Help me better understand Southern Cal universities & colleges

[Anonymous]

I'd absolutely want my kids to consider Berkeley for grad school. For undergraduate though? No thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OOS students have higher admit rates than in-state students because fewer of them actually end up matriculating. A stunning number of families don't look at the UC price tag and assume there'll bee some sort of aid available to them. At the end of the day, when they're considering a not-UCLA/UCB school in the UC system at $85,000 per year, they end up deciding to go to a private school or their in-state option.

If the yield were higher for OOS students, the admit rate would drop. As a concrete example, note that the yield rate for UCLA/UCB is much higher than the other schools, and their OOS admit rate is either the same as in-state (UCLA) or even lower (UCB).

Where are you getting $85K?

Over three quarters, the OOS tuition supplement at Berkeley and UCLA is around $34K total … so OOS 2025 applicants would be looking at a total cost of $70 - $75K, max. per year. If dorm living is dropped for apartment or Greek life housing, $65 - $70K is very achievable. And yes, that includes airfares for move-in / out, holidays, etc.

I get that $70K is still a lot, but citing $85K seems intentionally dishonest.

First I'm rooting for your $34K tuition best for everyone from DMV. I'm looking at: https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/tuition-financial-aid/tuition-cost-of-attendance/ and I see: $50,328; The total direct cost is closer to your number: $76,028.

Cal Poly seems closer to your estimated tuition: https://www.calpoly.edu/financial-aid/costs-and-affordability/undergraduate-costs-attendance-2025-26 $37,005 for tuition.

UCLA OOS will be 80k (website recently updated I think): https://admission.ucla.edu/tuition-aid/tuition-fees

Why, why would anyone choose to pay that OOS??

Here’s one reason: If a prospective applicant takes a holistic approach to planning their future and considers an institution’s academic reputation (in the U.S. and globally), its excellence across a very broad range of programs, its grad. school and professional outcomes, its diverse social opportunities, and its overall quality of life, there are less than 20 other colleges or universities on the planet that can compete with the likes of UCLA or UC Berkeley.

We’re paying far less for Berkeley, since we’re in-state, but there are far more than 20 other schools where our kid would have thrived, and where she would have had a richer academic and social experience.

It was the right choice for us because we’re a donut hole family and she wanted to stay in California. But after seeing her experience there, our younger two didn’t even apply to Berkeley, and they had better academic records in high school than she did.

By all means, your kid should apply if they would like to and you have the money for it. It has a lot going for it and every time I’m on campus it just “feels” like college. My younger kids have several friends (both in-state and OOS) who will be starting there this fall, and I’m sure they’ll all have great experiences. But recognize that there are tradeoffs to every school, that Berkeley and UCLA are no different in that regard, and that the cons will outweigh the pros for a lot of students, especially when factoring in the costs. And there are many more than 20 schools out there where your kid can absolutely thrive.

That is a different test, though.

Are there at least 20 other institutions that can provide an applicant with a wonderful, enriching, fulfilling undergraduate experience. Of course.

But are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No.

I'm PP. It's precisely "the overall experience" at Berkeley that my oldest had that my younger two wanted to avoid. It's a machine, and it does what machines do. Like the poster directly above me noted, Berkeley — as with many of the schools on the US News list — is a phenomenal grad school. For undergrad, though — and especially for the OOS cost — there are many others that will give a better "overall" experience. Like I said earlier, if you have the money and the interest, great. But don't put it on a pedestal and think it's some magical place where all undergrads have access to research, or that undergrad teaching is a priority, or that undergrads have reasonable access to housing, etc. etc. It's a good school. But, again, it's a machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OOS students have higher admit rates than in-state students because fewer of them actually end up matriculating. A stunning number of families don't look at the UC price tag and assume there'll bee some sort of aid available to them. At the end of the day, when they're considering a not-UCLA/UCB school in the UC system at $85,000 per year, they end up deciding to go to a private school or their in-state option.

If the yield were higher for OOS students, the admit rate would drop. As a concrete example, note that the yield rate for UCLA/UCB is much higher than the other schools, and their OOS admit rate is either the same as in-state (UCLA) or even lower (UCB).

Where are you getting $85K?

Over three quarters, the OOS tuition supplement at Berkeley and UCLA is around $34K total … so OOS 2025 applicants would be looking at a total cost of $70 - $75K, max. per year. If dorm living is dropped for apartment or Greek life housing, $65 - $70K is very achievable. And yes, that includes airfares for move-in / out, holidays, etc.

I get that $70K is still a lot, but citing $85K seems intentionally dishonest.

First I'm rooting for your $34K tuition best for everyone from DMV. I'm looking at: https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/tuition-financial-aid/tuition-cost-of-attendance/ and I see: $50,328; The total direct cost is closer to your number: $76,028.

Cal Poly seems closer to your estimated tuition: https://www.calpoly.edu/financial-aid/costs-and-affordability/undergraduate-costs-attendance-2025-26 $37,005 for tuition.

UCLA OOS will be 80k (website recently updated I think): https://admission.ucla.edu/tuition-aid/tuition-fees

Why, why would anyone choose to pay that OOS??

Here’s one reason: If a prospective applicant takes a holistic approach to planning their future and considers an institution’s academic reputation (in the U.S. and globally), its excellence across a very broad range of programs, its grad. school and professional outcomes, its diverse social opportunities, and its overall quality of life, there are less than 20 other colleges or universities on the planet that can compete with the likes of UCLA or UC Berkeley.

We’re paying far less for Berkeley, since we’re in-state, but there are far more than 20 other schools where our kid would have thrived, and where she would have had a richer academic and social experience.

It was the right choice for us because we’re a donut hole family and she wanted to stay in California. But after seeing her experience there, our younger two didn’t even apply to Berkeley, and they had better academic records in high school than she did.

By all means, your kid should apply if they would like to and you have the money for it. It has a lot going for it and every time I’m on campus it just “feels” like college. My younger kids have several friends (both in-state and OOS) who will be starting there this fall, and I’m sure they’ll all have great experiences. But recognize that there are tradeoffs to every school, that Berkeley and UCLA are no different in that regard, and that the cons will outweigh the pros for a lot of students, especially when factoring in the costs. And there are many more than 20 schools out there where your kid can absolutely thrive.

That is a different test, though.

Are there at least 20 other institutions that can provide an applicant with a wonderful, enriching, fulfilling undergraduate experience. Of course.

But are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No.

I'm PP. It's precisely "the overall experience" at Berkeley that my oldest had that my younger two wanted to avoid. It's a machine, and it does what machines do. Like the poster directly above me noted, Berkeley — as with many of the schools on the US News list — is a phenomenal grad school. For undergrad, though — and especially for the OOS cost — there are many others that will give a better "overall" experience. Like I said earlier, if you have the money and the interest, great. But don't put it on a pedestal and think it's some magical place where all undergrads have access to research, or that undergrad teaching is a priority, or that undergrads have reasonable access to housing, etc. etc. It's a good school. But, again, it's a machine.

This really depends on your DC's talent and drive. DS goes to Berkeley and got research as a first year by a professor who saw his talents. He's in three different clubs, one building a product for tech firms, and the others do consulting work with industry partners. This summer he is working at Mount Sinai in a professor's friend's lab. When he returns in the fall, he's expecting to write a first author publication. This was all due to being at Berkeley and meeting the right people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OOS students have higher admit rates than in-state students because fewer of them actually end up matriculating. A stunning number of families don't look at the UC price tag and assume there'll bee some sort of aid available to them. At the end of the day, when they're considering a not-UCLA/UCB school in the UC system at $85,000 per year, they end up deciding to go to a private school or their in-state option.

If the yield were higher for OOS students, the admit rate would drop. As a concrete example, note that the yield rate for UCLA/UCB is much higher than the other schools, and their OOS admit rate is either the same as in-state (UCLA) or even lower (UCB).

Where are you getting $85K?

Over three quarters, the OOS tuition supplement at Berkeley and UCLA is around $34K total … so OOS 2025 applicants would be looking at a total cost of $70 - $75K, max. per year. If dorm living is dropped for apartment or Greek life housing, $65 - $70K is very achievable. And yes, that includes airfares for move-in / out, holidays, etc.

I get that $70K is still a lot, but citing $85K seems intentionally dishonest.

First I'm rooting for your $34K tuition best for everyone from DMV. I'm looking at: https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/tuition-financial-aid/tuition-cost-of-attendance/ and I see: $50,328; The total direct cost is closer to your number: $76,028.

Cal Poly seems closer to your estimated tuition: https://www.calpoly.edu/financial-aid/costs-and-affordability/undergraduate-costs-attendance-2025-26 $37,005 for tuition.

UCLA OOS will be 80k (website recently updated I think): https://admission.ucla.edu/tuition-aid/tuition-fees

Why, why would anyone choose to pay that OOS??

Here’s one reason: If a prospective applicant takes a holistic approach to planning their future and considers an institution’s academic reputation (in the U.S. and globally), its excellence across a very broad range of programs, its grad. school and professional outcomes, its diverse social opportunities, and its overall quality of life, there are less than 20 other colleges or universities on the planet that can compete with the likes of UCLA or UC Berkeley.

We’re paying far less for Berkeley, since we’re in-state, but there are far more than 20 other schools where our kid would have thrived, and where she would have had a richer academic and social experience.

It was the right choice for us because we’re a donut hole family and she wanted to stay in California. But after seeing her experience there, our younger two didn’t even apply to Berkeley, and they had better academic records in high school than she did.

By all means, your kid should apply if they would like to and you have the money for it. It has a lot going for it and every time I’m on campus it just “feels” like college. My younger kids have several friends (both in-state and OOS) who will be starting there this fall, and I’m sure they’ll all have great experiences. But recognize that there are tradeoffs to every school, that Berkeley and UCLA are no different in that regard, and that the cons will outweigh the pros for a lot of students, especially when factoring in the costs. And there are many more than 20 schools out there where your kid can absolutely thrive.

That is a different test, though.

Are there at least 20 other institutions that can provide an applicant with a wonderful, enriching, fulfilling undergraduate experience. Of course.

But are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No.

I'm PP. It's precisely "the overall experience" at Berkeley that my oldest had that my younger two wanted to avoid. It's a machine, and it does what machines do. Like the poster directly above me noted, Berkeley — as with many of the schools on the US News list — is a phenomenal grad school. For undergrad, though — and especially for the OOS cost — there are many others that will give a better "overall" experience. Like I said earlier, if you have the money and the interest, great. But don't put it on a pedestal and think it's some magical place where all undergrads have access to research, or that undergrad teaching is a priority, or that undergrads have reasonable access to housing, etc. etc. It's a good school. But, again, it's a machine.

This really depends on your DC's talent and drive. DS goes to Berkeley and got research as a first year by a professor who saw his talents. He's in three different clubs, one building a product for tech firms, and the others do consulting work with industry partners. This summer he is working at Mount Sinai in a professor's friend's lab. When he returns in the fall, he's expecting to write a first author publication. This was all due to being at Berkeley and meeting the right people.

PP again. Congrats to your son. In a way, I agree with you, but I think reducing this to "talent and drive" is a bit disingenuous, when the thrust of this conversation is "the uniqueness of Berkeley/UCLA/some 18 other schools" at providing some "overall experience" — specifically, to quote the argument I disagree with from above, "are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No."

My daughter's had a ton of really great experiences as well — she's the editor of an undergraduate publication, has taken grad-level seminars as an undergrad, won an international travel / research scholarship, has taught several sections of undergrad classes, supervised an undergraduate research group, has had an on-campus job, has had internships (both in-semester and over the summer), yadda yadda. But, again, the core point of this part of the conversation is "is there some small fraction of undergrad schools (and, specifically, Berkeley/UCLA, from OOS) where the "overall experience" is somehow magically better than what it would be at other undergrad schools, and, again, specifically, is that experience so great that it warrants paying OOS rates? For some, sure. Maybe there are a bunch of people whose talents unlock at a UCLA/Berkeley in some way that they wouldn't at other schools. But I disagree with the PP's argument that the "overall experience" is somehow unattainable unless a student attends one of 20 schools. And this gets us back to where I agree with you — good students will bloom where they're planted. And if that's someone's in-state school, or some small CTCL school that threw money at them to attend, or a school where need-based aid opened a door, I don't think the fact that they aren't paying OOS rates to Cal (or full-freight at one of the other 20 schools the earlier posted mentioned) will hold them back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OOS students have higher admit rates than in-state students because fewer of them actually end up matriculating. A stunning number of families don't look at the UC price tag and assume there'll bee some sort of aid available to them. At the end of the day, when they're considering a not-UCLA/UCB school in the UC system at $85,000 per year, they end up deciding to go to a private school or their in-state option.

If the yield were higher for OOS students, the admit rate would drop. As a concrete example, note that the yield rate for UCLA/UCB is much higher than the other schools, and their OOS admit rate is either the same as in-state (UCLA) or even lower (UCB).

Where are you getting $85K?

Over three quarters, the OOS tuition supplement at Berkeley and UCLA is around $34K total … so OOS 2025 applicants would be looking at a total cost of $70 - $75K, max. per year. If dorm living is dropped for apartment or Greek life housing, $65 - $70K is very achievable. And yes, that includes airfares for move-in / out, holidays, etc.

I get that $70K is still a lot, but citing $85K seems intentionally dishonest.

First I'm rooting for your $34K tuition best for everyone from DMV. I'm looking at: https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/tuition-financial-aid/tuition-cost-of-attendance/ and I see: $50,328; The total direct cost is closer to your number: $76,028.

Cal Poly seems closer to your estimated tuition: https://www.calpoly.edu/financial-aid/costs-and-affordability/undergraduate-costs-attendance-2025-26 $37,005 for tuition.

UCLA OOS will be 80k (website recently updated I think): https://admission.ucla.edu/tuition-aid/tuition-fees

Why, why would anyone choose to pay that OOS??

Here’s one reason: If a prospective applicant takes a holistic approach to planning their future and considers an institution’s academic reputation (in the U.S. and globally), its excellence across a very broad range of programs, its grad. school and professional outcomes, its diverse social opportunities, and its overall quality of life, there are less than 20 other colleges or universities on the planet that can compete with the likes of UCLA or UC Berkeley.

We’re paying far less for Berkeley, since we’re in-state, but there are far more than 20 other schools where our kid would have thrived, and where she would have had a richer academic and social experience.

It was the right choice for us because we’re a donut hole family and she wanted to stay in California. But after seeing her experience there, our younger two didn’t even apply to Berkeley, and they had better academic records in high school than she did.

By all means, your kid should apply if they would like to and you have the money for it. It has a lot going for it and every time I’m on campus it just “feels” like college. My younger kids have several friends (both in-state and OOS) who will be starting there this fall, and I’m sure they’ll all have great experiences. But recognize that there are tradeoffs to every school, that Berkeley and UCLA are no different in that regard, and that the cons will outweigh the pros for a lot of students, especially when factoring in the costs. And there are many more than 20 schools out there where your kid can absolutely thrive.

That is a different test, though.

Are there at least 20 other institutions that can provide an applicant with a wonderful, enriching, fulfilling undergraduate experience. Of course.

But are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No.

I'm PP. It's precisely "the overall experience" at Berkeley that my oldest had that my younger two wanted to avoid. It's a machine, and it does what machines do. Like the poster directly above me noted, Berkeley — as with many of the schools on the US News list — is a phenomenal grad school. For undergrad, though — and especially for the OOS cost — there are many others that will give a better "overall" experience. Like I said earlier, if you have the money and the interest, great. But don't put it on a pedestal and think it's some magical place where all undergrads have access to research, or that undergrad teaching is a priority, or that undergrads have reasonable access to housing, etc. etc. It's a good school. But, again, it's a machine.

This really depends on your DC's talent and drive. DS goes to Berkeley and got research as a first year by a professor who saw his talents. He's in three different clubs, one building a product for tech firms, and the others do consulting work with industry partners. This summer he is working at Mount Sinai in a professor's friend's lab. When he returns in the fall, he's expecting to write a first author publication. This was all due to being at Berkeley and meeting the right people.

PP again. Congrats to your son. In a way, I agree with you, but I think reducing this to "talent and drive" is a bit disingenuous, when the thrust of this conversation is "the uniqueness of Berkeley/UCLA/some 18 other schools" at providing some "overall experience" — specifically, to quote the argument I disagree with from above, "are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No."

My daughter's had a ton of really great experiences as well — she's the editor of an undergraduate publication, has taken grad-level seminars as an undergrad, won an international travel / research scholarship, has taught several sections of undergrad classes, supervised an undergraduate research group, has had an on-campus job, has had internships (both in-semester and over the summer), yadda yadda. But, again, the core point of this part of the conversation is "is there some small fraction of undergrad schools (and, specifically, Berkeley/UCLA, from OOS) where the "overall experience" is somehow magically better than what it would be at other undergrad schools, and, again, specifically, is that experience so great that it warrants paying OOS rates? For some, sure. Maybe there are a bunch of people whose talents unlock at a UCLA/Berkeley in some way that they wouldn't at other schools. But I disagree with the PP's argument that the "overall experience" is somehow unattainable unless a student attends one of 20 schools. And this gets us back to where I agree with you — good students will bloom where they're planted. And if that's someone's in-state school, or some small CTCL school that threw money at them to attend, or a school where need-based aid opened a door, I don't think the fact that they aren't paying OOS rates to Cal (or full-freight at one of the other 20 schools the earlier posted mentioned) will hold them back.

It’s sad to me, but the description you provide suggests that you view college principally as a training ground, a place to rack up accomplishments. If I wanted college for my child to be mostly about training for a career, I’d be depressed.

[Anonymous]

The cost of higher education has effectively made many families view it as transactional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OOS students have higher admit rates than in-state students because fewer of them actually end up matriculating. A stunning number of families don't look at the UC price tag and assume there'll bee some sort of aid available to them. At the end of the day, when they're considering a not-UCLA/UCB school in the UC system at $85,000 per year, they end up deciding to go to a private school or their in-state option.

If the yield were higher for OOS students, the admit rate would drop. As a concrete example, note that the yield rate for UCLA/UCB is much higher than the other schools, and their OOS admit rate is either the same as in-state (UCLA) or even lower (UCB).

Where are you getting $85K?

Over three quarters, the OOS tuition supplement at Berkeley and UCLA is around $34K total … so OOS 2025 applicants would be looking at a total cost of $70 - $75K, max. per year. If dorm living is dropped for apartment or Greek life housing, $65 - $70K is very achievable. And yes, that includes airfares for move-in / out, holidays, etc.

I get that $70K is still a lot, but citing $85K seems intentionally dishonest.

First I'm rooting for your $34K tuition best for everyone from DMV. I'm looking at: https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/tuition-financial-aid/tuition-cost-of-attendance/ and I see: $50,328; The total direct cost is closer to your number: $76,028.

Cal Poly seems closer to your estimated tuition: https://www.calpoly.edu/financial-aid/costs-and-affordability/undergraduate-costs-attendance-2025-26 $37,005 for tuition.

UCLA OOS will be 80k (website recently updated I think): https://admission.ucla.edu/tuition-aid/tuition-fees

Why, why would anyone choose to pay that OOS??

Here’s one reason: If a prospective applicant takes a holistic approach to planning their future and considers an institution’s academic reputation (in the U.S. and globally), its excellence across a very broad range of programs, its grad. school and professional outcomes, its diverse social opportunities, and its overall quality of life, there are less than 20 other colleges or universities on the planet that can compete with the likes of UCLA or UC Berkeley.

We’re paying far less for Berkeley, since we’re in-state, but there are far more than 20 other schools where our kid would have thrived, and where she would have had a richer academic and social experience.

It was the right choice for us because we’re a donut hole family and she wanted to stay in California. But after seeing her experience there, our younger two didn’t even apply to Berkeley, and they had better academic records in high school than she did.

By all means, your kid should apply if they would like to and you have the money for it. It has a lot going for it and every time I’m on campus it just “feels” like college. My younger kids have several friends (both in-state and OOS) who will be starting there this fall, and I’m sure they’ll all have great experiences. But recognize that there are tradeoffs to every school, that Berkeley and UCLA are no different in that regard, and that the cons will outweigh the pros for a lot of students, especially when factoring in the costs. And there are many more than 20 schools out there where your kid can absolutely thrive.

That is a different test, though.

Are there at least 20 other institutions that can provide an applicant with a wonderful, enriching, fulfilling undergraduate experience. Of course.

But are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No.

I'm PP. It's precisely "the overall experience" at Berkeley that my oldest had that my younger two wanted to avoid. It's a machine, and it does what machines do. Like the poster directly above me noted, Berkeley — as with many of the schools on the US News list — is a phenomenal grad school. For undergrad, though — and especially for the OOS cost — there are many others that will give a better "overall" experience. Like I said earlier, if you have the money and the interest, great. But don't put it on a pedestal and think it's some magical place where all undergrads have access to research, or that undergrad teaching is a priority, or that undergrads have reasonable access to housing, etc. etc. It's a good school. But, again, it's a machine.

This really depends on your DC's talent and drive. DS goes to Berkeley and got research as a first year by a professor who saw his talents. He's in three different clubs, one building a product for tech firms, and the others do consulting work with industry partners. This summer he is working at Mount Sinai in a professor's friend's lab. When he returns in the fall, he's expecting to write a first author publication. This was all due to being at Berkeley and meeting the right people.

PP again. Congrats to your son. In a way, I agree with you, but I think reducing this to "talent and drive" is a bit disingenuous, when the thrust of this conversation is "the uniqueness of Berkeley/UCLA/some 18 other schools" at providing some "overall experience" — specifically, to quote the argument I disagree with from above, "are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No."

My daughter's had a ton of really great experiences as well — she's the editor of an undergraduate publication, has taken grad-level seminars as an undergrad, won an international travel / research scholarship, has taught several sections of undergrad classes, supervised an undergraduate research group, has had an on-campus job, has had internships (both in-semester and over the summer), yadda yadda. But, again, the core point of this part of the conversation is "is there some small fraction of undergrad schools (and, specifically, Berkeley/UCLA, from OOS) where the "overall experience" is somehow magically better than what it would be at other undergrad schools, and, again, specifically, is that experience so great that it warrants paying OOS rates? For some, sure. Maybe there are a bunch of people whose talents unlock at a UCLA/Berkeley in some way that they wouldn't at other schools. But I disagree with the PP's argument that the "overall experience" is somehow unattainable unless a student attends one of 20 schools. And this gets us back to where I agree with you — good students will bloom where they're planted. And if that's someone's in-state school, or some small CTCL school that threw money at them to attend, or a school where need-based aid opened a door, I don't think the fact that they aren't paying OOS rates to Cal (or full-freight at one of the other 20 schools the earlier posted mentioned) will hold them back.

It’s sad to me, but the description you provide suggests that you view college principally as a training ground, a place to rack up accomplishments. If I wanted college for my child to be mostly about training for a career, I’d be depressed.

You've misread my posts, then. The only reason I listed what my daughter's accomplished was to refute the earlier poster's comment about "talent and drive", as the implication was that my kid hasn't made the most of her time at Berkeley. Earlier in this thread I wrote about how dissatisfied we've been with Berkeley, and why my younger two, seeing what Berkeley was like, opted to not even apply there, and are going to a mid-size liberal arts university known for excellent undergraduate teaching, strong student/professor relationships, and a robust community. The entire point of my posts here has been to highlight that a school like Berkeley is overhyped, and that success there comes despite the school, not because of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OOS students have higher admit rates than in-state students because fewer of them actually end up matriculating. A stunning number of families don't look at the UC price tag and assume there'll bee some sort of aid available to them. At the end of the day, when they're considering a not-UCLA/UCB school in the UC system at $85,000 per year, they end up deciding to go to a private school or their in-state option.

If the yield were higher for OOS students, the admit rate would drop. As a concrete example, note that the yield rate for UCLA/UCB is much higher than the other schools, and their OOS admit rate is either the same as in-state (UCLA) or even lower (UCB).

Where are you getting $85K?

Over three quarters, the OOS tuition supplement at Berkeley and UCLA is around $34K total … so OOS 2025 applicants would be looking at a total cost of $70 - $75K, max. per year. If dorm living is dropped for apartment or Greek life housing, $65 - $70K is very achievable. And yes, that includes airfares for move-in / out, holidays, etc.

I get that $70K is still a lot, but citing $85K seems intentionally dishonest.

First I'm rooting for your $34K tuition best for everyone from DMV. I'm looking at: https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/tuition-financial-aid/tuition-cost-of-attendance/ and I see: $50,328; The total direct cost is closer to your number: $76,028.

Cal Poly seems closer to your estimated tuition: https://www.calpoly.edu/financial-aid/costs-and-affordability/undergraduate-costs-attendance-2025-26 $37,005 for tuition.

UCLA OOS will be 80k (website recently updated I think): https://admission.ucla.edu/tuition-aid/tuition-fees

Why, why would anyone choose to pay that OOS??

Here’s one reason: If a prospective applicant takes a holistic approach to planning their future and considers an institution’s academic reputation (in the U.S. and globally), its excellence across a very broad range of programs, its grad. school and professional outcomes, its diverse social opportunities, and its overall quality of life, there are less than 20 other colleges or universities on the planet that can compete with the likes of UCLA or UC Berkeley.

We’re paying far less for Berkeley, since we’re in-state, but there are far more than 20 other schools where our kid would have thrived, and where she would have had a richer academic and social experience.

It was the right choice for us because we’re a donut hole family and she wanted to stay in California. But after seeing her experience there, our younger two didn’t even apply to Berkeley, and they had better academic records in high school than she did.

By all means, your kid should apply if they would like to and you have the money for it. It has a lot going for it and every time I’m on campus it just “feels” like college. My younger kids have several friends (both in-state and OOS) who will be starting there this fall, and I’m sure they’ll all have great experiences. But recognize that there are tradeoffs to every school, that Berkeley and UCLA are no different in that regard, and that the cons will outweigh the pros for a lot of students, especially when factoring in the costs. And there are many more than 20 schools out there where your kid can absolutely thrive.

That is a different test, though.

Are there at least 20 other institutions that can provide an applicant with a wonderful, enriching, fulfilling undergraduate experience. Of course.

But are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No.

I'm PP. It's precisely "the overall experience" at Berkeley that my oldest had that my younger two wanted to avoid. It's a machine, and it does what machines do. Like the poster directly above me noted, Berkeley — as with many of the schools on the US News list — is a phenomenal grad school. For undergrad, though — and especially for the OOS cost — there are many others that will give a better "overall" experience. Like I said earlier, if you have the money and the interest, great. But don't put it on a pedestal and think it's some magical place where all undergrads have access to research, or that undergrad teaching is a priority, or that undergrads have reasonable access to housing, etc. etc. It's a good school. But, again, it's a machine.

This really depends on your DC's talent and drive. DS goes to Berkeley and got research as a first year by a professor who saw his talents. He's in three different clubs, one building a product for tech firms, and the others do consulting work with industry partners. This summer he is working at Mount Sinai in a professor's friend's lab. When he returns in the fall, he's expecting to write a first author publication. This was all due to being at Berkeley and meeting the right people.

PP again. Congrats to your son. In a way, I agree with you, but I think reducing this to "talent and drive" is a bit disingenuous, when the thrust of this conversation is "the uniqueness of Berkeley/UCLA/some 18 other schools" at providing some "overall experience" — specifically, to quote the argument I disagree with from above, "are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No."

My daughter's had a ton of really great experiences as well — she's the editor of an undergraduate publication, has taken grad-level seminars as an undergrad, won an international travel / research scholarship, has taught several sections of undergrad classes, supervised an undergraduate research group, has had an on-campus job, has had internships (both in-semester and over the summer), yadda yadda. But, again, the core point of this part of the conversation is "is there some small fraction of undergrad schools (and, specifically, Berkeley/UCLA, from OOS) where the "overall experience" is somehow magically better than what it would be at other undergrad schools, and, again, specifically, is that experience so great that it warrants paying OOS rates? For some, sure. Maybe there are a bunch of people whose talents unlock at a UCLA/Berkeley in some way that they wouldn't at other schools. But I disagree with the PP's argument that the "overall experience" is somehow unattainable unless a student attends one of 20 schools. And this gets us back to where I agree with you — good students will bloom where they're planted. And if that's someone's in-state school, or some small CTCL school that threw money at them to attend, or a school where need-based aid opened a door, I don't think the fact that they aren't paying OOS rates to Cal (or full-freight at one of the other 20 schools the earlier posted mentioned) will hold them back.

So what are you even complaining about? There's a lot of places where your daughter can't even access the resources you just listed. You're talking in circles, does Berkeley lack resources or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Californians are so blessed with their in-state options - Berkeley, UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine, Cal Poly SLO. Not to mention Stanford, CalTech, and USC as private options. It's such a shame that the northeast doesn't value education the same way.

One agreed - California has an excellent school system. It was even better - tuition was free for all residents. You could work summers just to make room and board.
https://www.dailycal.org/archives/the-history-of-uc-tuition-since-1868/article_12b00b4e-5074-5830-8d89-99fd3bbc148c.html

Cooper Union in NY was tuition free and is planning to get back that way in 2028 - don't think Cal has a tuition free private school; NY SUNY system is still lower cost for OOS and in-state costs comparable to Cal State. They also have Cornell, Columbia, NYU, Rensselaer, Vassar, ... Also NY is comparable in terms of the Entertainment and Fashion industry.

But - still hats off to California and NY. You ought to be digging at the states that believe tuition is a luxury and not an investment.

I know Fox News keeps screaming bankruptcy but the NY and CAL is still the richest states in the US. With the most number of Billionaires.

The California options are much better. It’s the most comprehensive public school system in the nation. I’m not really sure what the purpose of a tuition free private college really is.

They make college available to everyone - even Cal in-state you have to pay. The school tied with Cal Poly for Engineering and is free(was or will be). https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-overall?_sort=rank&_sortDirection=asc

Not sure once you include NY housing if it evens out.

So - I don't sound like a Cooper Union fan. I personally prefer Cal Poly. I figured someone that's looking for a NY experience Cooper would do vs Cal Poly.

Cooper union is a tiny school, nothing like a UC which provides for the public good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Californians are so blessed with their in-state options - Berkeley, UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine, Cal Poly SLO. Not to mention Stanford, CalTech, and USC as private options. It's such a shame that the northeast doesn't value education the same way.

One agreed - California has an excellent school system. It was even better - tuition was free for all residents. You could work summers just to make room and board.
https://www.dailycal.org/archives/the-history-of-uc-tuition-since-1868/article_12b00b4e-5074-5830-8d89-99fd3bbc148c.html

Cooper Union in NY was tuition free and is planning to get back that way in 2028 - don't think Cal has a tuition free private school; NY SUNY system is still lower cost for OOS and in-state costs comparable to Cal State. They also have Cornell, Columbia, NYU, Rensselaer, Vassar, ... Also NY is comparable in terms of the Entertainment and Fashion industry.

But - still hats off to California and NY. You ought to be digging at the states that believe tuition is a luxury and not an investment.

I know Fox News keeps screaming bankruptcy but the NY and CAL is still the richest states in the US. With the most number of Billionaires.

The California options are much better. It’s the most comprehensive public school system in the nation. I’m not really sure what the purpose of a tuition free private college really is.

They make college available to everyone - even Cal in-state you have to pay. The school tied with Cal Poly for Engineering and is free(was or will be). https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-overall?_sort=rank&_sortDirection=asc

Not sure once you include NY housing if it evens out.

So - I don't sound like a Cooper Union fan. I personally prefer Cal Poly. I figured someone that's looking for a NY experience Cooper would do vs Cal Poly.

Cooper union is a tiny school, nothing like a UC which provides for the public good.

The statement was limited to three things: Majoring in Engineering, Wanting to live in NY, and as an alternative to CalPoly. No one compared Cooper to UC.

[Anonymous]

For OOS, USC hands down if no significant cost difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OOS students have higher admit rates than in-state students because fewer of them actually end up matriculating. A stunning number of families don't look at the UC price tag and assume there'll bee some sort of aid available to them. At the end of the day, when they're considering a not-UCLA/UCB school in the UC system at $85,000 per year, they end up deciding to go to a private school or their in-state option.

If the yield were higher for OOS students, the admit rate would drop. As a concrete example, note that the yield rate for UCLA/UCB is much higher than the other schools, and their OOS admit rate is either the same as in-state (UCLA) or even lower (UCB).

Where are you getting $85K?

Over three quarters, the OOS tuition supplement at Berkeley and UCLA is around $34K total … so OOS 2025 applicants would be looking at a total cost of $70 - $75K, max. per year. If dorm living is dropped for apartment or Greek life housing, $65 - $70K is very achievable. And yes, that includes airfares for move-in / out, holidays, etc.

I get that $70K is still a lot, but citing $85K seems intentionally dishonest.

First I'm rooting for your $34K tuition best for everyone from DMV. I'm looking at: https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/tuition-financial-aid/tuition-cost-of-attendance/ and I see: $50,328; The total direct cost is closer to your number: $76,028.

Cal Poly seems closer to your estimated tuition: https://www.calpoly.edu/financial-aid/costs-and-affordability/undergraduate-costs-attendance-2025-26 $37,005 for tuition.

UCLA OOS will be 80k (website recently updated I think): https://admission.ucla.edu/tuition-aid/tuition-fees

Why, why would anyone choose to pay that OOS??

Here’s one reason: If a prospective applicant takes a holistic approach to planning their future and considers an institution’s academic reputation (in the U.S. and globally), its excellence across a very broad range of programs, its grad. school and professional outcomes, its diverse social opportunities, and its overall quality of life, there are less than 20 other colleges or universities on the planet that can compete with the likes of UCLA or UC Berkeley.

We’re paying far less for Berkeley, since we’re in-state, but there are far more than 20 other schools where our kid would have thrived, and where she would have had a richer academic and social experience.

It was the right choice for us because we’re a donut hole family and she wanted to stay in California. But after seeing her experience there, our younger two didn’t even apply to Berkeley, and they had better academic records in high school than she did.

By all means, your kid should apply if they would like to and you have the money for it. It has a lot going for it and every time I’m on campus it just “feels” like college. My younger kids have several friends (both in-state and OOS) who will be starting there this fall, and I’m sure they’ll all have great experiences. But recognize that there are tradeoffs to every school, that Berkeley and UCLA are no different in that regard, and that the cons will outweigh the pros for a lot of students, especially when factoring in the costs. And there are many more than 20 schools out there where your kid can absolutely thrive.

That is a different test, though.

Are there at least 20 other institutions that can provide an applicant with a wonderful, enriching, fulfilling undergraduate experience. Of course.

But are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No.

I'm PP. It's precisely "the overall experience" at Berkeley that my oldest had that my younger two wanted to avoid. It's a machine, and it does what machines do. Like the poster directly above me noted, Berkeley — as with many of the schools on the US News list — is a phenomenal grad school. For undergrad, though — and especially for the OOS cost — there are many others that will give a better "overall" experience. Like I said earlier, if you have the money and the interest, great. But don't put it on a pedestal and think it's some magical place where all undergrads have access to research, or that undergrad teaching is a priority, or that undergrads have reasonable access to housing, etc. etc. It's a good school. But, again, it's a machine.

This really depends on your DC's talent and drive. DS goes to Berkeley and got research as a first year by a professor who saw his talents. He's in three different clubs, one building a product for tech firms, and the others do consulting work with industry partners. This summer he is working at Mount Sinai in a professor's friend's lab. When he returns in the fall, he's expecting to write a first author publication. This was all due to being at Berkeley and meeting the right people.

PP again. Congrats to your son. In a way, I agree with you, but I think reducing this to "talent and drive" is a bit disingenuous, when the thrust of this conversation is "the uniqueness of Berkeley/UCLA/some 18 other schools" at providing some "overall experience" — specifically, to quote the argument I disagree with from above, "are there more than a few handfuls that can deliver the overall experience that UCLA or Berkeley can? No."

My daughter's had a ton of really great experiences as well — she's the editor of an undergraduate publication, has taken grad-level seminars as an undergrad, won an international travel / research scholarship, has taught several sections of undergrad classes, supervised an undergraduate research group, has had an on-campus job, has had internships (both in-semester and over the summer), yadda yadda. But, again, the core point of this part of the conversation is "is there some small fraction of undergrad schools (and, specifically, Berkeley/UCLA, from OOS) where the "overall experience" is somehow magically better than what it would be at other undergrad schools, and, again, specifically, is that experience so great that it warrants paying OOS rates? For some, sure. Maybe there are a bunch of people whose talents unlock at a UCLA/Berkeley in some way that they wouldn't at other schools. But I disagree with the PP's argument that the "overall experience" is somehow unattainable unless a student attends one of 20 schools. And this gets us back to where I agree with you — good students will bloom where they're planted. And if that's someone's in-state school, or some small CTCL school that threw money at them to attend, or a school where need-based aid opened a door, I don't think the fact that they aren't paying OOS rates to Cal (or full-freight at one of the other 20 schools the earlier posted mentioned) will hold them back.

So what are you even complaining about? There's a lot of places where your daughter can't even access the resources you just listed. You're talking in circles, does Berkeley lack resources or not?

DP. Berkeley/UCLA resources per student are low. In theory anything you want is available but in practice it can be extremely competitive to access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd absolutely want my kids to consider Berkeley for grad school. For undergraduate though? No thanks!

+1 I'm from CA and, since we'd visited a lot, DS wanted to consider schools in CA. I said no way to UCs for OOS. If you still want CA after undergrad, apply to grad schools there.

[Anonymous]

For OOS, it really depends. UC has seven universities in the T1-T50. In addition to Cal and UCLA, the mid tier UCs are UCSD 29, UCD 33, UCI 33, UCSB 38 and UC Merced 50. UCSC is 80 but it’s actually really good for certain majors. For the Cal states, Cal Poly, SJSC, SDSU, Fullerton, and Long Beach are good but ranked lower. They tend to be good for certain majors and very light or not even have others.

It is far easier to get into these schools from OOS, if you are seeking a higher ranked school but aren’t as competitive for the private universities then UC and I’d guess other high ranked state flag ships are a good option. If you are going to pay 85 K anyways then paying it for a T30s with research opportunities makes sense if that’s your path. Now if you are competitive enough to get merit and financial aid from a private T30s that aligns with your interest then of course it’s not.

UCs and Cal States that feed Silicon Valley or the Biotech stuff in SoCal make a big difference for internships and jobs. The cost of living is crazy out here and employers prefer candidates who have already figured this out.

The other plus with UCs for undergrad is that you can establish CA residency before grad school.

Lastly each school is very different, which is somewhat bad for instate kids who are limited to instate. It is so crazy competitive and random that many kids don’t have the luxury of choosing based on fit. It’s so bad that it’s just as common to get into a higher ranked UC and rejected from the rest or be perfect and get rejected everywhere but Merced or Riverside.

[Anonymous]

OP, to add to your the descriptions in your post, you should note that the Claremont colleges are a bit of a hike from LA. I would hope that by this point in time there are good public transportation options (as opposed to having to drive on the 10) to get from one place to the other.