Archive for the ‘University of California Admissions Data 2017’ Category

Strategy for your University of California Application and Data Update

In Uncategorized, University of California, University of California Admissions Data, University of California Admissions Data 2017, University of California Application, University of California Funding on July 11, 2017 at 11:33 am

Who should read this post–anybody applying to the University of California.  Contents–see below for a look at the latest data, as of July 11, 2017, with acceptance rates, a one-campus snapshot of GPA and test averages (for subscribers only) and your takeaway on relative chances of admissions based on your numbers and who you are.  The big story remains the same:  The state budget directly affects your chances of enrollment.

So the big news is that the U.C. has finally released its data, or at least some more of it, after sitting on information that is normally out in April.  The story is mixed, with some hints of sunshine for in-state students, but this is more a break in the clouds than a change in climate–expect the difficulty level of admissions to increase at all campuses, with Merced remaining the go-to backup for the U.C.  I know, I know . . . Merced.  But there are some reasons to like Merced.  More on that later.

Reasons that the difficulty will go up for California residents start with the deal to admit an additional 10,000 students over a three-year period that was agreed between the U.C. and the state government (to be more exact, Governor Brown himself was behind this).

This deal is now over, and I see no real discussion of anything new on that front, so this year several thousand spots will not be set aside for California students.  Please keep that in mind as you read on.  There is still political pressure to admit California students, but nothing concrete that will help you Cali residents, though some campuses have been clear about their intention to help a particular category of Cali applicants–more on that shortly.

Just to keep some perspective on the effect of this program ending, the UC system as a whole, for fall of 2016, admitted 105,671 freshman and 23,279 junior college transfers–so the approximately 8,488 extra California students admitted last year was about 6.5% of the total.  And many of those would be offered a backup campus, like Merced.  Still. That was  pretty good boost for California applicants who were freshman last year, and the march of data continued to go up, overall, in terms of average GPA and test scores increasing for admitted students.

Why the admissions are more difficult is a two-part problem–Part 1, the people of California, as represented by their elected officials, have not been investing in a whole lot of new campuses.  There is a very large building program at Merced, but not much else going on that actually expands the number of seats available at the UC (or Cal State, for that matter); and overall, the universities in California are still underfunded–here’s a quote from an analysis in 2016:

“State support for CSU and UC has not kept up with the significantly increased demand for higher education in California. Since 1980-81, enrollment has increased by more than 50 percent at CSU and by more than 90 percent at UC. Yet during this same period, General Fund support for each institution has declined by nearly 13 percent, after adjusting for inflation.”

For the full report, click here:  CBPC Report

Obviously a 13% budget cut in the face of such increased enrollment demand is in reality a much larger budget cut, as summarized in a different article by our friends at UCLA:

“California invests less per student in its public universities today than it did 30 years ago, according to another PPIC report. In 2013, California spent about half as much as it did in the late 1980s per student in the UC system.”

The upshot will be increasing tuitions in the near future and decreased chances of enrollment for the immediate future.  For the full article, click here: Less State Investment.

Application demand overall was also up, as I explained with detailed numbers in a previous post–click here for that: UC Application Totals.


Application Strategy–Buy the U.C. brand, not a specific campus; be willing to go to a community college.

But the story is not all doom and gloom, particularly if you are willing to go to a less in-demand U.C. campus and, if you are really set on the U.C.,  are willing to purse what I would call the two-step dance into a U.C.  campus–by going to a good junior college, and then transferring.

Your basic takeaway is this:  There were clear advantages to being in certain categories for admissions last year.  Those categories were led by California Junior College applicants.

But before we get into that, let’s take a look at the data we do have, the only complete data–

The full content of this post is available only on my private blog, which is available fo clients and subscribers.  For information on how to subscribe, or to become an editing or advising client,  please contact me.

College Application Data for 2017-2018: The University of California and Stanford; Bonus: an Explanation of the Waitlist, the rise of Waitlist Admissions, and the Role of Politics in College Admissions

In Admissions Waitlist, Stanford Admissions, Stanford Admissions Data 2017, Uncategorized, University of California Admissions Data, University of California Admissions Data 2017, University of California Funding, Waitlist Data on June 9, 2017 at 1:57 pm

Who should read this post–anybody who has been looking for recent application data for the U.C. system or Stanford.  Anybody who wants to know more about waitlists and waitlist admits.  Anybody who is still innocent enough to think data is just data.  

Bonus links to fill in the data holes, and an explanation of why those holes in data today exist.

As you have probably heard, there are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies and statistics.  The fact that nobody really can say for sure who came up with that aphorism–Benjamin Disraeli?  Mark Twain?–is a lot like the information available for the most recent application season.  Outside of the Ivy League, most application information for the class of 2021 is AWOL or incomplete.  The reasons for this are budgetary and political, but the politics vary.  Let’s look at the University of California first–

University of California Admissions Data for the fall of 2017.  Or maybe 2016 . . .

The takeaway is that applications are up at all campuses, and way up at a few, particularly at UCLA, which had 123,992 applicants; for some perspective on that, in 2015, UCLA had 112,744.  Either way, you have enough to populate a medium-sized city, and that population of applicants at the gate is growing rapidly.  For freshman applications, it was 102,181 this year, and 92,681 in 2015.  The trend is obvious.

What is also obvious is the trend in GPA and test data–the average GPA and test scores for students entering UCLA in the fall of 2016 was 3.91 unweighted and 4.33 weighted, with an SAT II average of 2080 and ACT composite score of 32.  What I cannot tell you right now is what the average GPA and test composites are for those who will enroll this fall.  Why, you ask?

Several reasons.  First is the increasing use of waitlists.

Waitlist Admits

Waitlists are just that: lists of students who are qualified but who are bumped aside by students who appear to be slightly better qualified.  This also means that waitlists are places of hope, in fact are becoming increasingly so at the U.C. But the rise of waitlists has also meant the delay of data.  Here’s why:

The universities have to finish admitting students before they finish their data, and these days, with more students applying to more schools, it is becoming harder to predict yield for regular admissions.  Yield  is the total percentage of students who are admitted and then accept the offer.  After offers are accepted in early May, the schools, then go back to the drawing board, in this case, the waitlist, and make more offers.  This is still going on at some U.C. campuses as I write this in June of 2016–and that is no longer an anomaly, though it is a newly prominent feature of the U.C. application scene.  So as an example, this is what the University of California, Berkeley did with waitlist admits for students entering Berkeley in the fall of 2015, which is the last date at which UC Berkeley supplied waitlist information:

U. C. Berkeley Waitlist 2015-2016

Number of qualified applicants placed on waiting list: 3,760

Number accepting a place on the waiting list: 2,445

Number of wait-listed students admitted: 1,340.  

For some perspective on this, 13,321 students were offered admissions prior to this waitlist admissions, so about 10% of enrollees were off of the wait list.  Not only that, those who were on U.C. Berkeley’s waitlist for fall of 2015  had a 55% admit rate –very good odds, with the overall enrollment rate at only 17% for that year.

But of course, waitlist enrollments delay basic data totals until June and even July, which is of course also the last chance for admissions people to take a vacation, and with yield–the number of those admitted who actually show up to school–not confirmed until late August and not finalized until September or October, you have a number of problems getting accurate, recent data.  And you also have some disincentives.

Before we get to the disincentives, if you want an updated snapshot of the most recent GPA and test data for U.C. Berkeley, here it is for fall, 2016 enrollees:  3.9 unweighted GPA for in-state (vs. 3.94 for out-of-state!) and SAT II of ca. 1940-2300 (25th-75th percentile of admits) and an ACT score range of 30-34 (also for the 25th-75th percentile). Tough last year, likely tougher this year–expect ca. 3.91-3.92 GPA–when we finally get the data.

Increased GPA is one reason we are still waiting for the data, imho.  Because:

Politics and Data Disincentives

There are two primary drivers that bury data here:  first, the U.C. and both branches of government in California have been engaged in battle over enrollment numbers, with Governor Brown most vocal on the political side, but also numerous members of the legislature criticizing the U.C. for not admitting “sufficient” California residents.  As you likely noted above, at least for last year, out-of-state GPA was slightly higher at Berkeley that for in-state GPA, which is not what you might expect, but still, when you tell your average California parent of a high school student that the average unweighted GPA for the two biggest U.C. campuses is at or over 3.9 . . . well let’s just say some constituents are not happy.

They don’t care if having 15% of students paying out-of-state tuition allows UC Berkeley to stay more or less funded (Ah, a couple of hundred million bucks short at Berkeley a year ago, but that is another topic . . .).  California parents just want their kid in the University.

Add to that the fact that the deal Governor Brown spearheaded with the U.C. system, which had 10,000 additional California students added to the total enrolled over the last 3 years is over as of this year’s class, which means new negotiations over enrollment, tuition and funding are heating up again and, well, why would  the U.C. want to release a bunch of data now?  Particularly as the new unweighted instate GPA is very unlikely to go down and in fact is more likely to be, oh, 3.92  at UCLA and Cal?

And how far behind the curve the data is becomes pretty clear when you find that The Common Data Set for U.C. campuses like Berkeley for last year is still  a mostly empty Excel Spreadsheet; go back a year and you have a pdf with complete data.  Yes, it is all going very slowly on the data front . . . with one additional political factor:

That audit and what has been hyped as a scandal involving “overpaying” some U.C. leadership, and some P.R. funds that U.C. President Napolitano had earmarked to make herself, excuse me her office,  look good . . . so don’t expect to see  data suggesting that it is once again harder for a California kid to get into the University of California released before, Oh, Thanksgiving, when  a plurality of Americans are eating too much and distracted by football or holiday shopping. (P.S.–I don’t blame Napolitano for arming herself with some P.R. dollars for her battle with the state gov.)

Budget Factors

Adding to my last comment, I want to be fair to the U.C. –some of the same pols who attack the U.C. and its enrollment practices also fail to give it adequate funding–the budgets for the University of California and the Cal State University systems fell by about 30% between 2008 and 2013, and these cuts have only been partially restored.  Add the fact that student tuition has, on average, tripled in two decades, an increase which is almost entirely due to cuts in state funding.  So . . . any improvement in expenses would have to be met by an increase in funding.  Good luck with that, in this political climate.

It’s easier for a pol to blame and yell at the people running the universities than it is to pass the blame where it mostly belongs, which is to the voters.  Yep, I said it.  You get what you pay for, folks. And since people don’t seem to value the public commons much these days, you pay more for what are ostensibly public goods, if you want them.

In this context, why would the U.C. want to release data that would be used as a club against them by, oh, Assembly members who want to look like they are standing up for middle class families without actually paying for the needed services?    I expect that some of the folks building the common data sets that are currently AWOL have themselves been made redundant at places like Berkeley, which cut hundreds of classified/admin jobs last year, to deal with that deficit noted.  So in end, it all adds up.

And Now:  The Only Complete Data Available for University of California Applications

Having said everything I said, you can see some solid data for all of the University of California campuses for the class of 2021, which is how many people applied.  While this may not seem too useful, you can apply the numbers to previous years and extrapolate, as I did, that along with the larger pool of applicants, the average admitted GPA and test scores will also have increased–I predict something like a 3.92 GPA average at Berkeley and UCLA, for example, as stated earlier.  To see the totals, click here:

Three year totals for University of California applications, 2015-2017.


Oh, about that little school in Palo Alto.   Stanford–they are not releasing information beyond basic application and admissions numbers.

Why?  Good question.  They were the first university to drop below the 5% acceptance rate, with GPA’s that are kind of insane once you subtract the many athletes they enroll, and they are either teasing us by letting us wait to see the new highs for grades and test scores, or they are, finally, somewhat embarrassed.

Since being embarrassed by their own greatness has never seemed to be an issue at Stanford, I assume they are playing some other kind of admissions game  to stay on the top of the elite heap.  As is U Chicago, which is not at the top of the elite heap, but sure is trying.   I will talk about them later.  In the meantime, here is the sum total of information Stanford has made available so far for the class of 2021:

Stanford University has offered admission to 2,050 students, including 721 applicants who were accepted last December through the early action program, the Office of Undergraduate Admission announced today.

Richard H. Shaw, dean of admission and financial aid, said the Class of 2021 was carefully selected from 44,073 candidates, the largest application pool in Stanford’s history. The admitted students come from all 50 states and 82 countries.

Doing the math on that, you have a 4.65% rate of admissions to Stanford–down from 4.69% last year.  Hey, at least it’s going down more slowly than it has in the last few years.

That’s my roundup of data on the biggest college brands in California, at least for now.  When I get updates, I will add them.  Come back soon for this year’s discussion of the U.C. essays.  In the meantime, enjoy your summer . . .