<p>In-State Applicants:
40,941 - applied
9,170 - admitted
% Admitted - 22.9%</p>
<p>OOS Applicants:
11,605 - applied<br>
2,742 - admitted
% Admitted - 23.6%</p>
<p>International Students:
9,170 - applied
1,141 - admitted
% of Admitted - 12.4%</p>
<p>61,716
13,053
% of Admitted - 21.15%</p>
<p>SAT Reasoning Test scores (25th % 75th percentiles)
Reading: 620-760
Math: 650-770
Writing: 640-750
= 1910 - 2280</p>
<p>Average unweighted GPA - 3.89
Average weighted GPA - 4.36</p>
<p>I see that Berkeley’s out of state (OOS) admission rate decreased from 36ish% to 23.6%. This is likely due to the fact that OOS students realized that they don’t have a disadvantage in admissions anymore.</p>
<p>When I was applying to Berkeley a few years back, UCLA was known to have a lot more applicants than Berkeley. I wonder if Berkeley has a similar amount of applicants as UCLA now by attracting more OOS applicants.</p>
<p>Can somebody here post the admissions stats and link for UCLA?</p>
<p>Also, I’d like to know more websites that have juicy admissions stats, so please post those as well.</p>
<p>Admissions data for all UC campuses here: <a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2012/fall_2012_admissions_table2.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2012/fall_2012_admissions_table2.pdf</a></p>
<p>Note those are “prelim. data findings” though. Not too far off from UCB’s non-prelim. findings from what I can tell. </p>
<p>aznk, why would decreasing acceptance rate correlate to “OOS students realized that they don’t have a disadvantage in admissions anymore?” What you’re saying about the disadvantage might be true, but I don’t see the cause-and-effect relationship?</p>
<p>Until about 3 to 4 years ago, it used to be really hard for OOS students to gain admissions to Berkeley. But in 2010 and 2011, Berkeley started to accept more OOS students in order to make up for budget cuts because OOS students pay a higher tuition than in-state students.</p>
<p>Cyoung, according to the link you sent me, Berkeley had an acceptance rate for OOS students of about 35% during 2010 and 2011. This rate is a lot higher than the years before 2010, which was about 12.5% (I dont have the data with me, but this is based on my memory). Assuming that the numer of OOS applicants didn’t significantly drop from 2009 to 2010, this indicates that Berkeley lowered their admission standards for OOS students by accepting more OOS students.</p>
<p>In light of 2010 and 2011, students from out of state wised up and realized that it’s not that hard for them to gain admissions to Berkeley anymore. Naturally, the number of OOS applicants jumped by about 50% from the year 2011 to 2012 (7,712 to 11,299). Since Berkeley did not dramatically change the number of OOS it admits from 2011 to 2012, the admission rate for OOS students decreased from 37.9% to 22.96%.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the low admission rate (12.5%) of OOS applicants before 2010 was caused by Berkeley’s goal of serving in-state students. This was the reason why if you were an OOS student applying to Berkeley, you only applied to Berkeley if you were a higher quality student, or else you would be wasting your money. As a result, OOS applicants tended to be higher quality than in-state applicants. But during 2010 and 2011, Berkeley was like “screw it, we’re gonna treat OOS students the same as in-states”. Consequently, the admission rate of OOS students jumped to about 35% because OOS students were inherently more boss than in-state students. Then 2012 rolled around, and less-boss OOS students wanted to be part of the OOS student feeding frenzy. Eventually, equilibrium kicked in and equalized the admission rate between both OOS and in-state students because state residency was no longer an admission factor.</p>
<p>The final question is: “Should Berkeley try to better serve in-state students like it once did?” It might do so again if Jerry Brown’s (the current governor of California) tax-the-rich proposal gets passed in this November’s election.</p>
<p>OK, I guess that makes sense. Well, for Californian’s (and everyone involved in UC’s) sake, hopefully something like that passes. It’s a shame for a public university to head down the path of privatization.</p>
<p>What exactly is the meaning of “public university”? It’s not like a public high school where you can go for free by paying taxes…it is that it’s partially funded by taxes and partially by tuition?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true. All the actual data is available on UC Statfinder. </p>
<p>In 2000, for example, the instate admit rate was 33%, and the OOS rate was 28%. Sure, a slight advantage for residents, but not sure the OOS’ers were that difficult. However, you need to ‘adjust’ for the fact that the applicant pools are significantly different. </p>
<p>UC gives big admissions bumps for low income applicants, nearly all of which are instaters. Essentially, ~30% of the class is “reserved” for Pell Grantees, which are all instaters. Thus the middle and upper class students are applying for the remaining 2/3rds of the Frosh class; both instaters and oos’ers. Thus, the issue becomes comparing wealthy instate applicants cohort against (wealthy) OOS applicants. Test scores and gpa are similar of those accepted.</p>
<p>btw: One also needs to adjust for college. If the OOS’ers are primarily applying to CoE, for example, they will be as unsuccessful as instaters applying to CoE. L&S is a different story.</p>
<p>garfieldliker:</p>
<p>That’s a good question. In the past, UC was, more or less, tuition-free. Now, it obviously charges tuition, but about 1/3 of what comparable private schools charge. In theory, the difference is made up by state (California) funding.</p>
<p>This is incredibly oversimplified (for instance, privates charge only the richest of students the full sticker price, and UC has major sources of revenue besides tuition and state funding), but that’s the gist of it.</p>
<p>Only 12% for Internationals this time around? Damn.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but I have a question that’s been bugging me.</p>
<p>Why is Berkeley considered such a “hard” school if its admissions data isn’t even that great? The admit rate is high compared to top schools and the 25-75 percentiles for SAT scores aren’t even that high. </p>
<p>Or am I missing something?</p>
<p><a href=“http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp?id=56&navid=N[/url]”>http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp?id=56&navid=N</a></p>
<p>“Preference is given to California residents in the selection process.” <–LoLz… not in the year 2010 (and onwards).</p>
<p>[University</a> of California: StatFinder](<a href=“http://statfinder.ucop.edu/]University”>http://statfinder.ucop.edu/)</p>
<p>In-state California applicants:</p>
<p>Year Applicants Admits Admit rate
Fall 2012 41190 9,348 22.7%
Fall 2011 39066 9,303 23.8%
Fall 2010 38632 9,459 24.5%
Fall 2009 38,007 9,005 23.7%
Fall 2008 38,907 8,665 22.3%
Fall 2007 36,258 8,974 24.8%
Fall 2006 34,706 8,739 25.2%</p>
<p>Out-of-state American applicants:</p>
<p>Year Applicants Admits Admit rate
Fall 2012 11,299 2548 22.6%
Fall 2011 7,712 2920 37.9%
Fall 2010 6,902 2385 34.6%
Fall 2009 6,348 901 14.2%
Fall 2008 6,397 1,107 17.3%
Fall 2007 5,371 1,054 19.6%
Fall 2006 5,048 1,023 20.3%</p>
<p>Notice how the number of OOS admits essentially doubled from 2009 to 2010 even though the number of OOS applicants stayed about the same. Did the campus suddenly double in size? Nope. In-state applicants sure didn’t get a similar admissions boost.</p>
<p>Since OOS students realized that the number of OOS admits went from the neighborhood of 1000 to 2000, they thought “hell, I should just apply to Berktown for the heck of it”. Lo and behold, OOS students dick-slapped Berkeley in the face in 2012. Berkeley answered back by making the number of OOS admits relatively constant. OOS students were thinking “crap, I thought Berkeley wanted to make the OOS admission rate 30 sumfin percent; it turns out that their aim was to keep the number OOS of admits at about 2000. Well, at least that’s better than 1000, as it was from 2006 to 2009.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s a detailed explanation of Berkeley’s selection criteria: <a href=“http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp?id=56&navid=N[/url]”>http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp?id=56&navid=N</a>
I don’t see anywhere in it that says they reserve ~30% of the spots for low income students. It doesn’t even talk about income. Sure, they consider that “for an applicant who has faced any hardships or unusual circumstances, readers consider the maturity, determination and insight with which he or she has responded to and/or overcome them.” So they do not give a boost to people purely for the fact that they’re poor. If there even is a ~30% reservation, that would be for anyone who overcame “hardship” (which could include having your rich dad’s sugar mamma divorcing him) via maturity, determination, and insight. Given, I revealed that they lied about giving preference to California residents in 2010, but hiding from us that ~30% of admission spots are reserved for low income students is too drastic to be likely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who is to say that OOS applicants prefer the CoE over L&S? Mission San Jose (and other rich Silicon Valley) kids are crazy about EECS. On the other hand, CoE is ranked high, so it’ll attract OOS students. Some majors in L&S and Haas are ranked high too, so it’ll attract OOS students as well. It all evens out… CoE is relatively small anyway, so let’s just ignore this factor.</p>
<p>The big take away: The number of OOS admits doubled from 2009 to 2010.</p>
<p>Did OOS students suddenly become smarter? No.
Did the number of OOS applicants double? No.
What caused the doubling of OOS admits? Budget cuts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then put on your critical reading glasses and look at the results. Year-in, year-out, for many years, ~30+% of students at each UC campus are Pell Grantees. There is absolutely no way that that could happen statistically, if it wasn’t through comprehensive review. (It’s good public policy.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, gotta clean those glasses. I clearly started my sentence with the word “If…”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For all intents and purposes, those Frosh interested in Haas apply to L&S since Haas hasn’t accepted Frosh is a really long time.</p>
<p>The good news is that UC has reached out to OOS wealthy students and their families, while still providing access to poor instate students and their families. (Again, good public policy.)</p>
<p>But before you make baseless claims (#4), look up Simpson’s Paradox. Professor Pisani, Cal Stats, has a lot of examples of how it works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup, and that because it is now ‘easier’ to get in from OOS than from instate (at least non-Eng), in my opinion, whereas in the old days, it was approximately equal. I’ve seen kids accepted to Cal but WL’ed at 'SC! (Still awaiting UC Statfinder data to prove/disprove my theory.)</p>
<p>daniel, I believe the stats are a bit misleading. UC’s don’t super-score SATs while most of Cal’s private peer schools do. The reported scores of admitted Cal students are the best scores from a single sitting while those from private peer schools represent the best scores from multiple sittings. So of course, if UC allowed applicants to super-score their SATs, the averages would be higher (potentially by a significant amount). </p>
<p>When you look at the average unweighted GPA of 3.89, that doesn’t leave a lot of room for error for Cal applicants. You need a nearly perfect score to get into Cal. </p>
<p>As for the admission rate, 21% is pretty impressive when you consider they admitted 13,000 students, as opposed to the private peers that admit fraction of that. Cal admitted 18% into their fall class, with the rest being admitted to spring.</p>
<p>As for the decrease in OSS admit rate compared to last year, Cal stated that it was due to more OOS accepting the offer last year than expected. I suspect it also may have had something to do with their desire to defuse any political backlash from California residents.</p>
<p>These numbers include spring admits. The admission rate would probably be significantly lower if it only included regular fall admits. The enrollment yield is also much lower for spring admits than for fall admits as a lot of students would rather go to a second choice school than wait a semester.</p>