Cal Admission rate for international applicants much lower than UCLA

[d313711]

<p>If people consider Oxbridge as prestigious as HYPSM, I know for fact that someone rejected Oxbridge and went to CAL. Also, how could a school like CAL scoring top#1-#5 in so many subjects be a safety for HYPSM, even for UG. In fact, CAL has generated the most number of IT CEOs in the U.S.</p>

[beyphy]

<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

</p>

<p>The same can be said for any highly prestigious university. I’ve heard similar stories of UCLA students choosing the school over Harvard, Yale, and Caltech.</p>

<p>

and thus there really is no basis for the idea that Berkeley rejects people it thinks are overqualified.

</p>

<p>Your inference doesn’t follow from the statement you inferred it from. Berkeley’s applicant’s having reason to pick it over other top schools has no bearing at all on its admissions policy.</p>

<p>

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>That scholarship applies to a tiny amount of the total applicants (i believe it’s the top 1.5% at UCLA; i’d assume its a similar percentage at Cal) But that doesn’t support your argument on the whole either. That scholarship might simply be geared towards middle-class students who can’t afford Berkeley’s private peers. I’m inferring this because the poor would probably get full rides, and the rich would be able to afford the sticker price. So, it seems, they’d be geared towards the middle class.</p>

<p>But all this is just conjecture. That it rejects many top applicants doesn’t tell either of us much. We know that they do it, but not why.</p>

[terenc]

<p>

The same can be said for any highly prestigious university. I’ve heard similar stories of UCLA students choosing the school over Harvard, Yale, and Caltech.

Okay. This really doesn’t change any part of my point.</p>

<p>

Your inference doesn’t follow from the statement you inferred it from. Berkeley’s applicant’s having reason to pick it over other top schools has no bearing at all on its admissions policy.

Yet you make this unsubstantiated inference about Berkeley’s admissions policy:

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.

Under your standard of logic (external factors having no bearing on admissions policy, conjectures about what adcoms are thinking about should be rejected, etc.), this inference ought to be rejected.</p>

<p>

That scholarship might simply be geared towards middle-class students who can’t afford Berkeley’s private peers. I’m inferring this because the poor would probably get full rides, and the rich would be able to afford the sticker price. So, it seems, they’d be geared towards the middle class.

That’s my point. The scholarship is for luring middle class admits away from private universities.</p>

<p>

That it rejects many top applicants doesn’t tell either of us much. We know that they do it, but not why.

I asked this before, but do you have any evidence Berkeley rejects “many” “top” applicants (“top” being completely undefined as to render the point meaningless).</p>

[m3csl1994]

<p>That Berkeley’s admission difficulty differential between in- and out-of-state students is a travesty.</p>

<p>If it went after more internationals, it would destroy UCLA (the latter can’t compete because its global brand is not nearly as strong).</p>

<p>However, due to the campus’ proclivity to shoot itself in the foot, it tries desperately to remain as uncompetitive as possible, as it relates to admissions.</p>

[RML]

<p>

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>Sorry; but I think it’s obvious to me that you are somewhat clueless abut the IT world.</p>

[RML]

<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

Well regardless, the fact is, those two students that i personally know turned down top privates to attend Berkeley. And, please take note that those students are full-paying students. Which means, Berkeley is more expensive for them.</p>

[RML]

<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.

</p>

<p>Maybe in the West Coast and in the US, that’s true. But outside of the US, there’s little-to-no difference one can see between them, unless one is applying for a professional program such as MBA or LAW.</p>

[beyphy]

<p>

Sorry; but I think it’s obvious to me that you are somewhat clueless abut the IT world.

</p>

<p>It seems to me that you’re somewhat cluessless about the use of semicolons in English ;)</p>

<p>

Maybe in the West Coast and in the US, that’s true. But outside of the US, there’s little-to-no difference one can see between them, unless one is applying for a professional program such as MBA or LAW.

</p>

<p>Stanford’s world brand ranking is significantly higher than Berkeley’s (44 and 234 respectively)</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.worldbrandlab.com/world/2009/top500_3.htm]2009”>2009年《世界品牌500强》排行榜-世界品牌实验室独家编制]2009</a></p>

[terenc]

<p>

It seems to me that you’re somewhat cluessless about the use of semicolons in English

This has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.</p>

<p>Your arguments are nitpicking. None of them actually address any of my points.</p>

[beyphy]

<p>

This has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

</p>

<p>It seems to me that you’re somewhat cluessless about the use of sarcasm</p>

<p>

Your arguments are nitpicking. None of them actually address any of my points.

</p>

<p>i addressed your original non-sequitor; getting any evidence about berkeley rejecting top students would be near impossible. But i tried reasoning about it abductively. If that isn’t good enough for you, insert my original claim as the subordinate clause under 'i have reason to suspect that…"</p>

[terenc]

<p>

It seems to me that you’re somewhat cluessless about the use of sarcasm

You are just proving my point over and over again.</p>

<p>Could you point out the non sequitur instead of merely saying my argument was a non sequitur?
And how exactly did you abduce that Berkeley rejects top students regularly? Even the abductive reasoning (i.e. the “estimated guesses”) behind your claim is flawed.</p>

[RML]

<p>

Stanford’s world brand ranking is significantly higher than Berkeley’s (44 and 234 respectively)

</p>

<p>It seems like beyphy has been smoking marijuana lately.</p>

<p>[Top</a> universities by reputation 2011](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011/reputation-ranking]Top”>World Reputation Rankings 2011 | Times Higher Education (THE))</p>

[beyphy]

<p>It’s funny how you’re conveniently linking to the 2011 ranking where Berkeley is ranked higher than Stanford; in the 2012 ranking, as i’m sure you well know, the latter ranks higher than the former. And that’s a relationship that probably won’t change anytime soon.</p>

<p>I still proved my overall point. There is no current up-to-date and reputable ranking in measures of reputation, in the U.S or the world, which has Stanford ranked lower than Berkeley.</p>

[RML]

<p>

There is no current up-to-date and reputable ranking in measures of reputation, in the U.S or the world, which has Stanford ranked lower than Berkeley.

Opps. That’s not what you’ve actually said. You claimed that outside of the US, there is a significant difference (remember that you said “leaps and bounds”) between Berkeley and Stanford in terms of prestige. My source refuted that. So, whether you’re looking at last year’s list or this year’s only proves your claim is bogus and incorrect.</p>

[beyphy]

<p>Touche RML, i commend you on your careful reading.</p>

<p>I retract my original statement and agree with you: Stanford’s reputation is leaps-and-bounds ahead of Berkeley in the west coast, and in the broader U.S. in general, with a slight advantage around the world.</p>

[RML]

<p>^^^ The beyphy I’ve known is always open to criticisms and would readily admit when corrected. I’m glad you came back to your usual self. :)</p>