<p>Note it’s not really apples to apples though. More accurate is to compare admit rates for the fall term. Berkeley is at 21%, UCLA at 25%.</p>
<p>(Not sure why Berkeley accepts spring admits at all; or why UCLA does not admit such admits for either its winter or spring quarters)</p>
<p>Berkeley’s acceptance rate is 21%. [Campus</a> releases 2011-12 admissions data](<a href=“http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/04/18/campus-releases-2011-12-admissions-data/]Campus”>Campus releases 2011-12 admissions data | Berkeley News)</p>
<p>30% for OOS and International Students.</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is why does Berkeley continues to increase the number of admits when it is in its deepest financial turmoil??? It does not mane any sense at all!!! </p>
<p>This UC chancellor and all these UC Berkeley adcoms should be fired!!!</p>
<p>^Because Berkeley knows their yield% is going to drop thanks to the financial turmoil.</p>
<p>[edit] I just read through the article and I think you mean the 4200 vs 4100? I wonder how many of those 4200 are full-fee students compared to last year’s 4100?</p>
<p>I really don’t like how they admit students into the spring semester. At my school the spring admits were all pretty terrible students relatively. Just reject them! And why do some get wait listed for the fall term but not accepted into the spring term. Is it just arbitrary? …</p>
<p>^mick</p>
<p>My understanding is that Cal has capacity to accept some freshman students in the spring and have been doing this for some time. And with the current budget pressures, it makes perfect sense to fill the capacity to keep the revenue flow. It’s too bad that the spring admits you know don’t meet your standards for acceptance–seems you feel that your accomplishment of being accepted is somehow diminished. FYI I know of some spring admits that are as qualified as most fall admits but for some reason were accepted for spring.</p>
<p>Out of state acceptance rate was 22.8 percent</p>
<p>2920 admitted students out of state
12759 applications</p>
<p>mickjagger, I know a lot of people who are actually more qualified than some fall applicants. It’s just that their unweighted GPA is slightly low and Cal doesn’t want their stats to fall but they truly are qualified based on academics and activities outside the classroom. Like it’s been said before, usually spring admits are just people with slightly lower GPA that fully deserve admission. I’m sorry to see that you know people that shouldn’t have been admitted to Cal (by your standards).</p>
<p>I’m rereading my comment from before and it’s pretty offensive! Sorry if I offended anyone (particularly those of you who are spring admits). But yes, the spring admits at my school were, I feel, under-qualified. Berkeley rejected some pretty amazing students at my school, but spring- (and fall-) admitted some candidates who, I felt, were either not intellectually capable of handling Berkeley or not hardworking enough. But of course this is by no means a representation of Berkeley’s admissions decisions with other high schools; it is just an unjust occurrence at my school that makes me pity those top applicants who were not admitted and feel annoyed at those under-qualified applicants who were.</p>
<p>The two spring admits I know personally (and know their stats) are, if anything, well above the average Berkeley admit stats.
DS, with SAT 2370, thirty six UCB credits (taken while still in high school, getting mostly As) and a 4.18 GPA, and more…
And a friend DD, SAT 2280, no grade lower than an A, admitted to Stanford, Penn AND HARVARD-
Both spring admits at UCB.</p>
<p>DS decided on UCB (financials make the most sense) and DD of friend is still deciding, but leaning to Stanford.</p>
<p>The university has their reasons, and everyone needs to get off the high horse on this.</p>