College admissions scandal: some non-locals seem to think UCLA and USC are mediocre "state" schools? (Pomona: lawyer, law school)

[socal88]

If you're coming straight out of high school especially and not taking the transfer route, USC and UCLA have very competitive admission.

While there may have been a time when USC lagged UCLA in terms of ranking and selectively, that's pretty much gone. It was already hard to get into 10 years ago and it's only harder now. USC as a whole is not the University of Spoiled Children anymore. Sure, you definitely still have some of those kids, but a lot of the grads coming in are super smart.

Based on its most recent admissions stats, only 13% of students were admitted to USC and the middle 50% GPA range was 3.79-4.0 unweighted. So you essentially need to have more than an A- average to be a competitive candidate on top of excellent SAT/ACT scores.

UCLA is just as competitive with only 14% of students admitted and a middle 50# GPA range of 3.90 - 4.0 unweighted.

And not to mention, you need to be taking a lot of advanced placement classes to be competitive since a lot of admitted students typically have a weighted GPA above a 4.2 or 4.3. So not only do you need an A, but you need an A in advanced courses where the average kid is performing at a higher level than regular courses, raising the competition stakes even higher.

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by rerere

More selective than Cal? What a joke ROFL.

Here are the only schools more selective than Cal in the state: Stanford, Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Caltech. That is all.

Yes, believe it or not. USC dropped to 13% last year (2018). Cal is around 15%, UCLA is 14.1%

[Cinema Cat]

A few years ago, KFI-AM's John and Ken were saying that it's hard for Californians to get into the UC system, because the UC system prefers wealthy foreign and out of state students, because they pay more tuition.

John and Ken were griping that the UC system is funded by California taxpayers, and it's supposed to be for the taxpayers. But instead, California taxpayers pay the taxes, only to subsidize non-Californians students.

BTW, I was accepted into UCLA when I was living in NYC. That was some 40 years ago. I choose NYU instead. In retrospect, I think I should have taken UCLA.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Cinema Cat

John and Ken were griping that the UC system is funded by California taxpayers, and it's supposed to be for the taxpayers. But instead, California taxpayers pay the taxes, only to subsidize non-Californians students.

For most of the UC campuses, fewer than 1 out of 3 applicants is admitted; for UC Berkeley and UCLA the rate approaches 1 in 6. When you factor in that the UC system takes in about 23 percent out-of-state undergraduates, your child’s chances as a Californian are quite meager.

In fact, for most of the UCs, a non-Californian applicant has higher odds of being accepted than a resident; conversely, California students have as high as an 80 percent acceptance rate at top public universities outside of the state.

While gaining admission to a UC campus is becoming “more competitive” (as the campus administrators say), the real issue is that UC is grossly misleading students on what it takes to get accepted. The reason is clear: It cannot meet the demand. For example, in 2018, UCLA (the most popular college campus in the nation) had 113,000 applicants, compared with 55,397 a decade prior and 32,792 in 1998.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...n-12757352.php

Wait-Listed, Rejected and Frustrated in California: https://www.insidehighered.com/admis...mitted-leading

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by Cinema Cat

A few years ago, KFI-AM's John and Ken were saying that it's hard for Californians to get into the UC system, because the UC system prefers wealthy foreign and out of state students, because they pay more tuition.

John and Ken were griping that the UC system is funded by California taxpayers, and it's supposed to be for the taxpayers. But instead, California taxpayers pay the taxes, only to subsidize non-Californians students.

In 2017, for the first time the UC Regents placed a cap on how many non-residents can be admitted to UC schools. Of course, the non-residents pay more in tuition. But I agree that as a publicly funded higher ed system it should primarily educate Calif. residents.

https://www.latimes.com/local/educat...htmlstory.html

At the time this article was written (2017) the total non-resident undergrad population at UC schools was about 16.5 percent. The new cap limits non-resident enrollment at 18 percent.

[bostonguy1960]

I apologize for my misunderstanding of USC as a public school and not the private school that it is. Had no idea.

See how some (well, at least me) out on the east coast and elsewhere may not understand the nuances of the names. But some think Boston University is public (it's private) or think Boston College and Boston University are the same school. I don't blame their confusion if from other states.

Generally, I guess it all depends on where in the country one resides. I try to keep up, as a hobby, on different colleges and where they're located as well as their acceptance rate. I'm always learning when talking to people about various colleges.

And I was surely not trolling on California schools. It's only because UCLA and USC were prominently mentioned in this scandal. If it were Northwestern and the University of Chicago, I would have sought feedback in the Chicago forum, naturally. I came to this Los Angeles section in order to get more local information, so thank you all for clarifying!

[Burkmere]

Originally Posted by bostonguy1960

Reading tweets and such since the college admissions scandal broke yesterday, it appears that some or most people wonder who has to bribe, especially tens of thousands of dollars or more, in order to gain admission to UCLA and USC? After all, they're not Yale or other ivy-league schools....

It seems that most of the country sees both as easy-to-get-into mediocre state schools? Are they wrong? I believe so.

Now, from what I know here on the "snobby (?) east coast, both schools are very rigorous, and usually only the top students gain entry. But...here in the Northeast and maybe other parts of the country, it appears that many or most think all state schools are far inferior, to any private school. That's not true, as many private schools have higher acceptance rates than some state schools. But it's a perception, and that's why some folks likely believe only mediocre students attend your USC and UCLA?

In reality, they're similar and likely much harder, it seems, to gain admission vs. Boston College and Boston University here where I live, as well as Northeastern University, Babson College, Bentley University, Wellesley, and Brandeis here in the Boston area, never mind Universury of Massachusetts-Amherst, OUR state school. But since all of these Boston-area schools are private, save for the University of Massachusetts, many in my region seem to deem them far superior to any state school nationwide.

People are asking, "how dumb" can this celebrity's girl be if her parents had to bribe UCLA or USC with high dollars?! In other words, any average or worse student can gain admission, as they're seemingly only mediocre "state" schools. Obviously, they're not familiar with the University of Michigan, University of Virginia and other elite STATE schools...Yes, state schools can be Hugh quality...

Well, they're not officially Ivy League schools -- so east coasters and other elite must feel why would anyone need to bribe -- or want to bribe -- to gain admission to those two California schools. No offense, but oftentimes, we've never heard of your elite Claremont colleges, Cal Tech, and don't realize Berkeley and Stanford are elite, much more elite than most of what east coast schools can offer. Similarly, you've often never heard of our elite liberal arts colleges...

I read last night that UCLA is very hard to get into if from out of state. Thus, it's mainly Californians? Really? I just
simply assumed that UCLA and USC draw from a large international student body, many of whom likely pay full tuition for the honor of attending these prestigious schools, and international students are likely targeted as desirable vs. a local student of similar performance but who likely needs all kinds of scholarships and financial aid?

This dissing of UCLA and USC by some non-locals irks me, as they know nothing about them other than they're "just" state schools, not worthy of bribes. Most Americans could not gain admission, correct?

Please educate me.

Nothing special really about UCLA or USC. Decent schools for sure, but not that big of a deal. At least a couple hundred or more colleges across the country just as good. Computer science is computer science. Engineering is engineering. Calculus is algebra. World history is world history. UCLA's version is no different.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Burkmere

Nothing special really about UCLA or USC. Decent schools for sure, but not that big of a deal. At least a couple hundred or more colleges across the country just as good.

Probably true about USC, but not UCLA. It ranks right below Harvard, Columbia, Penn, Stanford, University of Chicago, Yale, and Princeton.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges...l-universities

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tiananj.../#668ed249582e

[Mr. Zero]

Originally Posted by Cinema Cat

BTW, I was accepted into UCLA when I was living in NYC. That was some 40 years ago. I choose NYU instead. In retrospect, I think I should have taken UCLA.

It’s been decades since I was applying to undergrad schools, but I remember thinking of USC as the NYU of California, and vice-versa. They were good schools with similar stereotypes; they were the trendy expensive private schools that were respectable landing spots for the wealthy who couldn’t get their kids into the Ivies, and the dream schools for film students.

[Burkmere]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Probably true about USC, but not UCLA. It ranks right below Harvard, Columbia, Penn, Stanford, University of Chicago, Yale, and Princeton.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges...l-universities

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tiananj.../#668ed249582e

It's a good school, but nothing special. Cal is special. Much more competitive school to get into than UCLA. In my book, it's the number 1 public university.

Again, doesn't make all much difference really in the long run. l worked with mostly colleagues who went to Cal and they were no smarter than me although I'm no dummy. Just sayin'. I suppose if I'd have grown up in CA, I would have gone there or one of the UC schools. No big deal. It's more of a big deal to the parents who then can tell other parents...."My kid went to so and so."