<p>According to the UC Admissions Office stats, last year UCLA admitted 32% of international applicants whereas Cal admitted 12% even though the overall admission rate and number of international applicants were almost identical. In fact over the three years of 10, 11 and 12 UCLA was always in the 30s while Cal was in the 20s then suddenly cut to 12% last year.</p>
<p>Does this show that UCLA is less selective towards international applicants than Cal, that I as an international applicant will have a higher chance of being accepted to UCLA than Cal when applying to both? Seems like a pretty interesting contrast between the policies of the two campuses.</p>
<p>I think when the first wave of budget cuts happened it was like 500m. between 90-100m (20%) of that funding directly went to UCLA. While Cal isn’t in an amazing position right now either, I think the budget cuts hurt UCLA significantly more. So that might explain it.</p>
<p>UCLA is also the most competitive UC campus for Calfiornia students (admitting less than 18%) and will probably be the first campus this year in the United States to break 100,000 applicants.</p>
<p>During my time (1999-2000), the admit rate was something like 6% for international students. There were years when Berkeley’s admit rate for international students was 4.7% only. I was admitted at 4 Ivies (including Columbia) and Cambridge in the UK, but wasn’t even a wait-list at Berkeley. (Back then, Berkeley didn’t have a wait-list.) </p>
<p>Berkeley admits less than UCLA does because Berkeley’s yield rate (for international students) has always been higher too. I think that’s the reason why.</p>
<p>Are there any good sources for cross admit enrollment between UCLA and Berkeley? The only one i know of is Parchmount, which i’m skeptical of.</p>
<p>Last year, UCLA was overenrolled because its yield was higher than it had traditionally been, resulting in it getting a wait-list for the first time in its history.</p>
<p>But that yield being higher was because Berkeley admitted less students. As a result, instead of deciding whether to matriculate to UCLA and Berkeley, many were just admitted to UCLA, and decided to matriculate there.</p>
<p>RML. That’s interesting to know. My daughter was also admitted to Cambridge and Berkeley. May I ask what was your subject study when you applied to Cambridge and Berkeley?</p>
<p>I want to make a note regarding admission to Cambridge vs Berkeley:
Cambridge always has a higher admission rate, making it look like it’s less selective. It’s true; they do take in a higher percentage of applicants. But this is solely because you are restricted to applying to five programs of study in the UK. (Not even five schools; five programs), unlike here, where, if you have the money, you can apply to as many schools as you want.</p>
<p>I have also heard that Berkeley rejects students that are “too good” for it, because they want to increase their yield rate – that might be another reason.</p>
<p>^Berkeley rejecting students because they are too good for it is simply not true. Firstly because it’s not very likely this happens at any school in general, and secondly because it is even less likely to happen at a top school. I think this is an urban myth that is repeated over and over again.</p>
<p>To my knowledge, applications to Cambridge have to be supported by the teachers or the counselors of the high school that one is attending. I don’t think the admission rate is good indicator for selectivity between Cambridge and other top U.S. universities .</p>
<p>meakame: Cambridge’s admit rate for international applicants has always been around 10%. In some years, it’s lower than 10%. The 15%-17% admit rate for Cambridge includes local applicants. But, by and large, both Oxford and Cambridge are quite selective for international students. And, I wasn’t implying that Cambridge is easier to get into than Berkeley. I was trying to say that Berkeley isn’t as easy to get into as what some (arrogant) students are trying to say. Berkeley’s admissions are very unpredictable. Hundreds of students with superb stats (perfect SAT score, etc.) were being rejected every year. Last years’ stats alone would tell you that Berkeley rejected thousands of students with SATs ranging from 2300 to 2400. That should tell you something. And, I bet that some of those students are now at the Ivies, Stanford, MIT or Caltech.</p>
<p>That is true. Because in the UK, you cannot apply to more than 5 universities. You also CANNOT apply to Cambridge and Oxford at the same time. I could imagine the admit rate would drop significantly when the students can apply to both unis simultaneously. One of the advantages of limiting the number of unis that a student can apply to is that the enrollment yield rate of the unis would tend to be higher. At Harvard, the enrollment yield rate is something like 79%, and amongst the top schools, it’s one of the highest in the whole US. Cambridge’s yield rate has always been around 95%. Very few students turn down Cambridge’s offer.</p>
<p>Sometimes, Cambridge offer was turned down because of subject studied. If one is unsure of spending 3 years to study one subject that may not have promising career prospect, one may turn down Cambridge.</p>
<p>It probably tells you that Berkeley rejects applicants it knows will matriculate to the better universities they’ll get admitted to. Even against Stanford, Berkeley only has a 2% enrollment against students accepted there. If you’ll be accepted into HYPSM, there’s no point in Berkeley accepting you. It’s a wasted admit.</p>
<p>^ I don’t see it that way. I think that’s NOT how the adcom guys think. That’s not how the Berkeley admissions work, in general. </p>
<p>There’s a lot of reasons why Berkeley couldn’t compete with Stanford – same geographic location (Bay Area), climate, slightly better reputation, better hand-holding system, etc… But Berkeley can provide some good reasons to turn down Yale, for instance. For example, a guy like me would be more attracted to Berkeley than Yale because Berkeley has a top 3 computer science program, not only in America, but in the entire world. If I would have to position myself better in the IT world, Berkeley would provide me that better than Yale would, I believe, because Berkeley alumni are some of the major proponents of the largest and most successful SV companies. And, from where I come from (Europe), Berkeley is seen as prestigious as Yale. And, for some circles, viewed superior to Yale. </p>
<p>Berkeley’s enrollment yield rate for International Students has always been very high – always above 50%. Almost all of them have also been admitted to a number of top private schools. Just last year alone, 2 guys from the Philippines matriculated at Berkeley. The first guy was also admitted at Caltech, Brown and Cornell. The second guy, was also admitted at Penn, Duke, Michigan, Georgetown and Rice.</p>
<p>True that, and RML, point taken, you’re right If you’re applying to either Oxford of Cambridge, you’d better be sure you have a shot of getting in, otherwise you’re wasting 1 of your 5 choices – plus your teacher probably wouldn’t write you a good recommendation.</p>
<p>Now, can you imagine if people were restricted to applying to just 1 (or even 2) of HYPSM? Or even just one UC? Regarding international admits, I do think that Berkeley’s reputation is almost on par as HYPSM, and sometimes more known than the “lesser Ivies” or places like Duke. Sometimes. Not all the time. And like RML said, especially for majors like CS.</p>
<p>Stanford’s reputation is leaps-and-bounds ahead of Berkeley in the west coast, and in the broader U.S. (and world) in general. There’s a reason the acronym is HYPSM rather than HYPBM. Not trying to ■■■■■, but in my non biased opinion, Stanford provides several advantages over Berkeley including smaller class sizes, more available classes, better networking, more resources, better counseling, equal recruiting for SV (but probably superior on the east coast) and equal programs. Stanford also has free tuition for family’s making less than 60k, and reduced tuition for those making less than like 100k or so (forget the exact numbers, it’s been a while since i’ve brushed up on my Phantasmagoric :p) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In my time at UCLA, I had classes taught by some of the most eminent profressors in the field. I agree that there are advantages to taking classes with these professors, and motivated students have an even greater advantages. That being said, you’d likely be competing for the professor’s time, which is probably very limited, with other top students (national and international) who have the same goals in mind as you. So, however highly ranked Berkeley’s CS program is, it certainly comes with its caveats. You could certainly take advantage of Silicon Valley for internships, but there are several universities that can offer that opportunity as well (e.g. SJSU) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s probably due to a number of reasons, the most important of which are Berkeley’s prestige and its proximity to Silicon Valley. Caltech arguably offers the best stem education in the nation (and its graduates earn the most according to Payscale.) But if you’re an internationl applicant, Berkeley’s prestige might offer advantages that a Caltech education wouldn’t be seen to match (although Caltech’s been ranked #1 on the THE world ranking for 2 years in a row.) </p>
<p>As for the latter matriculant, its probably due to the two the first two factors i listed above, or perhaps location preference.</p>
<p>@beyphy: I think you’re quibbling over minor points and missing the bigger picture. The point is that there are reasons (even if not universally applicable, as you seem to be arguing about) why someone would pick Berkeley over other top schools, and thus there really is no basis for the idea that Berkeley rejects people it thinks are overqualified.
This is especially true given that the whole purpose of the Regents scholarship is to try and lure away people who might have gotten into other top privates.</p>
<p>As for the assertion that Berkeley regularly rejects people who score between 2300-2400, does anyone have any data for this? I don’t believe it. Certainly I would believe it if someone told me that EECS rejects some people who are 2300+ scorers, but definitely not the university in general.</p>
If you’re applying to either Oxford of Cambridge, you’d better be sure you have a shot of getting in, otherwise you’re wasting 1 of your 5 choices – plus your teacher probably wouldn’t write you a good recommendation.</p>