<p>
</p>
<p>For Berkeley, it is not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Overall, yes. But for engineering? And for OOS? And for the two combined? No.</p>
<p>What does it mean higher preference, I remember a past revealed preference survey that showed overwhelming favor of MIT/Stanford for students who were accepted to either as well as Cal.</p>
<p>^^ the OP was stating his personal preference (as he said many times)…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do we have verifiable information that segregates engineering applicants at MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley? Do we have statistics for OOS engineering applicants at Berkeley that CAN be compared to Stanford’s and MIT’s? </p>
<p>To make such claim, do you compare the overall admissions at Stanford and MIT to a narrower range of applicants at Berkeley? How do you know that Stanford and MIT do not have different admission criteria for their engineering applicants? </p>
<p>The reality is that this type of information is known by the admission officers but that our “knowledge” is liimited to idle speculation and mythical tales. What is not idle speculation is that the 25 percentile at MIT is almost equal to the 75 percentile at Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, we do have OOS rates and engineering rates, which are both lower. It’s probable that the two combined will be even lower.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Er, because each school states that major is not a consideration for admission? However, at Berkeley, it is (depending on the school). So, in the OP’s case, you’d need to compare that subset to Stanford and MIT.</p>
<p>^^–^^</p>
<p>Nope! You’re simply speculating … if not deliberately twisting the statistics.</p>
<p>xiggi! lol chill. </p>
<p>I would say it’s not uncommon for an MIT/Stanford admit to be denied OOS from Cal. Heck, look through this year’s acceptance threads and you’ll find people admitted to Cornell, Columbia, Stanford, Amherst, etc., but rejected from Cal/UCLA, even IN STATE! So what’s the argument about? They’re all great schools. And 20 years down the road, if people are still comparing ACT scores to judge other schools by, then obviously that education didn’t teach them much.</p>
<p>Best of luck to the OP, wherever you end up. No doubt you’ll get an excellent education at any of those universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems more likely that you’re just reluctant to admit that–gasp–a large public can be as selective as a top private (or top LAC).</p>
<p>I believe engineering admit rate was 15% this year, and that OOS admit rate was something around 18%. It makes sense, does it not, that being OOS and an engineering applicant would mean that you have an even harder time of getting in?</p>
<p>And what would be the point in my supposed “deliberately twisting the statistics”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The argument is that those stories are extremely … uncommon. </p>
<p>Lots of people admitted at MIT or Stanford but rejected at Berkeley? That is simply a whole heap of baloney! </p>
<p>It might help to figure out the numbers of students who were cross-admitted at the three or at two of the schools to understand why this is such … a fantastic story.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have ZERO reluctance to admit that a large public can be as selective as a top private. I only have to look at programs such as the BHP at UT-Austin to convince me of that! Farther, I would have ZERO reluctance to admit that Berkeley is more selective than MIT or Stanford … if it were TRUE! </p>
<p>Fwiw, the data you offered, assuming it is verifiable, does NOT indicate that the OOS face a tougher admission at Berkeley than at Stanford or MIT. It only indicates that the OOS admit rate is lower than for in-state students. Doh! Is there anyone who disagrees with that? However, that is NOT the comparison that is made here. </p>
<p>As far as twisting the data, I do not see the point in that either!</p>
<p>I think its logical to think that OOS and Engineering difficulties stack for OOS students. Nevertheless, you cannot make the jump that they are more selective than Stanford or MIT without the actual data of the applicants. </p>
<p>In either case, I would say the selection at Cal OOS Engineering being sporadic enough to warrant applying to both MIT and Stanford, even if it is a tad bit less selective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know it doesn’t necessarily mean that–notice I said the word “probable.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then there’s no reason to mention such.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. I was just going on the probable acceptance rate is for OOS engineering applicants. Of course, it could have a higher acceptance rate overall. Or it could have a really low acceptance rate, but the stats of the students are not comparable even to in-state ones. We don’t know for sure–it’s just guesswork.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that not exactly how I was describing Alexandre’s and your prior posts one hour ago? </p>
<p>Isn’t idle speculation the same a guesswork?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re offering possible explanations. I never denied that it was speculation. Given the acceptance rates, your explanation is not probable. It’s possible, yes, but it’s also possible that Berkeley lets in every single OOS engineering applicant. Improbable, but possible.</p>
<p>Xiggi – Alexandre is simply saying that Stanford/MIT are more holistic than Berk. You can apply to SM with a 4.0 2350 and not get in because you’ve done nothing else, but get into Berk because it’s more numbers based.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if you apply to Berk Engineering – (Lower score for dramatic effect) – with a 2000, and SM with a 2000, there’s more of a chance for the latter, especially with Stanford.</p>
<p>As for your speculation remark, do you want to give the OP some peace of mind? Of course we’re speculating, but it’s a pretty reasonable/logical answer. There’s conjecture, and there’s logical “guesswork”.</p>
<p>24% entire class all majors
18% out of state all majors
15% engineering
X = engineering out of state</p>
<p>I don’t see any reason why the out of state engineering admittance rate would not be 18/24 * 15%, which is roughly:</p>
<p>11%.</p>
<p>what is the acceptance rate at MIT and Stanford?</p>
<p>^^ I think the overall acceptance rate is 21% for Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>9% at Stanford, 12% at MIT.</p>
<p>That’s about MIT’s acceptance rate. Stanford’s is a little lower.</p>
<p>Acceptance rates mean utter crap when you are comparing self-selective schools.</p>
<p>^^ that’s true. Acceptance rates really mean very little. But when you’re going on nothing else, they can be helpful, since selectivity and acceptance rate are inversely correlated, generally.</p>
<p>However, it’s hard for me to say that Stanford’s (or Harvard’s, or Yale’s) applicant pool can be “self-selective.”</p>