I can address why Bay Area students may apply to more UCs than the average California student. I've worked with thousands of UC applicants for 25+ years in San Francisco, working primarily with students from Lowell, Lincoln, GWHS, SOTA, etc., as well as the privates (parochial and non). In short, at least among the group I work with, there's a sense that the playing field is not level, and San Francisco students have to have higher stats and extracurriculars than others to get equivalent offers. In other words, they feel like it's impossible to stand out, especially when, for example, they're competing with other Lowell HS students for the coveted spots at Cal or UCLA.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I felt that UC acceptances were somewhat predictable; a certain GPA, SAT score, and ECs would garner offers from certain clusters of UCs, for example, UCLA or UCB, but not both. UCSD and UCD were practically safeties for many applicants.
Around the late 2000s and onward, acceptances starting becoming much less predictable. While I've always seen anomalies like getting into UCB but not UCD, such cases started to become more the norm. In the mid-2010s, I went on record telling all of my students to apply to all UCs no matter what; they cannot go back in time and check that extra UCSC or UCR box because they literally got into no UC and are therefore CCSF-bound.
Now, with no SAT/ACT, there's even more randomness. GPAs are off the charts (because of grade inflation and/or a lack of a standardized curriculum); a 4.5 is becoming more expected at some campuses. That also means that PIQs are becoming one of the main differentiators now, which on a related point is problematic since AI writers could churn out a PIQ set quickly with little effort.
So to me, it makes sense to apply to all UCs unless you know with certainty that you'd attend, for example, CSM over UC Merced. (Note that there's an $80 fee to apply to each campus unless you get a fee waiver, which allows you to apply to up to four for no fee.)
Finally, as an SF resident and SFUSD parent, I love the work you're doing in your Substack. 🙏
I've always preferred the six county Bay Area as a grouping when talking about education because the other three counties have achievement levels that are much lower than the core six and are more in line with those of Sacramento or San Joaquin.
The Berkeley line is missing its Bay Area dot. I see you said it's the same as South Coast. I didn't check the data but when I was applying a million years ago we all heard that they had a bias toward SoCal applicants!
Anyway, what are you concluding or suggesting from this data
It is there but it's hidden by the South Coast dot. If you mouseover one of the other Bay Area dots, it will highlight all the Bay Area dots and you will be able to see it.
It's hard to draw conclusions based on the publicly available data because we don't have access to data about applicant strength. The biggest factor is probably the Eligibility in the Local Context policy. Another factor is the UCs deliberately not looking at data that might reveal the true strength of Bay Area applicants (AP exam scores; SAT scores etc.). Finally, there may be some actual preference for local applicants. I'm thinking of doing one more post where I drill into what has happened at UCSD over time but I need to do some more data crunching before I can start on that.
I can address why Bay Area students may apply to more UCs than the average California student. I've worked with thousands of UC applicants for 25+ years in San Francisco, working primarily with students from Lowell, Lincoln, GWHS, SOTA, etc., as well as the privates (parochial and non). In short, at least among the group I work with, there's a sense that the playing field is not level, and San Francisco students have to have higher stats and extracurriculars than others to get equivalent offers. In other words, they feel like it's impossible to stand out, especially when, for example, they're competing with other Lowell HS students for the coveted spots at Cal or UCLA.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I felt that UC acceptances were somewhat predictable; a certain GPA, SAT score, and ECs would garner offers from certain clusters of UCs, for example, UCLA or UCB, but not both. UCSD and UCD were practically safeties for many applicants.
Around the late 2000s and onward, acceptances starting becoming much less predictable. While I've always seen anomalies like getting into UCB but not UCD, such cases started to become more the norm. In the mid-2010s, I went on record telling all of my students to apply to all UCs no matter what; they cannot go back in time and check that extra UCSC or UCR box because they literally got into no UC and are therefore CCSF-bound.
Now, with no SAT/ACT, there's even more randomness. GPAs are off the charts (because of grade inflation and/or a lack of a standardized curriculum); a 4.5 is becoming more expected at some campuses. That also means that PIQs are becoming one of the main differentiators now, which on a related point is problematic since AI writers could churn out a PIQ set quickly with little effort.
So to me, it makes sense to apply to all UCs unless you know with certainty that you'd attend, for example, CSM over UC Merced. (Note that there's an $80 fee to apply to each campus unless you get a fee waiver, which allows you to apply to up to four for no fee.)
Finally, as an SF resident and SFUSD parent, I love the work you're doing in your Substack. 🙏
Why did you exclude Sonoma, Napa, and Solano from your definition of Bay Area?
I've always preferred the six county Bay Area as a grouping when talking about education because the other three counties have achievement levels that are much lower than the core six and are more in line with those of Sacramento or San Joaquin.
The Berkeley line is missing its Bay Area dot. I see you said it's the same as South Coast. I didn't check the data but when I was applying a million years ago we all heard that they had a bias toward SoCal applicants!
Anyway, what are you concluding or suggesting from this data
It is there but it's hidden by the South Coast dot. If you mouseover one of the other Bay Area dots, it will highlight all the Bay Area dots and you will be able to see it.
It's hard to draw conclusions based on the publicly available data because we don't have access to data about applicant strength. The biggest factor is probably the Eligibility in the Local Context policy. Another factor is the UCs deliberately not looking at data that might reveal the true strength of Bay Area applicants (AP exam scores; SAT scores etc.). Finally, there may be some actual preference for local applicants. I'm thinking of doing one more post where I drill into what has happened at UCSD over time but I need to do some more data crunching before I can start on that.