UCMerced has 3.7% yield rate

[Byerly]

<p>Although the University of California at Merced admitted 12,300 students for fall 2006, only 458 responded with their intent to register, a disappointing 3.7 yield rate for the young university. In comparison, Stanford’s yield rate was 69 percent the past year for the class of 2010.</p>

<p>Merced, which opened just last year in California’s Central Valley (and in the middle of a cattle ranch), cost $500 million to build and open.</p>

<p>Administrators point to several factors to explain the low matriculation, nearly all of which concern the university’s underdeveloped campus. Merced only has three campus buildings, and no local businesses, eateries or sports teams as of yet. Soaring temperatures (regularly topping 100 in July and August) aren’t helping to attract students, either.</p>

<p>The administration, however, remains optimistic about Merced’s growth. Even the low yield for this year doesn’t detract from one of their original intents in opening the campus: drawing more students from the Central Valley into higher education.</p>

<p><a href=“http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=/0-0&fp=44e67dc05aa77388&ei=ElLmRNrII5P2oAKX5_TYBw&url=http%3A//daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/8/10/ucMercedSuffersFrom37PercentYieldRate&cid=0[/url]”>http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=/0-0&fp=44e67dc05aa77388&ei=ElLmRNrII5P2oAKX5_TYBw&url=http%3A//daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/8/10/ucMercedSuffersFrom37PercentYieldRate&cid=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Dranakin]

<p>…why would the article even bother to compare UCM to Stanford? Odd.</p>

[Byerly]

<p>California’s lowest yield rate vs. its highest?</p>

[Dranakin]

<p>Suppose so.</p>

[DRab]

<p>Because it was written by the Stanford Daily?</p>

<p>Too bad they did a poor job.</p>

<p>

CORRECTION:</p>

<p>Certain information about the University of California, Merced printed in the Aug. 10 edition of The Stanford Weekly was inaccurate. See Anderson’s letter for more. The yield rate was calculated based on referred students, not admitted students. More than three buildings exist on campus. The brief was not intended to give the impression of comparing the University to the new school.</p>

<p>LETTER TO THE EDITOR:</p>

<p>Merced brief inaccurate and unfair</p>

<p>UC rep tells Daily editors that brief on Merced doesn’t tell whole story about new $500 million school</p>

<p>Having read your brief article on UC Merced in the Aug. 10 edition of the Stanford Daily, we feel there are some errors that must be corrected.</p>

<p>First, of the 9,000 students who applied to UC Merced, 6,000 students were admitted. The 12,300 figure you used includes referrals.</p>

<p>Second, as of the date of your article, we had more than 600 SIRS, and had more than 550 in May when the first SIRs were reported. Actual attendance numbers will be confirmed during third-week census in September.</p>

<p>Third, more than three buildings exist on the UC Merced campus. We have two fully functional classroom buildings, one for science and engineering, which is complete with labs, and the other for social sciences, humanities and arts, plus a 120,000-square-foot library, a recreation-and-wellness center, a dining commons and several residence halls.</p>

<p>Fourth, your article states that there are no local eateries or businesses. We’d like to point out that Merced is a town of 75,000 people that was fully inhabited before UC Merced opened. There are hundreds of local businesses and restaurants in the welcoming downtown. Heck, we even have a Barnes & Noble. And three Starbucks!</p>

<p>Lastly, we’d like to point out the obvious ridiculousness of comparing UC Merced — at least for now — with Stanford. UC Merced is just starting its second year. Stanford has been around since 1891. Comparing the two is like comparing the successes of a fully grown adult with an infant.</p>

<p>In the future, we suggest that you and other Stanford Daily reporters actually contact someone here in the communications office to get the facts straight about UC Merced before writing articles.</p>

<p>Lorena Anderson</p>

<p>Public Information Representative</p>

<p>UC Merced Office of Communications

</p>

<p><a href=“http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/8/10/ucMercedSuffersFrom37PercentYieldRate[/url]”>http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/8/10/ucMercedSuffersFrom37PercentYieldRate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[vicissitudes]

<p>Ouch…Stanford kids got owned by UC Merced.</p>

[Jeopardy_Fan]

<p>Wow, great job Stanford.</p>

[safisher]

<p>It would have been interesting if CC was around in the 1890’s when Jane Lathrop Stanford had to appeal to Grover Cleveland to get her husband’s estate out of probate to pay the faculty’s salaries. Stanford was founded to rival Harvard and other east coast schools and had a very rough start. Imagine the comments of those old established schools during Stanford’s early years.</p>

<p>I would be interested in hearing the comments of UC Merceders this year. With the crowding on other campuses it is inevitable that Merced will grow in enrollment. As the father of a high school sophomore I curious as to whether Merced will be an option for him.</p>

[DRab]

<p>

New Universities Take Time to Grow

</p>

<p>Certainly true.</p>

<p>

Stanford was founded to rival Harvard and other east coast schools and had a very rough start.

</p>

<p>I’m not sure about that.</p>

<p>

Dispelling an Urban Myth</p>

<p>You may have heard a story that a lady in “faded gingham” (Jane Stanford) and a man dressed in a “homespun threadbare suit” (Leland Stanford) went to visit the president of Harvard, were rebuffed, and as a result, went on to found their own university in Palo Alto. This untrue story is an urban myth, and Stanford’s archivist has prepared a response for those desiring more information:</p>

<pre><code>For what it is worth, there was a book written by the then Harvard president’s son that may have started the twist on actual events.

Leland Stanford Junior was just short of his 16th birthday when he died of typhoid fever in Florence, Italy on March 13, 1884. He had not spent a year at Harvard before his death, nor was he “accidentally killed.” Following Leland Junior’s death, the Stanfords determined to found an institution in his name that would serve the “children of California.”

Detained on the East Coast following their return from Europe, the Stanfords visited a number of universities and consulted with the presidents of each. The account of their visit with Charles W. Eliot at Harvard is actually recounted by Eliot himself in a letter sent to David Starr Jordan (Stanford’s first president) in 1919. At the point the Stanfords met with Eliot, they apparently had not yet decided about whether to establish a university, a technical school or a museum. Eliot recommended a university and told them the endowment should be $5 million. Accepted accounts indicate that Jane and Leland looked at each other and agreed they could manage that amount.

The thought of Leland and Jane, by this time quite wealthy, arriving at Harvard in a faded gingham dress and homespun threadbare suit is quite entertaining. And, as a former governor of California and well-known railroad baron, they likely were not knowingly kept waiting for too long outside Eliot’s office. The Stanfords also visited Cornell, MIT and Johns Hopkins.

The Stanfords established two institutions in Leland Junior’s name – the University and the Museum, which was originally planned for San Francisco, but moved to adjoin the university.

</code></pre>

<p>The article also talks about producing “practical” graduates. It also talks about being non-demoninational, but I’m not sure how true that is.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/history/begin.html[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/history/begin.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[HeavenWood]

<p>Jeez…you have to start somewhere.</p>

[Juniorita]

<p>Exactly!!!. Its not like a bunch of paranoid kids like us ( hehe jk) would be running to every new uc built… there is no certainty as to its stability or programs. A college doesnt start off as a spankin new and popular place to go to, it needs to build its prestige through its students, programs, advancements, etc…
I dont think its fair to be measuring ucm to stanford. I mean stanford was built in like 1824 for gods sake people! Uc merced was built in 1995. ( stats may be wrong… check them) </p>

<p>Stanford had 183 years to advance
versus
UC Merced had like 12 years to advance…</p>

<p>183 vs 12…hmmm</p>

[avwh]

<p>

I dont think its fair to be measuring ucm to stanford. I mean stanford was built in like 1824 for gods sake people! Uc merced was built in 1995. ( stats may be wrong… check them)</p>

<p>Stanford had 183 years to advance
versus
UC Merced had like 12 years to advance…</p>

<p>183 vs 12…hmmm

</p>

<p>UC Merced opened its campus in September 2005 as the first research university to open in the 21st century.</p>

<p>So it’s been around 2 years, not 12.</p>

[Juniorita]

<p>thanks for correcting me… lol my bad peeps</p>