Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can that be? Didn't we just read CA in 47th in education? Oh that's right, that was education prior to college.
My beliefs on polls and studies just was proven one more time. This means nothing. I am not knocking your posting by anymeans, just mentioning these sturdies are rediculous.
Nita
Actually, this list, with the named universities, has more to do with well-to-do alumni whose children automatically get in (Stanford), and top students from all over the country and world. So yes, the list DOES mean something. It shows that there are privileged, well-educated young people in California and elsewhere who are attending these schools. That is not to say that California's K-12 education does NOT suck. It does. Bigtime. (I know, I had to endure it for 13 years.) But to toss this list off without realizing who is getting in to and graduating from these universities is a bit cavalier.
Try using some common sense rather than relying on links.
Common sense says to rely on facts and the logic revealed through some simple numbers rather than emotion. FACT: The UC system has among the highest enrollment of in state students and highest acceptance rate of in state students of public universities in the United States.
I never said the ranking was based on how many students were from CA, YOU said that. I frankly don't care for rankings. Just because someone said that Berkeley was the top school in the world doesn't make it the best place for every kid. But shunning extraordinary in-state students for out-of-state, even foreign students, I think is absolutely absurd.
Sorry for my misunderstanding of what you said. I agree, rankings are not everything and a student should attend the school that is a good fit. A high "ranking" school may be a horrible fit and a student will not succeed in the wrong environment. I also agree that we should have as many in state as possible. Right now compromises are being made. We do have among the highest percentages of in state students accepted and enrolled tough compared to other states.
About being some of the best in the world, that is debatable. Great schools don't just exist at the top of these BS rankings. If this is the criteria you use to identify great schools, good for you. I'm not wrong just because I disagree.
You are not wrong.
Yes, out-of-state students are having an easier time getting in, while the schools turn away exceptional in-state students. Frankly, the best schools are the ones that my kids can get into and excel. If they can't get into the schools in CA, they're not the best. I don't care what the "rankings" say.
I would say that is the best school for your kid then. Its all very individual. Society as a whole though might reach a reasonable conclusion that "UCLA is more respected than Boise State." Employers generally pay students from more respected schools higher salaries and alumni often have a longer list of major achievements. Again, it all depends on the students personal goals and what they want out of their education and how they can excel.
Yes, the graduates may be overwhelmingly CA residents, but this is because they become residents while attending the school, do they not? A kid spends 4+ years in a CA is bound to become a resident of the state at some point during that time, especially if claiming such gets them cheaper tuition, yes?
For some it is easy and some it really isn't that easy. It depends if the student can financially support themselves on their own as the UC system tracks if any money is coming from mom and dad. The student has to have a stable job paying about $18,000-22,000 per year to qualify for in state tuition usually and do a variety of other things to sever ties with their home state.
BS on the "spot for your son" comments. You know nothing about me. These UC campuses you list here are not relevant for the purposes of my comments. How superficial for the UC system to claim that it has a place for all in-state students simply because after turning them down for all the preferred schools, it admits them in these undesirable UC campuses. Being admitted to UC-Merced is not preferred. If for instance a kid worked their arse off to get into Berkeley, but then watched as their lower performing classmates got admitted, it is no good if they gained admission into UC-Merced. This is an insult. Better to go to Yale or Harvard or Columbia. Shame though that the kids must leave home.
Correct, being admitted to UC Merced is not preferred. Every single top student in CA wants to go to Berkeley, UCLA, etc... and not that many dream of Merced. Unfortunately there is only so much space available and kids will face the reality of rejection from a school. It sucks. It really does suck. Berkeley or UCLA have the advantage because they have all these smart kids to pick from and only so many spots. Part of what makes these campuses "prestigious" is that everybody CAN'T get in. If they did, they would be no different than Merced. I don't know if there is a solution for letting every smart kid into Berkeley or UCLA, just like there isn't enough space to put every smart kid into Harvard or Stanford.
How in the hell can you make a blanket statement that greener pastures don't exist elsewhere? It's a shame that brilliant in-state residents are being forced elsewhere, but there are great schools in other parts of the country, especially on the east coast.
I don't think greener pastures exist in public education in many other states. Most other states have an even greater amount of there students from out of state. At least among the most well known public universities. If we are talking Alabama or North Dakota, I am sure there is plenty of space for a student from anywhere.
Try using some common sense rather than relying on links.
Georgia Tech: 39% out of state, 61% in state
Georgia Institute of Technology :: Undergraduate Admission :: Quick Facts (http://www.admission.gatech.edu/quickfacts/ - broken link)
University of Washington: 18% out of state, 82% in state
Further, comparison of the three top CA public universities to other high ranking/respected public universities in this country:
Georgia Tech: 39% out of state, 61% in state
Georgia Institute of Technology :: Undergraduate Admission :: Quick Facts (http://www.admission.gatech.edu/quickfacts/ - broken link)
So Alexus, it looks like the top UC schools are doing an excellent job educating mainly Californians. Admission rates are different than actual enrollment because of yields. They may offer a certain amount of spots to out of state students, but that is because VERY few actually accept the offer and attend a UC school at the high tuition cost.
I'm curious where you would move to seeming as the other top public schools allow WAY MORE out of state students in and make up a much larger part of enrollment than UC schools. I'm talking those state's public, not private schools. And you DO have your right to disregard rankings. They are not the whole truth, not even close. But one must admit that Berkeley or UCLA is more challenging to be accepted into, more internationally respected, and has more students at the top of their high school class than Boise State, University of Vermont, or University of Hawaii. Not saying these are bad schools, they just aren't as tough to get into as the top UC schools nor as internationally recognized.
Thanks for the links. Just checking out the Berkeley link, it doesn't make a distinction between how many students converted to CA residence after being in state for a year or two. Say 40% of the students came from the east coast, then claimed CA residence after freshman or sophomore year. How is this distinguished here? Also, this is a 2008 figure and certainly wouldn't reflect the current, more intensified preference for out-of-state students, which is the basis for my complaint. Finally, explain this statement, "Admission rates are different than actual enrollment because of yields."
Please explain how you know that very few out of state students accept the offers to CA schools because of the high tuition. Also, if out-of-state students are being offered admission, doesn't this negatively impact the number of in-state students who are denied admission or put on waitlists and forced to consider other options? You bet.
About where to move to, that's for another discussion and not relevant here.
Common sense says to rely on facts and the logic revealed through some simple numbers rather than emotion. FACT: The UC system has among the highest enrollment of in state students and highest acceptance rate of in state students of public universities in the United States.
Common sense also says that you can't always be right simply because you're able to post outdated links. Something tells me that you know nothing about the UC system except what you can find through Google.
About your claims that the UC system has "among the highest...", my complaint is that given the current budget crisis, the UC is trending away from enrolling in-state students in favor of out-of-state. Find some current links to disprove this for the 2011 entering class, since you are confined by what Google tells you.
I'm sorry coo, but what makes you think that I'm here to argue with a poster who dissects messages? We disagree I suppose and it doesn't bother me one bit that you're wrong.
Thanks for the links. Just checking out the Berkeley link, it doesn't make a distinction between how many students converted to CA residence after being in state for a year or two. Say 40% of the students came from the east coast, then claimed CA residence after freshman or sophomore year. How is this distinguished here? Also, this is a 2008 figure and certainly wouldn't reflect the current, more intensified preference for out-of-state students, which is the basis for my complaint. Finally, explain this statement, "Admission rates are different than actual enrollment because of yields."
Please explain how you know that very few out of state students accept the offers to CA schools because of the high tuition. Also, if out-of-state students are being offered admission, doesn't this negatively impact the number of in-state students who are denied admission or put on waitlists and forced to consider other options? You bet.
Ok, here is an explanation of the yield concept. You may wonder how universities know how many students they should offer acceptances to. Obviously not every student accepts an offer, but the rate at which a student accepts an offer varies by school.
-The university sets a target for how many students they want in their freshman class roughly. At UCLA it is usually around 4,200-4,400. They use the past history and trend of "yields" to know how many acceptance offers they should make. At UCLA they have a yield of roughly 40% that accept their offer of admission. The other 60% attend another university and decline their offer. So this means UCLA usually gives out around 9,900-10,000 acceptance letters to in state students for a rate of roughly 22% accepted.
-In 2009 the university increased enrollment slightly for out of state students. The yield though for getting out of state students to accept their offer of admission is only about 20% at UCLA. 80% that get accepted from out of state go elsewhere. So the university admitted 1,558 out of state students in 2009, but only 336 of those out of state students actually decided to enroll at UCLA. My guess would be this is due to distance from home, cost of tuition, other schools they get into, etc...
So, out of state students have a worse "yield" than in state students. UCLA knows that when they offer admission to an out of state student, there is a 20% chance they will pick UCLA where there is a 40% chance with an in state student.
In the end, once students actually enrolled, UCLA got the numbers they wanted because they knew the yields. 92% of the ENROLLED class starting in the fall of 2009 was in state students and 8% was out of state. 13% of acceptance letters went to out of state students, but because of their lower yield and acceptance of their offer of admission, they only make up 8% of the enrolled class.
* If UCLA offered NO admissions to out of state students (and became one of the only universities in the nation to do so), at a yield rate of 40% they could have given out 10,852 applications to in state students. This would have been an extra 862 students receiving acceptance letters from in California and NO international or out of state students would have gotten acceptances.
University admissions is all about yields. Schools like Harvard have 7% acceptance rates because they have high yields. 76% of students that get into Harvard actually decide to go to Harvard. That is why they can give out so few admissions when they want a freshman class of around 1,650 each year (Harvard accepts around 2,200 per year).
About your claims that the UC system has "among the highest...", my complaint is that given the current budget crisis, the UC is trending away from enrolling in-state students in favor of out-of-state. Find some current links to disprove this for the 2011 entering class, since you are confined by what Google tells you.
There is a difference between "accepting" out of state students and "enrolling" out of state students. I am pretty sure UCLA is going to be at 91.5% in state and 8.5% out of state for their fall 2010 class. They haven't released official numbers yet.
At a yield rate of 40% for in state students, 9,943 admissions could be offered to get roughly 92% of the class as in state students. 1,835 could be offered to get roughly 8% of the class as out of state students.
Did the acceptance rates and the raw number of students change a bit for in state and out of state??? Yes
Did the yield change and actual enrollment. Probably not that much. http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prosp...osh_Prof10.htm
I think sometimes people forget to look at the yield and enrollment that a school targets and get caught up in the acceptance rates. Only 20% of those kids out of state that get accepted will attend UCLA where 40% of the instate will! We know this is true because these numbers have been accurate for years!
I'm curious where you would move to seeming as the other top public schools allow WAY MORE out of state students in and make up a much larger part of enrollment than UC schools. I'm talking those state's public, not private schools. And you DO have your right to disregard rankings. They are not the whole truth, not even close. But one must admit that Berkeley or UCLA is more challenging to be accepted into, more internationally respected, and has more students at the top of their high school class than Boise State, University of Vermont, or University of Hawaii. Not saying these are bad schools, they just aren't as tough to get into as the top UC schools nor as internationally recognized.
Alright before we get too full of ourselves here, I can tell you after living in Northern Virginia, the most educated place in the country, that UC schools (and Stanford) aren't even on their kids' radar screens. The reason more kids at UC are in-state is because you have a population of 30 million with not many other heavily populated states nearby. Kids in the East can choose from the Ivies, the Seven Sisters, UVA, UNC, and a whole bunch of other great public and private schools all up and down the East coast. We have the top high school in the country here, Thomas Jefferson, and I doubt more than one or two a year choose a UC school.
IBS on the "spot for your son" comments. You know nothing about me. These UC campuses you list here are not relevant for the purposes of my comments. How superficial for the UC system to claim that it has a place for all in-state students simply because after turning them down for all the preferred schools, it admits them in these undesirable UC campuses. Being admitted to UC-Merced is not preferred. If for instance a kid worked their arse off to get into Berkeley, but then watched as their lower performing classmates got admitted, it is no good if they gained admission into UC-Merced. This is an insult. Better to go to Yale or Harvard or Columbia. Shame though that the kids must leave home.
You know, a lot of Cal and UCLA grads transferred in from other schools like UC Merced, Cal State, or even their local community college. This is a pretty good option that a lot of people don't realize and take advantage of, particularly for kids who weren't stellar high school students. If your child really wants to go to Cal, spending a year or two at another public school, perhaps closer to home isn't the end of the world. The first two years in lower division are pretty much the same academically everywhere anyway. A Cal education becomes much more valuable in upper division. The piece of paper they hand you at the end only says where you finished, not where you started.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
