<p>Your Paco example reminds me of this new article even though the school in question here isn’t Berkeley: [For</a> an illegal immigrant, getting into UCLA was the easy part - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“UCLA said yes. Now, the hard part.”>UCLA said yes. Now, the hard part.)</p>
<p>I completely disagree because education is the ultimate vehicle for social mobility and the moment public universities stop accepting the Paco’s of the world is the moment we fail as a society. If we follow your thinking, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.</p>
<p>Now I agree, the Paco’s of the world have a higher propensity to fail but that doesn’t mean that all of them do fail. I know a few Paco’s @ Berkeley myself and they’re doing just fine after a period of readjustment.</p>
<p>I’m not asking Berkeley to admit 3.5’s with 1700 SAT’s - we have the UCI’s of the world to take these people in. But if somebody has 4.3 and 1700 SAT simply because they go to a low-performing school, I believe he/she deserves a shot at a Berkeley education. Paco isn’t lacking smarts; its just the education he’s been receiving doesn’t allow him to get a high SAT score.</p>
<p>To make my point clear, I want you to imagine somebody with an IQ of 145 (99th percentile). If such a person never reads a novel or learns the structure of an essay, how can he/she be expected to do well on the SAT?? And my contention here is that such knowledge is not absolutely necessary because if the person is smart, they will learn critical reading and writing skills in introductory English classes offered at Berkeley.</p>
<p>Just so you know, the SAT was changed from “Scholastic Aptitude Test” to “SAT Achievement Test” because data showed it could not effectively measure intelligence. The SAT does not test for smarts, it only tests for knowledge. Knowledge is easily taught - intelligence isn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Idealistic rhetoric, but fails miserably in practice.</p>
<p>For those like Paco, there are far more who fail than those who succeed at Berkeley. For the very very few who do succeed, education is indeed the vehicle for social mobility. But what about those who don’t? Those who either fail or get too low of a GPA to get into grad schools? They can’t get into grad school or get a decent job because nobody wants to hire a Berkeley grad with a 2.5 when there are those with higher GPA’s. Sure, you can contend that those who graduate at least get out with a Bachelor’s degree from Berkeley. But guess what, a B.S. or a B.A. from Berkeley doesn’t hold much more weight than one from UC Davis or UC Irvine. The only difference is that one puts much less work into getting one from lower-ranked UC’s. And to employers, a 3.5 from Davis or Irvine looks much more promising than a 2.5 from Berkeley.</p>
<p>And in the end, a Bachelor’s degree is just a Bachelor’s degree. Students like Paco stand a much better chance to get a high GPA at a lower UC, then getting an advanced degree than they would if they attend Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why exactly does he deserve a shot at Berkeley? There are plenty of students out there who get rejected with 4.3 and 2200+, don’t they deserve a shot?</p>
<p>I understand that kids like Paco should deserve a chance for education, but should they be given the chance to do so at Berkeley at the cost of rejecting applicants who have shown much better academic record? There are community colleges and other universities that provide education as well. Students with high GPA and high SAT scores shouldn’t be turned away from Berkeley just to make room for students like Paco.</p>
<p>You point isn’t clear. A major argument against IQ tests also revolves around the background of the test-taker, just like it is for the SAT. To raise an example where someone can score the 99th percentile on an IQ test but do poorly on the SAT is to ignore the inherent test biases in both tests against test-takers of different backgrounds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SAT was actually changed from “Scholastic Aptitude Test” or “Scholastic Assessment Test” to nothing. The acronym “SAT” itself no longer stands for anything. It is now called the SAT Reasoning Test as it emphasizes reasoning.</p>
<p>The SAT tests for reasoning based on knowledge. You propose that the SAT is a poor indicator because it requires this background knowledge. However, this is a moot point, because this background knowledge is rudimentary. If the SAT were solely testing for knowledge, it would not ask for where the error in a sentence is. Rather it would ask what specific grammatical error it is.</p>
<p>People are not always given the same opportunities to develop academically as anyone else. In the above example, Paco should be admitted over a rich WASP who has had all the opportunities in the world yet could only produce a 2200 SAT and a 3.9 unweighted GPA.</p>
<p>Paco, somebody who has faced adversities and has overcome them, shows more potential to succeed during challenges. Paco could have allocated his spare time on taking care of the family, getting a job to support said family, and developing more personal, more realistic, more beneficial skills than sitting in front of a desk to pass an exam. Somebody who has lived through reality is a better candidate for such a great school like Berkeley than somebody who has had all the opportunities anybody can ask for and yet produced not-outstanding results.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong - SAT scores and GPA take a lot of work, so that should be rewarded. But, if somebody like this WASP character can get good test scores, he can attend a state college, get the same great test scores, and go on through life with breeze. Somebody like Paco should be given a chance to put his knowledge to the test in work study related activities, clubs and organizations at Cal, and etc. It’s unfair to say “Wow. This guy has a 1600 SAT. Reject. Now.”</p>
<p>If everything was done mathematically, Cal wouldn’t be such a great school. A school isn’t just numbers - it’s the people that attend the school. And belittling Cal into a school that should merely care about test scores and GPA is doing it a disservice and everyone who attends Cal a disservice. We are not robots, programmed and identified by statistics and values. We are human beings, shaped by experience and background and culture and history.</p>
<p>Learn it, live it.</p>
<p>tastybeef, it’s interesting that you use the word “deserve.”</p>
<p>Person #1 grows up in a dysfunctional family and attends a school riddled with crime and academic negligence but she doesn’t cave into peer pressure and instead focuses on academics eventually graduating 1st in her class of 300 people.</p>
<p>Person #2 grows up in a rich suburb of California and has the guidance of educated parents and the motivation from peers who all plan on attending four year universities. This person manages to graduate with a 4.2 GPA (ranked 30th out of 300) with a SAT of 2000 (25th out of 300).</p>
<p>So who deserves it more?</p>
<p>I agree with you but I think Berkeley takes into consideration these things. I applied into the college of chemistry with a 1780 SAT score and a UC gpa of around a 4.25 (ranked 11/800ish). My parents make around 20,000/yr. They took into consideration my life experiences and etc…soo don’t be so harsh on them!! =)</p>
<p>Funny how a question about admit rate would evolve into an SAT debate.</p>
<p>But to address the already growing topic, I applaud Berkeley for taking in students with “subpar SAT scores”. To some extent, the SATs do measure intelligence, but not completely. There are other factors such as opportunity that allow some to have higher scores than those who come from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. </p>
<p>I agree with what bobaboy said; every student accepted to UC Berkeley has the potential to succeed, even the “little guys” with 1700 SAT. As a matter of fact, those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds have an even greater will to work harder once they reach UC Berkeley.</p>
<p>But that’s just the way I see it.</p>
<p>To tastybeef,</p>
<p>You seem to base your entire definition of “success in college” on whether or not a student does well on tests. There is more than one way to succeed in college. If you don’t realize this, then there’s not much I can do to convince you otherwise.</p>
<p>If I were on the admissions committee, my #1 goal would be to admit people based on perceived potential (how much growth can we expect from an individual in this environment) and how much UCB would stand to gain in the future from admitting a particular individual. The school is making an investment because tuition is a very small fraction of the revenue for the school. So my goal is to determine, on a case by case basis, what are the goals of each applicant and if they can succeed in the context of their goals, which would benefit UCB in the long run. The definition for success changes for each applicant, and that’s up to the committee to decide what that definition is for each applicant. Of course, some people are going to have similar goals, and that’s when I assume the committee begins to directly compare a student. For example, a student who wants to succeed in film does not have the same goals as a prospective engineer. So to directly compare the two based off of SATs and GPA isn’t very useful. Instead, I would compare that film student to other prospective film students after I determine that his/her basic qualifications (GPA/SAT/etc) are historically good enough to survive - which is why you may see many low SAT scoring people.</p>
<p>Now if your gripe is with two engineers where one guy has a 2400/4.0 and a 2100/3.6. Again, it isn’t necessarily about what one guy deserves over the other. It’s about what UCB stands to gain from admitting one student over another. Of course, it’s riskier to accept the 2100/3.6 student, but maybe the committee thinks the risk is worth taking. A 2400/4.0 may not be risky, but the growth benefits may be very small in the mind of the admissions committee. </p>
<p>Again, it’s not about whether a particular student deserves to be accepted; it’s about what the school stands to gain in the future from accepting a particular student over another.</p>
<p>On a side note: After going through the whole process (undergrad + high school), I believe high school is easy. I can see how it is inherently difficult to differentiate people based on how easy the high school curriculum is. This obviously doesn’t address your concern.</p>
<p>does anyone know the OOS admit rate this year? i know there was some speculation on it changing due to the economy</p>
<p>I think that tasybeef is somewhat wrong. I know people (me included) that get 4’s and 5’s on AP scores but just can’t score very well on the SAT reasoning. In my subject tests I had scores in the 700’s and my reasoning was much lower. I’m ranked 11 in a class of people going to two ivy leagues, multiple at berkeley, ucla and etc. I tutored a guy that is going to an ivy league next year with a 2380 sat score. I really don’t think that the SAT reasoning test has any indicator of the type of student you are or can become because I know that I can and will succeed at Berkeley NOT because my SAT score was in the 1700’s but because I worked by butt off to get those grades, even in a class of amazing students. and yes I did grow up poor. my parents make around 20,000/yr and I never had the opport. that the kid in my school with a 2380 had. he went and spent 5000 one summer to take a course. i could never even imagine my parents having that money to do that.
I really understand where you’re coming from and everything but there are exceptions and not everything is based on your SAT score.</p>
<p>I think the admit rate dropped</p>
<p>
I remember my parents paying around $1500 for a SAT prep course that was mediocre. Although it motivated me to study and offered many full-length practice tests, to this day I believe that buying Barron’s study book was the key for me. You seriously should not spend that much just to get into college. Considering 5k for a 4hr exam makes me laugh.</p>
<p>I just never liked the SAT reasoning. SAT subject tests I did really well on (averaged a 790 something). ACT I did really well on (almost a perfect score on that). But besides the SAT math section, I was terrible (for my standards) on the test. I would get in the low 600s on the other sections. On the PSAT I got around 215, and just missed out on the cut for NM because my state is apparently full of geniuses that made the cutoff score higher. Part of my bad scores was/is my vocabulary stinks, but also I didn’t really like the format of the test. So I just didn’t take it, especially given my ACT score. And UCB accepted me, so obviously they only require one of the tests. </p>
<p>So, my point is: most people don’t like the ACT because of the science section and time constraints. But, if you can’t score well on SAT practice tests, try an ACT practice test out. Remember, schools only require one, and although perfect scores help a bit, perfect (or near perfect, in my case) scores won’t get you in alone, as I have quickly found out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a huge difference between academic challenges and socioeconomic challenges. What you can do to overcome one doesn’t necessarily achieve the same effect for the other. Plenty of people seek help and study for biochemistry and organic chemistry. And yet, many of them don’t do well in the class.</p>
<p>What makes you so sure that this WASP hasn’t overcome any personal challenges? Also, what makes you sure that Paco’s personal challenges should sufficiently get him into any school he wants to?</p>
<p>Berkeley’s admission process does not allow for great judgment of character. Three personal statements totaling 1000 words without interviews is hardly enough to justify admitting someone with 1600 on the SAT over someone with 2200+.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why can’t Paco attend a different college where his chances of actually graduating is higher? Just because one is admitted doesn’t mean one will actually graduate with a degree that he/she wants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, it’s interesting. I italicized it because you used it first. Nobody deserves to get into a college. In your example, neither deserves it more. There are far stronger applicants out there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can assure you that it is not a matter of fact that those who come from disadvantaged background have an even greater will to work harder. Most of them succumb to the million other attractions of college and tank in school work. For the few who stay focused, most of them do poorly in their classes. Only very, very few do well. This is my experience in the biological sciences. I can’t attest for every other major, but I know this applies to other majors as well after taking classes in those majors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s funny. You’re writing this as if Berkeley itself sets up its classes for its students to succeed. If you’ve taken any intro weeder classes, then you’d know this is far from the truth. If Berkeley were indeed admitting students under your line of reasoning, then it would be admitting students with the hopes of them succeeding, but yet crushing those hopes itself.</p>
<p>I’m a pragmatist, unlike most of you idealists out there. The way Berkeley does its admission process is very idealistic. The admission committee sits there and thinks to itself “Hey, let’s admit these people who may have had personal challenges and poor academic track records compared to other applicants. This way they’ll have a chance at succeeding after college!”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Berkeley’s admission process and grading process don’t work in concert. Getting admitted and doing well in Berkeley are very different. What does Berkeley stand to gain from admitting an applicant who shows little academic potential and crushing that applicant’s dreams with its weeder classes? So yes, I realize that success is college is far more than just doing well on tests, but unfortunately, to graduate from Berkeley you need to pass many tests. Can you seriously say that your college career was a success if you did poorly on your tests, didn’t graduate, but made many friends?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AP exams are not difficult. You only need a 60% on the scale to get a 5. Similarly, a 60% on the SAT is around a 1500. So, that makes perfect sense.</p>
<p>It’s great that you have drive to do well, most of those admitted with poor academic records don’t. All they want is to graduate, so I commend you for that. However, there is a difference between saying and doing. From my 3 years of experience at Berkeley, the vast majority of students admitted with poor records don’t do well.</p>
<p>
This is partially true. You see, as most of these low-stat admits end up in non-science/engineering majors, they are subject to a more lenient grading standard and so it’s not a foregone conclusion that they’ll do badly.
I think most people here agree to the ideal of leveling the playing fields among students with different social-economic backgrounds, but disagree on the means for achieving it. Often time, good intention policies produce undesirable side effects. For instance, when UCLA switched to holistic approach, admissions for Pacos of SE Asian descent actually dropped.</p>
<p>So a bad SAT score makes your record poor? What about all the other testing and information included on your record? I guess to you, the SAT reasoning test is the only thing that matters.</p>
<p>I also think you shouldn’t judge people that come from bad backgrounds as much. Unless you have come from a background like that, then I don’t think you have the right to decide if they should have the opport. to attend Berkeley. Have you tried to study for an exam in your house when the electricity was turned off b/c your parents didn’t pay the bill. Or stay up half the night worrying about where you’re going to live in the next month because you’re parents can’t afford the house or anything. Maybe you have lived like that, but if you haven’t, don’t judge. That’s all I ask =) and sorry if this sounded mean, it wasn’t suppose to be! I just want you to understand my point of view. I respect and understand yours =)</p>
<p>APs ARE difficult… and the 60% for a 5 is only on some tests usually the most difficult ones
SAT is kind of crap… I personally hate it… since my stronger side is math, it gave me a disadvantage, but I still did OK (2060) while working hard in high school and getting (as of now) a 4.3GPA… I’ll be completely honest… I do get annoyed when someone with an SAT score of 1700 gets in over me… but I ALSO do believe that they should take EVERYTHING into consideration… (except solely race or gender)… like whether the student had to have a job, where they live etc… etc… I am in between both sides here… you should not just accept someone just because they are disadvantaged, but you also shouldn’t just blindly accept someone with a 2300/4.6… they need to take it on a case by case basis… and I understand that’s very difficult… but if I have learned one thing sadly in my 17 yrs of life it is that LIFE IS UNFAIR… it would be great if we lived in a world where everyone got an equal opprotunity but unfortunately we don’t 
</p>
<p>I got in Spring 2010… (but also into Northwestern) And I’m white and I live in an upper-middle-class area for full disclosure… and no I could never understand what its like to live like some do… but I do understand life’s harsh realities… I lost a brother to a drunk-driver, my parents went through a brutal divorce… and those things completely change you and your outlook. I am very fortunate but also gone through some major tragedies/events, and have worked very, VERY, hard, probably harder than people in my school with 4.6/2350 who are geniuses and in general feel I am a better person as a whole… but they would still probably get in over me. It sucks, but like I’ve said… that’s the way the world is.</p>
<p>There’s my schmeal… absorb it for all its worth… I saw this discussion and had to post something</p>
<p>I agree with VegasMazza3. and i’m sorry about your family =( I think everyone is kinda right in their own way haha.</p>
<p>lala91, good luck at Berkeley. I’m sure you will do really well.</p>
<p>I’m in my 50’s. SAT scores don’t mean @@@@. </p>
<p>My wife and I went to Berkeley in the old days. :)</p>
<p>I don’t know my wife’s SAT score. ;)</p>
<p>Once you start Berkeley with your fellow students, you will hear very little about SAT scores, if anything.</p>