<p>Xiggi, my post was spot on. For marginal cases, Cal is less forgiving than MIT or Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And why would THAT be true? There is zero basis for such a claim!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? How do you measure marginal cases? Should we take Berkeley’s 25% SAT range? How many are there at Stanford? At MIT? Where are there more “marginal” students? </p>
<p>And, if we want to get back to the OP (as someone intimated we should) why not set aside the “marginal” students and stick to the fact this student has a 34 ACT. </p>
<p>You guys are simply going around and around in an attempt to fabricating admission data that simply does not correspond to what is commonly known. </p>
<p>Pretending it is easier to gain admittance at Stanford or MIT than at Berkeley is ludicrous, and you KNOW it! And you also know that all three schools make decisions based on holistic approaches.</p>
<p>If the idea here is to HELP the OP, we should stick to useful data. It makes no difference to any of us if the OP applies to Stanford or Berkeley. It is however not very smart to reinforce the erroneous ideas he submitted in his original post.</p>
<p>For some this is an exercise in misplaced “bragging” rights!</p>
<p>Personally I think that Alexandre is somewhat correctly in his comparison of difficulty for ‘marginal students’ and the decked in medal types. I would think that , as mentioned, for someone with really high numbers its easier to get into Cal OOS for engineering. However, I think its closer to a tie for the marginal students. All schools are holistic in some sense, but Cal being public makes it probably less holistic than others. There really is no way to say though.</p>
<p>Anyways, I think the main thing the OP wanted to know is whether or not he has a CHANCE of getting into Stanford or MIT and getting rejected from Cal. Its not a high probability, but I would assume there is enough of a possibility there to warrant spitting out the extra time and energy for two more applications. Does that seem reasonable Xiggi?</p>
<p>I think we all agree that the OP would best served in applying to all three schools. </p>
<p>We just like to argue. :)</p>
<p>Guys, why not look at Statsfinder:
[University</a> of California: StatFinder](<a href=“http://statfinder.ucop.edu/statfinder/default.aspx]University”>http://statfinder.ucop.edu/statfinder/default.aspx)
1.
All students:
Weighted GPA:4.00-4.19
SAT (M/V): 700-800:
Applied: 2803
Accepted: 1226 (admit rate: 44%)
Enrolled: 457 (yield: 37%)
2.
All students
Weighted GPA:>4.20
SAT (M/V): 700-800:
Applied: 4378
Accepted: 3357 (admit rate: 77%)
Enrolled: 934 (yield: 28%)
3.
California students
Weighted GPA:4.00-4.19
SAT (M/V): 700-800:
Applied: 2008
Accepted: 1027 (admit rate: 51%)
Enrolled: 412 (yield: 40%)
4.
California students
Weighted GPA:>4.20
SAT (M/V): 700-800:
Applied: 3139
Accepted: 2734 (admit rate: 51%)
Enrolled: 822 (yield: 40%)
5.(1. minus 3.)
OOS students
Weighted GPA:4.00-4.19
SAT (M/V): 700-800:
Applied: 795
Accepted: 199 (admit rate: 25%)
Enrolled: 47 (yield: 24%)
6. (2. minus 4.)
OOS students
Weighted GPA:>4.20
SAT (M/V): 700-800:
Applied: 1239
Accepted: 623 (admit rate: 50%)
Enrolled: 112 (yield: 18%)</p>
<p>So it appears to me if you have high stats, Berkeley is easier even for OOS (I don’t think the chance for Stanford is in the range of 25-50% if all you got is just high stats). It seems to me one of the main things that stops Berkeley from being as selective as schools like Stanford for OOS students is the low yield they have for OOS students.</p>
<p>^ Yes, the stats are all published for Berkeley.</p>
<p>Where are the detailed published stats for MIT and Stanford?
Ahhh the need for not making public what could be damaging.</p>
<p>Xiggi, *** is your problem? Who cares?! Why do you keep harping on the issue? Go talk about Claremont McKenna…or is that too boring for you?</p>
<p>Sam Lee – what do those stats have to do with Engineering applicants?</p>
<p>^I didn’t address engineering applicants. I just said “OOS applicants” in general. I am just giving out what’s best available out there and let you guys infer what it might mean for engineering applicants. It’s definitely much better than nothing. But it wouldn’t surprise me if many of the OOS applicants were applying for engineering.</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad,
Brown has detailed stats. And I think we can agree Stanford is slightly more selective than Brown.[Brown</a> Admission: Facts & Figures](<a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University)
I am too lazy to do the work but you can do a closer comparison by just selecting SAT range instead of SAT and GPA simultaneously. It won’t be an apple-to-apple comparison because Brown separates SAT math and verbal while Berkeley averages the two.</p>
<p>Like I said, the yield is the key. Stanford has >70% yield so I think it makes sense if you consider the big picture.</p>
<p>ok this thread is dumb…berkeley, mit, and stanford are good schools…but certainly the alums of the schools that are on CC are conceited people who just care about prestige…you don’t even care about the people in Sudan who are suffering atrocities.</p>
<p>dark - sorry, I guess I should have mentioned the atrocities in Sudan in my above post. My apology.</p>
<p>don’t forget Darfur!</p>