDementor]

Off topic but I’m curious- any particular reason he’s not going to Michigan after getting in?

[rota32]

Actually I don’t trust USNEWS ranking of social mobility. If anything I would avoid USNEWS for these purposes. Your post is excellent and sheds some more light on the issue of social mobility.

My main point is UCB and UCLA are basically funded by taxpayers. Are taxpayers getting good returns or is there a room for improvement? Spending millions on sports coaches and administrators while shifting GSIs, adjunct faculties who are actually involved in education and research does not seem like a good return to me. Creating a complex admission process with 4 PIQs and up to 20 Activities and Awards seems more related to justifying the administrative bloat than to further social mobility to me.

[browniebutton50]

Congratulations on the amazing choices that your child has. Sounds like he’s a great student with a ton of amazing accomplishments. The UC’s loss as far as I am concerned.

[Olivia3boys]

I actually kind of like the PIQs (job interview written answers basically) and the 20 ECs (like a resume). Ideally even more info (not less) both standardized and holistic I think should be added to UC applications (and added to the 13 criteria to be evaluated): SAT scores, AP scores (even “predicted AP scores from an advisor” like the UK does), LORs. With very little info (like CSU apps with barely anything), schools like Cal Poly SLO are reduced to looking for (IMO) ridiculous things like “5 years of high school English” to differentiate applicants.

[ucla_cs_god]

Sounds very random, I agree. One thing I have noticed among my peers at a UC is that they have ridiculous stats and strong ECs but not those matching their stats. Most people I know in CS did some form of research in high school, led a few clubs, were on a varsity sport, etc.

Stats wise, well… all of my good friends (all OOS) and some of my peers (mostly IS) were between 3 and 6 (!?) years ahead in math and similarly in science in high school. Course rigor between 15 and 25 APs + IBs + DEs (or post-AP HS courses). I don’t know what kind of high school one has to attend to have access to abstract algebra, discrete math, complex analysis and combinatorics, but apparently they do exist.

Apparently, UCLA CS very, very highly values stats. For the 2027 cycle, I know several from my OOS high school that applied to Ivies and UCLA as well. Nobody got in to UCLA, so now they just “have” to choose from their several Ivy admits. These students are all beyond impressive extracurricularly as well as solid academically.

Seems like it all boils down to institutional priorities. One thing that has crossed my mind on more than one occasion is if the fact that UCLA looooves dual enrollment is at all related to the fact that they accept many dual enrollment credits, leaving many, many CS students to graduate in fewer than 4 years.

[GoldRush2]

@rota32

My main point is UCB and UCLA are basically funded by taxpayers. Are taxpayers getting good returns or is there a room for improvement? Spending millions on sports coaches and administrators while shifting GSIs, adjunct faculties who are actually involved in education and research does not seem like a good return to me.

In which case it sounds like a concern you have more broadly with D1 public flagships and not just these two UC campuses? Otherwise you might be just as disappointed in Michigan which does much worse than UCLA?

[GoldRush2]

I much prefer the UC application to the Common App one. It allows students to tell more of their story!

I totally get why a student who is applying from OOS just to one or two campuses would find it excessive, but if you are in state and applying to 7+ campuses and you put the work in, you can create a compelling read for those on the other end. Having extra characters for the Awards and Activities as well as up to 20 slots…huge advantage!

And I don’t mind that it may represent a barrier to OOS applicants since the primary goal is to serve Californians.

[rota32]

No reason for me to think UofM is any better. Administrative bloat which includes complex admission process, obscene spending on sports coaches all at the expense of paying people actually involved in education and research is all prevalent at large public universities.

[sushiritto]

@rota32

No reason for me to think UofM is any better.

Yes, let’s vent against Michigan in the “Vent about UC decisions” thread.

The difference between Cal, UCLA and Michigan is that Michigan competes for National Championships.

[GoldRush2]

@rota32

No reason for me to think UofM is any better. Administrative bloat which includes complex admission process, obscene spending on sports coaches all at the expense of paying people actually involved in education and research is all prevalent at large public universities.

Thanks for clarifying. So in that case your points really are more related to a “Vent About UCs and Public Universities” and not a “Vent About UC Decisions.” In which case I assume you wouldn’t want to apply to any of them.

[GoldRush2]

That response was maybe my fault because I specifically asked about U of M, but hey no hate! UCLA has the most national titles! Adding that Women’s Soccer NCAA title in the fall brought them to 110 (Edited: it’s 120! But Stanford rules all, it turns out).

[sushiritto]

@GoldRush2

Adding that Women’s Soccer NCAA title in the fall brought them to 110.

Not in sports that actually count though (football). Basketball is a nice diversion between football (and hockey) seasons.

All tongue-in-cheek.

ETA: My CA D18 loved her time at Michigan and will be off to grad school this fall. She passed on several UC’s.

[GoldRush2]

So happy to hear! Congrats to her, and best wishes as she enters this next phase.

[bongbong2]

The proper title of this thread should be venting about UCLA and UC Berkeley period. Why are the other UC’s not mentioned in this conversation?

[JBSeattle]

UC Merced, UC Merced, UC Merced, UC Merced, a little UC Irvine, UC Riverside and UC Santa Cruz for all of you surfer dudes!

[Olivia3boys]

I agree that DE is very highly valued by UC, more than AP, and that will only increase. It’s just a win-win for everyone (note: CA public high schools love it as it gets the kids off their campuses for part of the day and they can hire fewer AP teachers, and yet they still get ADA $$). And yes UCLA is all about high stats. 60% of UCLA students had a perfect unweighted 4.0 in high school. Not a single B ever.