<p>A few days ago, I heard for the first time that one of the widely suspected acceptance criteria at UC Berkeley and UCLA is geographic proximity. It seemed like a foolish idea, and I immediately dismissed the notion, but I looked it up, and there does seem to be some statistically significant evidence to back this up.</p>
<p>UC Berkeley:</p>
<p>Transfer applicants from Los Angeles County were accepted at a 29.1% clip in 2008, while students from the Bay Area were accepted at a 34% rate. In previous years, it’s much the same story, with Bay Area students being accepted at a 37.5% rate in 2007, compared to students from LA being accepted at a 31.4% rate. Since 2000, students from Los Angeles have been accepted to Cal at a 28.2% rate, while students from the Bay Area have been accepted at a 36.5% clip, which is a fairly large difference. Now, one might think that this could just be evidence that Bay Area applicants have better GPAs than LA applicants, but this is not a cause for all of the difference. 77.1% of students from the Bay Area with 3.8-4.0 GPAs got into Cal over the last 9 years, while 66.8% of students from LA with 3.8-4.0 GPAs got into Cal. The sample sizes are large enough, and the phenomenon is consistent enough, that it can’t just be statistical noise. </p>
<p>UCLA:</p>
<p>The exact mirror phenomenon occurs at UCLA. Since 2000, transfer applicants from the Bay Area have gotten accepted to UCLA at a 37.8% rate, while applicants from LA have gotten accepted at a 45.6% clip. Among those with a 3.8-4.0 GPA, applicants from LA have gotten accepted at a 75.6% rate since 2000, while applicants from the Bay Area with similar numbers have been accepted at a 70.2% rate.</p>
<p>The reason for this is likely that there is a strong correlation between geography and yield. 75% of LA residents who are accepted to UCLA choose to attend UCLA, while only 40% of Bay Area residents who are accepted to UCLA do the same. On the flip side, only 45% of LA residents who get into Cal choose to go there, while 80% of bay area residents who get into UC Berkeley choose to attend. Evidently, the difference in yield has made the admissions officers determine that where you live is worth .05-.10 points of GPA. Intriguingly, this creates a situation where one is more likely to be accepted to Cal than UCLA if one is a Bay Area resident, despite Cal generally being the more difficult school to get into.</p>
<p>The schools differ in pre reqs for many majors and if your first choice it to goto UCLA obviously you’re going to finish the prereqs for UCLA before the pre reqs for UC Berkeley. But also, admission officers realize the preference that people have and want to protect their yields as well.</p>
<p>I dunno maybe its because I’m young, but I’d rather go to a school farther away from home…get out of my element, experiance new things…</p>
<p>Davis is the closest UC to me(its like a half an hour away) and its my last choice. San Diego is farthest away from me and its my first…
(not because its the farthest away though)</p>
<p>If you deserve to get in, keep your GPA up high enough and complete all of your pre-reqs, you’ll get in. There are amazing schools all over this country and it doesn’t bother me that people that live the closest get priority. Everyone has the opportunity to get into a great school.</p>
<p>can you supply the sources where you deduced this information? the other posters offer reasonable reasons as to why a university would take someone who lives in a close vicinity. Why would a college accept a lot of students from a geographical area that is difficult for students to attend either for monetary or parental reasons</p>
<p>the acceptance rate for DVC and Deanza are in the 30’s while for SMC its 40+. But i think this is due to the fact that they have TAP at SMC and not at DVC or DeAnza. If you take a look at CCSF which has TAP, its acceptance rate to UCLA is 50%.</p>