UCB undergraduates also go on to earn PhDs in large numbers, in a wide variety of academic subject areas. Not that the PhD is necessarily the best outcome for students… But it does give some evidence of the academic strength in the undergraduate student population.
Some students are definitely admitted to UCB without the kind of high school career that would impress you, and many students also transfer in from CCC, but regardless of the various paths that brought students to UCB, they do pretty well in career outcomes and graduate-level education. I would say they’re a strong bunch of students and certainly more than just “adequate.”
I can’t speak to UCLA, as I’m just not as familiar with it, but I know @mtmind listed some stats above (that I admittedly only vaguely skimmed).
Actually, it is more like people seeking prestige colleges are looking for a high level of exclusivity so that they can brag about their or their kids’ status, but not so high that they or their kids are the ones excluded from the desired colleges.
If UC just had two flagships of 100,000 undergraduates each, they would not be too difficult to get admitted to. But then the prestige seekers would not see them as being prestigious enough for them (much the way that the flagships in AZ, NV, NM, and various other states are seen).
Is this supppsed to mean something, other than that grades are inflated ridiculously? Maybe Mississippi can just give everyone an A and we can all just marvel at how brilliant everyone is.
Note-not all American students are brilliant, compared to the rest of the world. Not even our top 10%. So if you want to say everyone at UCB is excellent, do so. But few outside CC believe it. Not sure the faculty/staff there, or employers who hire from there, would agree.
Why wouldn’t the grades not be similarly inflated at Lynbrook or Mission San Jose? If anything Lynbrook’s 25th percentile is in the 3.50-3.74 range well below UCLA and Cal’s 25th percentile. Also, MIT says Personal Qualities are the most important factor.
Why doesn’t CA just go with a straight lottery system for any CA-resident who meets a certain set of objective standards? At least that way, the students know going in that they have an even chance of getting in and what that chance is based on number of applicants. I also think that as public schools, the UCs and CSUs need to look at expanding enrollment where demand far outpaces available spaces. I can’t imagine their enrollment has increased at the same pace as the population of the state. They are public schools for pete’s sake, not elite private schools.
On the flip side, I think they also need to figure out why other schools in the system have trouble attracting applicants and work to promote those schools as desirable options. Is the problem the location? Administration? Student experience? Quality of education?
It is not like UC has not been expanding enrollment, both at existing campuses and by opening UC Merced. Existing campuses do have the constraint of local NIMBYs who oppose campus growth with lawsuits, etc…
When you say schools that have trouble attracting applicants, are you referring to some of the UC campuses? In general, the UC campuses get a lot of applicants. Were you talking about CSUs?
I get the NIMBY issue and it’s a real one, the giant elephant in the room. I live in Berkeley and hear people in one breath complain that UCB doesn’t provide enough housing and then in the next breath express opposition to the notion that UCB wants to build a “big apartment tower” that doesn’t “fit in” with the surrounding neighborhood. That cognitive dissonance is really aggravating.
That said, I’d be surprised if the enrollment of UCLA and UCSD have kept up with the growth in population (of course, their ability to do so is tied in part to the big elephant in the room, lol).
But I do believe that the campuses that aren’t as “popular” need to do a better job of appealing to students, especially given how hard it is to get into schools like UCLA and UCSD. My guess is that aside from the “lack of prestige” issue, they may be dealing with a location issue. My son had no interest in going to school in Merced and as a person of color, I had concerns about his safety at campuses in locations like that. I wonder what enrollment and application numbers were for UCSF, a school in a popular urban location with a great climate? We didn’t consider it because our son wanted to leave the Bay area.
Merced, Riverside, and Santa Cruz are fine schools but they suffer from the inevitable comparisons to the higher ranked UCs. When you have 9 schools, the 3 lesser ranked schools are not going to appeal to people who pine for the higher ranked UCs. For UCR and Merced the location has been a disadvantage and UCSC has a well known housing problem.
Yeah, I guess I was. I believe Sonoma State and Cal State East Bay have seen a significant decline in applications and enrollment. I’d be curious to know what is behind that trend, though I imagine it has to do with cost and the financial security (or relative lack thereof) of the population of students who have historically made up a larger portion of the student body at CSUs.
UC Merced undergraduates are 92% people of color, Merced city is 77% people of color, and Merced county is 74% people of color. Of course, which color may matter to some people. All of these are a little over 50% Hispanic or Latino.
UCSF has about a 3% admission rate, but that is kind of expected for a medical school.
Please don’t de-value my concerns and feeling about the well-being of my family members with stats and numbers. As an African American living in the current political climate, I have concerns about my son attending a school in that part of California (and many other parts of the country). Period.
I didn’t realize that UCSF was only medical school. We didn’t even look at it because our son wanted to go away to school and attend school in an urban location.
It would be great if the state expanded UCSF to offer a full undergraduate program (I know, it would cost LOTS of money). They could repurpose many of the beautiful but empty buildings in the Union Square area (Macy’s, Westfield Mall, etc) as admin and classroom buildings for a UCSF Union Square campus. I think its urban location would be a big draw for a lot of students who are applying to UCLA and UCSD, which I believe are the only two UCs that are in urban locations. It would also help to revitalize and redefine the Union Square area.
UC has two graduate level only campus in San Francisco: UCSF which is the “Original” UC Medical School and a Law School (used to be called Hastings but like many names changes around CA, it was reverted back to UC Law SF).
Thank you for your inputs, @Aimlesscat1 . This forum mostly has parents whose kids made it to UCs and are not asking for a change or parents whose kids did not make it and are disgruntled. Your constructive feedback is better than a lot of noise in these forums. Your inputs are greatly appreciated!
I think you are negating the fact that almost all the parents here with kids who “made it” are trying to help others by sharing their insights.
My own kid did (IMO) ridiculously well this cycle getting to 6 of the top publics in CA. All I did was look at the admission criteria several years ago and think how my kid will be distinguished from 150,000 other kids fighting for a spot and be different.
The “noise” you speak of, really just undermines parents who are trying to help other people see how to do better for their kids. The main point here is admission criteria are posted, do the best you can to follow them, the kid will be fine. Hyperfocus on just a few, you risk getting rejected. That’s all we’re saying.
But it does give some evidence of the academic strength in the undergraduate student population.
