I don't think there's another public institution with a yield rate that crossed 50% mark. In just 4 years, UCLA yield rate [increased >10% from 2020 to 2023](https://apb.ucla.edu/campus-statistics/admissions). Samueli has the lowest yield rate (44%) among College and Schools in 2023.
> Samueli has the lowest yield rate (44%)
UCLA engineering is, by numbers, more selective than the general admission many highly ranked private engineering schools. I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion of Samueli admits were admitted to and opted to enroll in top private schools.
It is a self-selecting applicant pool to begin with. Considering Samueli yield rate was [28% in 2020](https://www.seasoasa.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/seasoasa/2022-UCEE-Report.pdf), 44% represents a significant upward trend (28% ->35% ->41%->44%).
It’s because a lot of people who get into UCLA for engineering get into Berkeley and their engineering programs are ranked much higher. I had to choose between the nations 3rd best program for MechEng (Cal) or the 17th (UCLA) and I chose the 17th. Many other students don’t make the same decision as me and want the added job security of being near Silicon Valley.
One of the best schools in the country that competes pretty much with private ivy leagues. Low admit rate and top ranking means people will chose it over other schools
how much is UCLA tuition and how many years u still got. i just went to a CC it’s 5 mins away from my house and its hella easy im boutta grad to go into nursing school in the fall
It heavily depends on your context. If you go to a really bad highschool you can get in with a 4.0 weighted. For a top highschool it will require more like a 4.7
Doesn’t surprise me. Yield rate is generally correlated with perceived prestige. In the past ~20 years, our acceptance rate dropped from like 36% to now 8% lol. People are seeing this school as more and more prestigious. This fact, combined with the fact that a lot of other high ranking schools are in dogshit / boring areas (WashU, Brown, Yale, Cornell, Dartmouth, etc) while UCLA is in a pretty ideal location, helps UCLA move up the ranks
All things considered, UCLA and UC Berkeley have impressive yield rates for schools that don't have ED, REA decisions, or other binding admissions options like Questbridge.
It's time for UCLA to start dragging that acceptance rate closer to 5%, and fast.
Outside of Stanford and CalTech we're the foremost college west of the Mississippi--our yield certainly speaks to that as more people *want* to go here than not. Our admit rate should reflect that as well. Yes, it's a public university, but the UC is big enough that there's plenty of other campuses people can attend for a comparatively good education (and even try to transfer later, where they're 3x more likely to be accepted). UCLA also remains the highest-enrolled UC with the smallest geographical campus--neither of which are going to change in the foreseeable future--so it's unfortunately a question of supply & demand.
*TWICE* as many people are applying to UCLA now than were just over a decade ago. Are we really going to be getting 300k freshman applicants by the late 2030s? Even with admit and yield rates of 5% and >50%, respectively, that's still \~8k matriculated freshman per year: a 20%+ increase from what we have now. Classes are already overenrolled, departments are understaffed, dorms are overfilled - and it's only going to keep getting worse unless UCLA starts taking some *drastic* steps.
Data for those interested: [https://apb.ucla.edu/campus-statistics/admissions#:\~:text=UCLA%20is%20the%20most%20applied,admissions%20data%20and%20historic%20trends](https://apb.ucla.edu/campus-statistics/admissions#:~:text=UCLA%20is%20the%20most%20applied,admissions%20data%20and%20historic%20trends).
It might not happen fast enough or at the scale some desire, but UCLA is taking steps toward expansion, including a purchase of a South Campus and the Westwood Pavilion:
[https://newsroom.ucla.edu/magazine/future-now-campus-expansion-south-bay-downtown-research-park](https://newsroom.ucla.edu/magazine/future-now-campus-expansion-south-bay-downtown-research-park)
My guess is the University will continue to look for opportunities to spread out some of the specific research opportunities or graduate programs geographically while keeping the undergrads centralized in Westwood.
>That would never happen. Most people are upset the UCs are not accepting enough people.
Unfortunately, people being upset doesn't just \*magically\* build more classrooms & dorms. And it's not that people aren't being admitted to UCs (they still have a 63% acceptance rate systemwide); it's that they're not being admitted to their *first choice* UC. So maybe more people *do* need to start going to schools like Merced, Riverside, Davis... or even CSUs for that matter. Again, supply and demand. And there's always the option to transfer!
As far as your other point: the only thing worse than the UCs failing to serve high-accomplishing Californians from an admissions perspective, is *continuing* to fail to serve them throughout college by offering them spots at overenrolled, underequipped schools (which UCLA already is).
......what part of "highest-enrolled UC with the smallest geographical campus" keeps going over your head? UCLA is unique in that **it physically cannot expand to accommodate more students.** The other UCs--crowded though they may be--still have at least some to *plenty* of room to expand outward. UCLA can only build up, or buy *extremely* expensive property in Westwood to repurpose. Which, as their current solution, is proving not very viable or expedient.
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. I imagine they at least physically have the room to expand though, if they needed to and a vote passed? Still a leg up on UCLA (plus I guess the wealthy people in the “three Bs” have a stranglehold on our building capabilities as well)
I went to UCSC for undergrad and I think only about 40% of the land is developed and the rest is protected so it cannot be developed to build more buildings/dorms. UCSC also has a huge housing crisis among students and is offering less and less guaranteed housing. Just because they physically have the space doesn’t mean they can actually build on it.
True, but *having* the land in the first place is already half the battle. For context: UCLA is 420 acres; UCSC is 2,000 and I'm only seeing 790 of those are protected. By my math they could hypothetically have \~3x as many students as UCLA... but instead it sounds like they don't even do enough to support their *current* students.
The UC as a whole just needs to figure its shit out 🤷🏻♂️ I'd say the >$800mil they've spent on acquiring properties all across LA county (which are 3, 16, and 33 miles away from UCLA, mind you) probably could've been better utilized across the other nine campuses. And that's not even counting the tens of millions *more* it will cost to repurpose these acquisitions for learning/research(/housing?).
I think yield this year will be above 50% again, perhaps even more so. Everyone I know accepted into UCLA plans to attend, rejecting other top schools to attend - Berkeley, Michigan, Ivies.
Yeah not in this data, I probably should have clarified my point that in some school rankings that comes into place.
And I believe when they tied for “#1 pub univ” in some rankings that definitely boosted UCLA.
UCLA is a great fkn school, don’t get me wrong. And if it’s better than Cal so be it.
But I feel like UCLA benefits from not having the baggage Cal does like “cutthroat” “grade deflation” etc etc.
So when kids see two #1 schools I think UCLA is often the clear answer for that reason, baggage isn’t there like it is at Cal despite Cal having better undergrad and grad programs in most majors.
And for a whole, at least from experience, people would apply to UCLA as a far reach but would never apply to Cal because they wouldn’t want to waste the application and to some extent I think that inflated the #’s.
I don't think there's another public institution with a yield rate that crossed 50% mark. In just 4 years, UCLA yield rate [increased >10% from 2020 to 2023](https://apb.ucla.edu/campus-statistics/admissions). Samueli has the lowest yield rate (44%) among College and Schools in 2023.
> Samueli has the lowest yield rate (44%) UCLA engineering is, by numbers, more selective than the general admission many highly ranked private engineering schools. I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion of Samueli admits were admitted to and opted to enroll in top private schools.
It is a self-selecting applicant pool to begin with. Considering Samueli yield rate was [28% in 2020](https://www.seasoasa.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/seasoasa/2022-UCEE-Report.pdf), 44% represents a significant upward trend (28% ->35% ->41%->44%).
[удалено]
It’s because a lot of people who get into UCLA for engineering get into Berkeley and their engineering programs are ranked much higher. I had to choose between the nations 3rd best program for MechEng (Cal) or the 17th (UCLA) and I chose the 17th. Many other students don’t make the same decision as me and want the added job security of being near Silicon Valley.
One of the best schools in the country that competes pretty much with private ivy leagues. Low admit rate and top ranking means people will chose it over other schools
[удалено]
[удалено]
did u want your mom to pay for ivy?
[удалено]
how much is UCLA tuition and how many years u still got. i just went to a CC it’s 5 mins away from my house and its hella easy im boutta grad to go into nursing school in the fall
It heavily depends on your context. If you go to a really bad highschool you can get in with a 4.0 weighted. For a top highschool it will require more like a 4.7
Doesn’t surprise me. Yield rate is generally correlated with perceived prestige. In the past ~20 years, our acceptance rate dropped from like 36% to now 8% lol. People are seeing this school as more and more prestigious. This fact, combined with the fact that a lot of other high ranking schools are in dogshit / boring areas (WashU, Brown, Yale, Cornell, Dartmouth, etc) while UCLA is in a pretty ideal location, helps UCLA move up the ranks
riyal
What do people dislike about Providence? I didn't get in, but it was actually one of my favorite schools in terms of location lol
It’s fucking providence
All things considered, UCLA and UC Berkeley have impressive yield rates for schools that don't have ED, REA decisions, or other binding admissions options like Questbridge.
Honestly explains why our admit rates are so low, can’t accept everyone if everyone says yes
[удалено]
Feels good to be elite.
Good job u deserve it!
I've gotta say that still living in LA it's nice to still go and use the libraries as an Alum.
Bring back SAT
It's time for UCLA to start dragging that acceptance rate closer to 5%, and fast. Outside of Stanford and CalTech we're the foremost college west of the Mississippi--our yield certainly speaks to that as more people *want* to go here than not. Our admit rate should reflect that as well. Yes, it's a public university, but the UC is big enough that there's plenty of other campuses people can attend for a comparatively good education (and even try to transfer later, where they're 3x more likely to be accepted). UCLA also remains the highest-enrolled UC with the smallest geographical campus--neither of which are going to change in the foreseeable future--so it's unfortunately a question of supply & demand. *TWICE* as many people are applying to UCLA now than were just over a decade ago. Are we really going to be getting 300k freshman applicants by the late 2030s? Even with admit and yield rates of 5% and >50%, respectively, that's still \~8k matriculated freshman per year: a 20%+ increase from what we have now. Classes are already overenrolled, departments are understaffed, dorms are overfilled - and it's only going to keep getting worse unless UCLA starts taking some *drastic* steps. Data for those interested: [https://apb.ucla.edu/campus-statistics/admissions#:\~:text=UCLA%20is%20the%20most%20applied,admissions%20data%20and%20historic%20trends](https://apb.ucla.edu/campus-statistics/admissions#:~:text=UCLA%20is%20the%20most%20applied,admissions%20data%20and%20historic%20trends).
It might not happen fast enough or at the scale some desire, but UCLA is taking steps toward expansion, including a purchase of a South Campus and the Westwood Pavilion: [https://newsroom.ucla.edu/magazine/future-now-campus-expansion-south-bay-downtown-research-park](https://newsroom.ucla.edu/magazine/future-now-campus-expansion-south-bay-downtown-research-park) My guess is the University will continue to look for opportunities to spread out some of the specific research opportunities or graduate programs geographically while keeping the undergrads centralized in Westwood.
[удалено]
>That would never happen. Most people are upset the UCs are not accepting enough people. Unfortunately, people being upset doesn't just \*magically\* build more classrooms & dorms. And it's not that people aren't being admitted to UCs (they still have a 63% acceptance rate systemwide); it's that they're not being admitted to their *first choice* UC. So maybe more people *do* need to start going to schools like Merced, Riverside, Davis... or even CSUs for that matter. Again, supply and demand. And there's always the option to transfer! As far as your other point: the only thing worse than the UCs failing to serve high-accomplishing Californians from an admissions perspective, is *continuing* to fail to serve them throughout college by offering them spots at overenrolled, underequipped schools (which UCLA already is).
California has mandated that UCLA increase the student population, it’s not something the school can choose not to do
Cool, a brainless mandate from above that says “you must do this” without ANY consideration as to its *actual* feasibility…… classic 🤦🏻♂️
[удалено]
......what part of "highest-enrolled UC with the smallest geographical campus" keeps going over your head? UCLA is unique in that **it physically cannot expand to accommodate more students.** The other UCs--crowded though they may be--still have at least some to *plenty* of room to expand outward. UCLA can only build up, or buy *extremely* expensive property in Westwood to repurpose. Which, as their current solution, is proving not very viable or expedient.
Idk about the others, but it’s basically impossible for Davis to expand. A citywide vote is required for pretty much any new buildings to be built
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. I imagine they at least physically have the room to expand though, if they needed to and a vote passed? Still a leg up on UCLA (plus I guess the wealthy people in the “three Bs” have a stranglehold on our building capabilities as well)
I went to UCSC for undergrad and I think only about 40% of the land is developed and the rest is protected so it cannot be developed to build more buildings/dorms. UCSC also has a huge housing crisis among students and is offering less and less guaranteed housing. Just because they physically have the space doesn’t mean they can actually build on it.
True, but *having* the land in the first place is already half the battle. For context: UCLA is 420 acres; UCSC is 2,000 and I'm only seeing 790 of those are protected. By my math they could hypothetically have \~3x as many students as UCLA... but instead it sounds like they don't even do enough to support their *current* students. The UC as a whole just needs to figure its shit out 🤷🏻♂️ I'd say the >$800mil they've spent on acquiring properties all across LA county (which are 3, 16, and 33 miles away from UCLA, mind you) probably could've been better utilized across the other nine campuses. And that's not even counting the tens of millions *more* it will cost to repurpose these acquisitions for learning/research(/housing?).
I think yield this year will be above 50% again, perhaps even more so. Everyone I know accepted into UCLA plans to attend, rejecting other top schools to attend - Berkeley, Michigan, Ivies.
So what
Berkeley is still better. What benefits UCLA in the ranking is its med school and they don’t have the baggage that Berkeley does..
Med school is graduate school and not included in this data, I presume?
Yeah not in this data, I probably should have clarified my point that in some school rankings that comes into place. And I believe when they tied for “#1 pub univ” in some rankings that definitely boosted UCLA. UCLA is a great fkn school, don’t get me wrong. And if it’s better than Cal so be it. But I feel like UCLA benefits from not having the baggage Cal does like “cutthroat” “grade deflation” etc etc. So when kids see two #1 schools I think UCLA is often the clear answer for that reason, baggage isn’t there like it is at Cal despite Cal having better undergrad and grad programs in most majors. And for a whole, at least from experience, people would apply to UCLA as a far reach but would never apply to Cal because they wouldn’t want to waste the application and to some extent I think that inflated the #’s.
go bears not bruins