Berkeley admissions complaint

<p>I just want to dump my complaint about Berkeley admissions. Berkeley sent likely e-mails saying the following: apply for Berkeley scholarship, come to Cal Day (implies you will be accepted), and don't respond yet to the other UCs until you heard from us! (implies acceptance letter coming). Then, rejected from Berkeley!</p>

<p>Well, I know what you mean, but you shouldn't have assumed you were accepted because you got those emails.</p>

<p>The problem is that applicants who waited to hear from UCB as specifically instructed by UCB's email, only to be rejected by UCB at a later date, missed the registration deadlines for events at other UC's - or found that they were trying to register too late for events that are now full and accepting no further registrations.</p>

<p>I find it very revealing that UCB admissions is entirely oblivious to both the practice of and subtle language techniques used in what is widely known among top tier institutions and their applicants as 'likely letters.' </p>

<p>A lot of people now know about UCB's admissions faux pas, and their credibility has been dinged somewhat.</p>

<p>Registration deadlines for what schools? All UCs accept SIRs until May or June (don't know the date)...there is no benefit for turning in a SIR early.</p>

<p>What if a student sent a SIR in and later got admitted to Berkeley? It would be an embarrassing situation to have to rescind the SIR.</p>

<p>^^^</p>

<p>I have a feeling Stanford's "faux pas" in making many anxious applicants wait more than 24 hours by their computer for their admissions decision will have more long-lasting effects than Cal's misguided wording in their "reminder" e-mail.</p>

<p>I understand that Cal is already using stronger disclaimer language with the Alumni Scholarship e-mails (e.g., "This e-mail is not an indication that you will receive any scholarship offer" etc.).</p>

<p>I feel confident that Cal will be more sensitive next year regarding the language used in any reminder e-mails.</p>

<p>Jiffsmom, I wish your S the best of luck in choosing his college.</p>

<p>^
[quote]
missed the registration deadlines for events at other UC's - or found that they were trying to register too late for events that are now full and accepting no further registrations.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>UCB's email did not restrict the instructions to 'wait' to only SIRs. If that's what they meant, they should have said so.</p>

<p>Frankly, the language in the email should have been limited to a decisions date reminder. The Ivies and other highly selective colleges and universities manage to do this without including misleading language.</p>

<p>^^^</p>

<p>Agreed, as I've posted the same in other threads.</p>

<p>I wanted to point out that I believe that Cal will learn from its mistake. I wonder if Stanford will do the same.</p>

<p>lextalionis...</p>

<p>Sorry, but I disagree that Stanford's short-term decisions delay snafu will have more of an ill effect on their reputation. Stanford did not request that their applicants wait until they hear from Stanford, as UCB did with some but not all of their applicants.</p>

<p>UCB already has the reputation (whether accurate or not) of having overly competitive students who attempt to sabotage others. </p>

<p>The ill-advised wording in email #3 obviously was not thought through, which displays either carelessness or arrogance on the part of the admissions office - neither of which presents an attractive impression of UCB.</p>

<p>A simple, short, timely explanation and disclaimer should have been promptly posted on the UCB admissions website as soon as the considerable amount of speculation arose. Instead, only a more generic version of the email was posted online, further contributing to the misleading nature of email #3's wording.</p>

<p>Maybe UCB admissions will learn from this, maybe they won't. Maybe they don't even care one way or the other. Who's to say?</p>

<p>Logically, one would interpret the instructions as applying to only SIRs. Why on earth would you not register for an event at another UC???? It's not like they'll rescind your acceptance if they hear that you're attending an open house at UC Davis.</p>

<p>The email was obviously not a likely letter, given the language it used. It was a reminder, no more.</p>

<p>Why don't I analyze each line of the email and demonstrate:</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

Dear <em>NAME</em>,</p>

<p>Freshman decisions for fall 2008 will be announced on March 27!

[/QUOTE]

Alright, there's the reminder.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

We know you're hearing from other University of California campuses, but before you give them your reply, please wait to hear from UC Berkeley: we're worth the wait!

[/QUOTE]

Here we go, the controversial part. However, it lacks most of the qualities inherent in likely letters. Nowhere does it describe the recipient as a strong student, potential admit, or in fact, refer to a single thing that suggests the applicant is admitted. The "we're worth the wait" is clearly a reminder to not submit any SIRs.</p>

<p>It's kind of like blaming a girl for showing signs that she was interested in you when she asks for help on her homework. It's simply that applicants were being too optimistic and would have interpreted anything that didn't outright say "WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ADMISSIONS" as a sign that they were an admit.</p>

<p>I have no problem at all with their "misleading" email. It was simply a friendly reminder for students not to accept their UCLA acceptance too early.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Logically, one would interpret the instructions as applying to only SIRs. Why on earth would you not register for an event at another UC????

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This may seem logical from a Californian's perspective. Not so from an OOSer's or International's perspective. They have to take significant travel planning and expenses into consideration when reviewing their options and planning their 'admitted students' events itineraries throughout the U.S.</p>

<p>This is exactly why the Ivies and other top schools, whose admitted students come from all over the U.S. and the rest of the world, send generic decisions date reminders.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but before you give them your reply

[/quote]

Reply in this case is a formal reply through SIR...not a reply that you'll attend a non-bearing open house.</p>

<p>What about the e-mail which encourages you to come to Cal Day when you are out of state National Merit Finalist and then only to deny admission a few weeks later? Come on. UC Berkeley supposedly has some of the most intelligent kids in California, let alone the world. I would expect Berkeley not to lead kids on or give a false sense of hope. What kind of message is Berkeley sending us?</p>

<p>It's probably a blanket e-mail to all applicants. I doubt they went through the e-mail list to weed out potential admits and rejections.</p>

<p>Also, Cal Day is very fun to attend, even if you don't go to the school. :D</p>

<p>Why didn't UCB just refer to the SIR, then? That would have been clear. </p>

<p>Again, a simple, short, timely explanation and disclaimer should have been promptly posted on the UCB admissions website as soon as the considerable amount of speculation arose. Instead, only a more generic version of the email was posted online, further contributing to the misleading nature of email #3's wording.</p>

<p>Though attending an open house or a similar admitted students event may be noncommittal on the attendee's part, it does serve as an important step in the information gathering process for schools under consideration on the 'short list.'</p>

<p>Cal Day is also 3 weeks after notifications are announced. Plenty of time to arrange for transportation, or get refundable airline tickets if bought before decisions come out (the latter would be kind of silly IMO).</p>

<p>Keep in mind that Cal is a public university. It has double the applicants of other top colleges. Also, Cal admits so few OOS students it's policies are not in line with other colleges that accept numerous OOS students. </p>

<p>I think we're being a little too critical here.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why didn't UCB just refer to the SIR, then? That would have been clear.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I guess it would have been more clear. But, realize colleges call SIRs different things. When you're giving a "reply" this means formally accepting or turning down their offer.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's probably a blanket e-mail to all applicants.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It wasn't a blanket email. Different versions of the email were sent. Mdcissp and I are specifically objecting to email #3, which was only sent to some of the applicants and contained the misleading language. Other students received the generic version of the email, which matched the admissions website letter:
<a href="http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/general.asp?id=3677%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/general.asp?id=3677&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I don't feel I am being too critical. Likely e-mails came from UCSD and UCLA and then my son was accepted to those schools. UC Berkeley was not like any of the other universities my son applied to. I am uncomfortable with an intelligent university which has intelligent people sending out misleading e-mails which imply future acceptance and then deny admittance. Why should UC Berkeley send more than one e-mail asking my son to apply for its scholarship which required a time consuming essay to write when it had no intention of accepting him? I don't think it is right. Our universities should be models of fairness.</p>

<p>^ LOL...It's only misleading and assumed not a blanket e-mail because nosy members of this board compared notes and gossiped about its potential meaning. Participating in this board contributed to your problem.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Cal Day is also 3 weeks after notifications are announced.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Cal Day is 16 days after admissions decisions were released, closer to 2 weeks than 3. </p>

<p>Decisions: March 27
Cal Day: April 12</p>