Berkeley: less selective this year?

Applying to College
1

Berkeley has always been my top choice and one of the reasons is that it’s full of a very high level of intellectuals…or so I thought…

Today I just found out that TONS of people from my school got in–at least 20. Keep in mind, however, that only 3 or 4 people got into UCLA (including me), each of whom had very good (relative) stats with SATs in the 1400s. (My high school isn’t the best; the highest SAT score this year was 1450, and I got the second highest–1420).

I know that each year from my school there are very few students who get into UCLA, possibly because my school is in the Bay Area (a university in SoCal might not want to admit many students from far away because it is not likely that those so far away would move across CA for college)… And I know that there are usually more admits from Berkeley, but this went sort of …far.

I’ll explain the type of people who got in…

People with SATs in the 1200s, people with OK grades (3.80 - 4.00), and people with little to no ECs.

Here are my stats:

SAT I: 1420
SAT II: 770/710/690
UC GPA: 4.09 (my weak point, but only because of my low soph grades–most likely countered by junior GPA of 4.33)
ELC: Yes
Essays: Excellent
ECs: Plenty
Other: First-generation Lebanese-American

I mean, I’m happy that they got in, and I like most of them, but I’m just sort of shocked that Berkeley let in so many people–it sort of takes away the special feeling I had when I first read those wonderful words of admission. Even though it’s a shallow way to feel, I can’t help but feeling as just…normal. When I think about it, it all boils down to the same exact “prize” for a wide spectrum of effort and intelligence.

I understand that fair colleges admit student in the context of their school; knowing this, the top few of every school, regardless of their stats, should usually be admitted. But I honestly don’t see why this multitude of people from my school were admitted while there were TONS out there who scored in the 1400s and up and had well over 4.0 + stellar ECs and were rejected.

Any thoughts?

(p.s. I honestly don’t have control of my feelings so don’t hate on me! =P)

2

<p>lots of peeps at my school got into UCB.. i sadly was not one of them.. no matter im going to JHU</p>

3

<p>life is totally unfair.....just look at this thread and read about someone who gets into HARVARD with mediocre credentials........ (copy and paste it) and read the last page or so</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=44035%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=44035&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

4

<p>Your comments show a near total ignorance of the admission process and priorities for UCB.</p>

<p>"...Type of people who got in... near 1200 SAT's"</p>

<p>I wonder what a 1200 type of person is!!!! Maybe has a neanderthal brow and extremely hairy back?</p>

<p>This shows a pretty incredible need to feel superior. While not everyone scores a great SAT I, the college board cannot show a relationship to SAT I and college success. The UC's are almost the only schools to recognize this.</p>

<p>You call 3.8-4.0 mediocre? I'm shocked because, while dd did get accepted to UCB, she was a squeeker with a 4.0. It is ok to be bitter about how much harder you worked than others until you start posting it on CC, then you go too far.</p>

<p>I have never thought of UCB undergrad as particularly intellectual. I wonder where you got that from -- the grad school rep?</p>

5

<p>---"...Type of people who got in... near 1200 SAT's"</p>

<p>I wonder what a 1200 type of person is!!!! Maybe has a neanderthal brow and extremely hairy back?"---</p>

<p>Despite that the way you put this out of context may seem dehumanizing and labelling people as a number, SAT scores DO reflect intelligence. If they hadn't, I'm sure that after several decades of employment it would not still be in use.</p>

<p>---"You call 3.8-4.0 mediocre? I'm shocked because, while dd did get accepted to UCB, she was a squeeker with a 4.0. It is ok to be bitter about how much harder you worked than others until you start posting it on CC, then you go too far."---</p>

<p>Yes, I do call 3.8-4.0 mediocre--and not by my standards, but by the standards of the top UC universities. Taking a look at yearly admissions averages, for UC Berkeley the average GPA is 4.24 while the average SAT score is 1340, and as well more specifically, for the more selective science majors such as engineering and physics, the GPA is way up there around 4.4 with the average SAT score around 1450--making 1200s and 3.8 seem like nothing.</p>

<p>I do understand that it DOES take work to get a 3.8-4.0, but I never knew that this was all that was required to be admitted to one of the top universities of the nation.</p>

<p>And if you read the title of the thread, I'm not intending to be bitter that i worked so much harder than everyone else--I'm actually interested in seeing if the UC Berkeley standards have gone down some. Because it certainly does not seem like the average SAT score is 1340 and the average GPA a 4.24.</p>

<p>---I have never thought of UCB undergrad as particularly intellectual. I wonder where you got that from -- the grad school rep?---</p>

<p>...no. Many friends I have going there now constantly tell me how many valedictorians and salutorians go there, as well as the plethora of geniuses who scored in the 1500s and scored 5s on every AP exam they took.</p>

<p>And by the way, I wrote my disclaimer for a reason--and I'll write it again. I apologize if I seem shallow, but I'm writing out of shock/interest rather than disdain and bitterness.</p>

6

<p>I have to agree, 3.8 is pretty mediocre in a CA public school. You need a 4.3 to be in top 10% at our local public.</p>

<p>Mrlemongo, congratulations!!!! I'm really happy for you.</p>

7

<p>UCLA acceptance rate was 23.5% for the 2004 - 2005 year; Berkeley was 23.9 %...........maybe they continued this trend this year, but according to the number, it SEEMS that UCLA is "harder" to get into....</p>

<p>I got into both UCLA and Berkeley...which one should i choose?
btw, major is bio</p>

8

<p>well i'm one of those 1200 people (and i don't have hair on my back), and we just made up for our scores in ec's and grades, not the end of the world to score below a 1500.</p>

9

<p>yeah my firend got rejected... </p>

<p>one of best public hs in bay area that annualy delegates 40-50 ppl to cal
and he had 1440/740/720/650
bunch of good ecs
but most importantly, 4.32 UC GPA</p>

<p>rejected from l&s.</p>

<p>an cal was his dream school, his goal in life to this pt. </p>

<p>on contrary I got admitted with virtually no activites, same school, lower gpa.
only thing that I was better in was SATs- 1560, 800/760/730
and i got in eecs</p>

<p>disgusts me how much standard tests matter...</p>