UC admits more nonresidents, record number of freshman applicants


Related Posts

The University of California admitted 43 percent more out-of-state and international students this year, continuing controversial efforts to use nonresident students’ heftier fees to mitigate the effects of decreased state funding.

The UC also saw a dramatic increase in freshman applications. In response, it accepted a record 80,289 freshman students for the fall 2012 term, according to data released by the UC Office of the President Tuesday.

The data show nonresident students comprising about 73 percent of the total increase in admitted students compared to last year, and while the number of in-state students who were admitted increased by 3.6 percent, the admissions rate for those students decreased by about 4 percent.

However, Kate Jeffery, the UC’s interim director of undergraduate admissions, maintained that all students who met the UC’s academic requirements were offered admission to at least one campus.

At UC Berkeley, the admission rate for California students dropped by about 1 percent. The campus was also the only one to admit fewer nonresident students than the year before, despite a nearly 50 percent surge in nonresident applications. Admissions rates dropped about 12 percent and 13 percent for international and out-of-state students, respectively.

Anne De Luca, associate vice chancellor for admissions and enrollment and acting director of undergraduate admissions, said the acceptances offered to nonresident students dropped because of an unexpectedly high yield rate last year, which resulted in more students attending than anticipated.

“If that same percentage of students says yes again this year, we need fewer offers to get to the original intended amount,” De Luca said in an email. Last year, about 40 percent of accepted nonresident students enrolled.

Campus officials have been working to increase the amount of nonresident students — who pay close to $23,000 more than resident students — to 20 percent of the total undergraduate student body over the past couple years. Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost George Breslauer told The Daily Californian in fall 2010 that reaching this target would generate $60 million in additional revenue per year. According to campus spokesperson Janet Gilmore, nonresident students currently total 16 percent of undergraduates.

While UC Berkeley attracts the most nonresident applicants, Jeffery said the proportion of out-of-state and international undergraduates at the UC “is still very small and certainly small compared to some other public institutions in other states.”

Although affirmative action at the UC is illegal under Proposition 209, the UC has been working to increase diversity by other means, including the implementation of new admissions policies.

New UC policies this year expanded from admitting the top 4 percent of eligible students at each California high school to the top 9 percent and no longer required freshman applicants to submit SAT II subject test scores. These changes were implemented so the UC could be more “inclusive” in the admissions process, Jeffery said.

These policies, Jeffery said, may have contributed to the small gains seen in the admission rates of underrepresented minority students this year.

According to the data released Tuesday, black students make up about 4.4 percent of admitted UC students, up from 4.1 percent last year. The number of Chicano and Latino students increased by 1.3 percent from 26 percent last year, while the percentage of American Indian students remained at 0.7 percent.

Efforts by the Berkeley campus to increase the number of underrepresented minority students have drawn criticism from both sides of the affirmative action debate, with claims that there is either too little or too much being done to change the ethnic diversity of the student body.

Shawn Lewis, president of Berkeley College Republicans, said in an email that “(a)ny policy to increase representation based on race or ethnic identity will only be a disservice to students and the institution of the University itself.”

Berkeley High School senior Aillen Zazueta-Bella, who was rejected by the campus, disagreed.

On April 8, she — along with demonstrators from the activist group BAMN and the student Defend Affirmative Action Party — held a press conference that criticized the campus’s admissions policies, stating that the campus discriminates against qualified underrepresented students.

The demonstrators called on the campus to double the number of underrepresented students admitted for the fall semester.

However, the released statistics show the campus making small gains toward increasing the amount of Chicano and Latino students admitted. Chicano and Latino students make up 17.8 percent of the admitted freshman students, up 1.4 percent from last year.

Campus and UC officials have held that increasing ethnic diversity also adds cultural diversity, something that Jeffery said can also be achieved by admitting nonresident students.

Amruta Trivedi is the lead academics and administration reporter.

A previous version of this infographic listed the University of California’s acceptance rate as 21.1 percent. In fact, this was UC Berkeley’s acceptance rate, not that of the UC as a whole.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • Fluffysmuts

    Your numbers seem to differ from those released by the Public Affairs office. The Berkeleyan reports that the “This year’s admissions rate was 21 percent: 61,695 students applied, and 13,037 received offers to start school in either the fall or the spring of the 2012-13 academic year” — whose numbers are correct!

  • FireBlogger

    You either qualify or you don’t qualify. Hand holding ultimately dilutes the collective I.Q. of the student body. 

  • Brian

    How does the 21.1% number make sense? Please explain.

  • Momoearth

    The numbers are COMPLETELY off in this article…it’s ridiculous! Also, I personally find it discouraging that there is so much emphasis on the ills of admitting out of state students. Non-California students provide alternative viewpoints, upbringings, perspectives, and knowledge that make the University a more well-rounded and informed place. The University’s goal is still to put residents first (as it should!). But, a slight increase in out of state students is a great idea- it raises much needed money for the University without raising in state tuition and it brings in bright and diverse international and non-California students. A slight increase in non-residents is a positive, not a negative. Why can’t Berkeley students be more excepting of non-Californians? It unnecessarily divides the student body. 

    • Momoearth


    • Momoearth



      There’s nothing wrong with having out-of-state students, but can I just say trying to admit more for the increased tuition is absurd? The tuition difference between residents and nonresidents is astronomical, and classification for residency extremely difficult in a lot of cases. Taking more of some students’ money so the ‘everyone’ can benefit does not add up.

    • Calipenguin

      There’s nothing wrong with accepting more out of state students as long as there’s room, and we are told there’s plenty of room even as classes are cut due to lack of money.  However, when taxpayers are asked to pay more to hire UC maintenance workers, administrators, lecturers, and student service providers, then the question is why should California taxpayers pay more to provide a better educational experience for out of state students?  Over the last few years anecdotal evidence also suggests that highly qualified California high school seniors are being rejected from the top 5 UC campuses and many Californians suspect that the top 5 campuses are making room for wealthy out of state students and pushing our own UC qualified students to UC Merced and UC Riverside since out of state students would never waste their money on those two campuses.

      • wow

        The problem with your logic: Out of state students are held to a MUCH higher expectation. Admissions to Berkeley for out of staters is significantly more difficult. So, it is not a matter of wealth that makes an out of stater accepted. Berkeley is supposed to be against discrimination. So why do they see no problem with discriminating against non-Californians! It’s crazy!

  • Who is the Editor?

    • Guest

      That Graphic needs edited. It has figures from UC as a whole and UC Berkeley mixed together as if they are the same. It indicates that UC admitted 80,289 representing a 21.1% acceptance rate when that was UC Berkeley’s acceptance rate not UC’s.

  • Guess

    How can Berkeley admit 40,000 new freshman student, when the current total population of the school is 36,142 students (including graduate students)?

    From Facts at a Glance from the Berkeley web site: 
    Number of students: 36,142 students as of Fall 2011 including 25,885 undergraduates and 10,257 pursuing graduate degrees.

    • Guest

      Only 7,000 of the 40,000 will accept UC’s offer and actually enroll.  It’s called the “take” rate.  The others will accept offers from other schools, mostly schools that will offer them better financial aid, scholarship and fellowships.  This is a VERY important thing to remember when looking at the diversity of the UC students.  There is a huge, huge difference between the number of underrepresented students that UC says can come (higher each year) and the number of of those students who actually choose to come (lower each year).  UC is responsible for the former and should be measured by that.  They have no control over the latter, and measuring them on that basis is skewing the data to suit one’s personal political and social agenda.

      • Guest

        Asians were whining they did not have enough slots in 2010 and 2011 due to out of state students. They won’t be satisfied till every UC has the demographics of Irvine and UCSD; well Berkeley is now almost at UCSD level. 45.1% Asians and 28.6% whites is beyond ridiculous when UC eligible whites outnumber Asians three to one. As they did 20 years ago when Heyman initiated  changes in  admissions standards to favor FOB Asians over Whites, which initiated  the great decline in white representation at UC, they acquiesced to their demands.

        • I_h8_disqus

          The percentage of actual students depends on who accepts their invitation to attend a UC school.  The decrease in white students isn’t because of the university pulling an Asian affirmative action play.  It is because white students often choose private schools instead of UC schools, while Asian students are still choosing the UC schools.

          Your use of FOB shows you have some racist issues to get over.  Resident Asians have the same right to go to the UC as resident whites.  They work hard and they have earned their place on an equal basis as those of us who are white.

          • Guest

             Not exactly, the Asian Task Force demands were specifically to favor FOB Asians. Among their demands that changed Admissions to favor FOB Asians were that the UC Foreign Language requirement of three years of one foreign language or two years of two foreign languages discriminated against FOB Asians since English is their Foreign Language. Also, the non availability of Sat Subject Exams in Asian Languages discriminated against Asians. As a result, UC  lobbied the College Board to offer Subject Exams in Asian Languages and began requiring only two years of one foreign language and then began double counting the SAT Subject Exams.
            Result was that  FOB Asians could take  a subject exam in their native Asian Language and have it double counted while taking a “foreign language”  exam in English, the SAT Verbal section,  and only have it single counted.  In contrast native English speakers had a subject exam in a foreign language that actually was a foreign language double counted while the exam in their native language, the Sat Verbal section was only single counted. At most highly selective universities, for students not majoring in Engineering, Math or Sciences, the SAT Verbal section was given the greatest weight. In contrast, for UC admissions, it became totally minimized.
            At the time,  the SAT only had a Math and Verbal section. The Math section only tested Algebra 1 and Geometry. UC required three SAT Subject Exams. UC Admissions for 60% of the class was on a point basis where the GPA was multiplied by 1,0000 and then the subject exams totaled a possible 4,000 points as follows
            Sat [5/8[(Math + Verbal) + 2(Sat Subject + Sat Subject + Sat Subject)]]
            Then, 60% of the class was admitted based on total points from Gpa + Exams.
            The other 40% of the class was supposed to be admitted on a point basis by adding to the GPA/ Test totals specific points for a variety of criteria: Essay, AP/Honors classes, Going to a school that did not offer AP Classes, EC Activities etc; but, there was a  provision whereby  any so called underrepresented minority was admitted to any campus he applied as long as he met the absolute minimum UC standards. By 1989, this group was so large at Berkeley that no applicants were admitted in the 40% tier.
            It is helpful to understand exactly what is an underrepresented minority.
            “The University of California considers students “underrepresented” if they are members of a racial or ethnic group whose collective eligibility rate for UC is below 12-1/2 percent. These include African Americans, Native Americans, and Chicanos/Latinos. In 2003, for example, the UC eligibility rate was 6.3 percent for African Americans and 6.5 percent for Chicano/Latinos. Whites and Asians, on the other hand, are “overrepresented”—whites qualified for UC at a rate of 16.1 percent and Asians at a remarkable 31.4 percent, even though they constitute a minority within California’s population”
            See page 3:

            In essence, it has nothing to do with the number of minorities of said group actually attending a UC but  is only concerned with whether 12.5% of the members of said group are UC eligible.

            This is an arbitrary  definition.

            If the members of a certain racial or ethnic group qualify for admission at a much lower rate, then they should be admitted  at a much lower rate and should make up a correspondingly smaller percentage of the UC student population. An applicant who is a member  of said group should not be given a preference because he is a member of a group where less than 12.5% of members of the group are  UC eligible.

            Whites are the  only group that is underrepresented  at UC based on UC eligibility  rather than some arbitrary definition of under representation.

            Though Asians are UC eligible at twice the rate of whites, there are three times as many white high school graduates.

            The concern should be that after facing over a quarter of a century of overt and covert racial and socio-economic discrimination in UC admissions,  highly qualified UC eligible lower middle class whites no longer even bother applying  to UC. This should be the focus of UC outreach efforts,  not trying to recruit members of groups that have low levels of UC eligibility and are already over represented.

          • HaleBruin

                Excellent comment.  You have way to much common sense for UCB.

      • guest

        “the university expects almost 40,000 students to enroll — about the same as last year”

        • I_h8_disqus

          It is an editing mistake.  They might have meant that about 40,000 students in total will be enrolled.

        • Jmasco100

          40,000 new freshmen for the entire UC system of schools, not just the Berkeley campus.

  • Guest

    Why the F did Berkeley reduce its out of state quota by a whopping 12 PERCENT, where all the other UC campuses (UCLA most notably) ratcheted theirs up significantly?
    Berkeley should be the most cosmopolitan of the campuses.  And out of staters are more qualified than Californians.  AND they bring in more revenue.  It’s a win-win-win.  The state of California only supplies 10% of our budget!

    • libsrclowns

      Go for the money.

  • 1776

    Privatize the UC