<p>If you haven’t calculated your “UC GPA” you should do so. Compare your “stats” to the ones listed on the campus chart for last year’s admissions, keeping in mind the following principles: </p>
<li> GPA is more important than test scores. Your basic chances probably are pretty close to the percentage of admits from the range your GPA falls in, although low test scores can hurt you, and high ones can tip the balance in your favor in a close case. If 50% or more of the applicants in your UC GPA band were admitted last year, then you can start looking to the next factors to assess your chances more precisely. </li>
<li> Over 90% of the applicants to Berkeley and UCLA with UC GPA’s below 4.0 are rejected. And many of those applicants have high test scores. If your UC GPA is below 4.0 those campuses are a reach for you.</li>
<li> Recruited athletes are an exception to these rules. If you’re a recruited athlete, you’re good. If not - remember that the charts you’re looking at include the recruited athletes, so your chances are probably a little worse than the charts would tend to make you think.</li>
<li> If you meet the UC minimum requirements, you will be accepted at Merced or Riverside, but not necessarily at any other campus.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>All three of my kids applied to UC campuses over the past 5 years, and were accepted at some and rejected at others. UC appears to me to have applied its admissions standards in a pretty predictable manner which is actually consistent with their stated policies. If you really want to know your chances, look at what each campus has done in recent years with regard to students with academic achievements similar to yours. That will tell you the odds pretty reliably.</p>
<p>UC campuses act more or less holistically, depending upon the specific school. Many, such as UCD, UCSD, and UCSC have very specific algorithms with many factors that have a huge swing, including economic disadvantage, first to college in the family, significant hardships, but also some credits for particularly heavy hs workloads or other academic issues. They can easily swamp the GPA and SAT components. </p>
<p>The correlation between stats and admission is only medium, depending on the weighting each campus applies, and the many other factors can effectively make any qualifying student look as if they have the max GPA and perfect SATs.</p>
<p>I very much agree with rider. (And the reverse dynamic of the 2nd paragraph of post #3 is also important: "many other factors" can reduce the value of a high GPA & scores unless those are accompanied by said Other Factors.) Unpredictability has increased, not decreased, in the last 2-3 years especially. That goes beyond Berkeley & UCLA, to include Davis as well. As the CA science industries explode in developments, research, occupational possibilities, so do the attractions of those majors at a science-heavy place like Davis (& SD). As the imperative of a college degree magnifies, so does the CA population applying in-state. As the economy continues to be unpredictable, the relative attraction of public college tuition climbs. All of these developments put pressure on UC admissions at all campuses, dwarfing somewhat the predictability game. Admissions results for UCLA this year were certainly not predictable from some of the very demanding private schools with which I am familiar: in fact, students not with significant hardships tended not to be admitted <em>unless</em> there was some exceptional area of achievement(s) -- preferably plural-- in addition to gpa/scores. Purely anecdotal, but it did pattern what I saw elsewhere at comparable public schools as well.</p>
<p>Yeah, but don't forget that all but Cal, UCLA & UCSD are elc guarantee schools. Thus, top 4% of gpa is auto accept at Davis, Irvine, SB, and the so-called lower tier.</p>
<p>There's limited predictability on the "upside" at Berkeley and UCLA - over half the applicant's to Berkeley with 4.0+ GPAs are rejected; but there is pretty good predictability on the downside - over 90% of the applicants with sub-4.0 GPAs are rejected. So the numbers can't tell you that you have any better than a 50% chance there, but they can tell you if you have a less than 10% chance. Those schools aren't "safeties" for anyone; at best they're "matches." At the next tier the numbers are even clearer - at Irvine over 92% of the 4.0+ GPA applicants are accepted; over 80% of the 3.7+ GPA applcants are accepted, while 75+% of the sub 3.7 applicants are rejected. (Sub 3.3? Fuhgeddaboudit - 97.9% rejection rate at Irvine.) So there you actually do have a pretty good idea of reach-match-safety based just on GPA.</p>
<p>Yes, there is a holistic process at Berkeley and UCLA. But that really comes to bear when you're in the 50% admissions range, not so much when you're in the sub-10% range. </p>
<p>At the "formula" schools, the "extras" in the formula are a lot less significant than Rider suggests. The formulas typically start with academic factors such as SAT + 2 SAT subject scores + (GPA x 1000) or something similar for a base score. Additional academic factors (course schedule, class standing/ELC) also count heavily. (Here's Davis': Freshmen:</a> Application Criteria for Selection Process ) There the purely academic factors max out at over 10,000 points. The "extras" are in the range of 250 to 500 points each and even if all of them apply (which would be unusual) the total is still only a fraction of the academic factors. You can attain admission to any of the "formula" schools on academics alone. But all of the extras in the world won't help a 3.0/1100 SAT student get into UCSD. They're really more of a "tip" factor. If you're in the 50-50 range they can be critical. If you're in the 90-10 (or 10-90) range, probably not.</p>
<p>So I stand by the premise: Want to know your "chances"? Calculate your UC GPA. You'll have a pretty good idea of your "chances" based on that one number alone. You can refine that with the additional factors, starting with test scores, but in terms of probabilities you can have a pretty good idea from the stats alone - particularly at the mid and lower tier campuses.</p>
<p>^^kluge is spot on. According to admissions from a few years ago, Cal accepted 48% of 4.0+, and only 7% of those UC gpa's that were 3.7-3.99. Cal accepted 50% of those with a CR or W score of 700+, and 48% of those with a Math 2 of 700+. Similar numbers for UCLA are 47%, 58%, and 57% respectively. (Of course, many of those high scoring tests could've been earned by high gpa kids.)</p>
<p>So, without a high gpa to start, admissions chances are less than 10%.</p>
<p>but blue, there are so many high gpa's among UC applicants, that I'm inclined only to agree with kluge's modified (negative) postulate. Your post #7 similarly (correctly, i.m.o.) focuses on the "only" portion of the formula. It is increasingly true that formula won't get you in at the UC reaches, & plenty did not get in to Davis & SB this year, as well. (Same stats were fine for admission last year.)</p>
<p>yeah, I get that there are "anomolies" every year. But, for for the most recent class of published data (2007), Davis accepted 94% of students with a 4.0+ UC gpa, and 76% of those with a gpa of 3.80-3.99. </p>
<p>blue, I'm not arguing about the upper ends, or about the anomalies. I'm saying that (for example) Naviance scattergrams just 2 years ago revealed that a 3.7 (weighted with only one Honors or Advanced course, btw), & from an upper-middle-class privileged background, was a walk into Davis. Even last year it was close to that. Not so now. (Big change this year) Similar parallels can be seen for other UC's, thus I disagree about <em>current</em> (vs. recent) predictability.</p>
<p>Epiphany has a point about the change over time. I'd say that a 3.7 GPA was close to a 75% "chance" in 2005 based on statfinder, almost 70% in 2006, about 60% in 2007 and maybe 50% this last year. That's a big swing in a short time, and demonstrates that that was the "pinch point" for that college in an era of increasing numbers of applicants to all schools, and economic factors pushing UC applications in particular. As to which of the 3.7 GPA applicants were accepted and rejected in those years, probably the biggest variable is SAT/ACT scores, followed by the sheer number of "a-g" courses taken in high school. AP, IB and honors classes don't seem to be a big factor for Davis. Most people overestimate the impact of socio-economic factors. I don't think they skew the overall admissions profile to any great extent.</p>
<p>"Most people overestimate the impact of socio-economic factors. I don't think they skew the overall admissions profile to any great extent."</p>
<p>kluge, I don't have hard statistics to back up my concerns, but the SES is the one area that I believe might have changed more dramatically in a short period than you believe. (emphasizing 'might') Going by stat predictability, UC site charts, indices, etc., students who the previous year should have been admitted to Davis, Irvine, & SB (based on previous year admissions) were not, this year. The single thing they had in common, that I could see (as someone who has access to these profiles & records) was upper-middle-class income/zipcodes + an absence of any other personal challenges. This is for both public & private high schools. (Some graduated from very nice publics; others from private high schools.) Certain others of their competitors in the same class, with comparable academics but greater challenges & less income, were admitted. This is a slice, not a broad compilation of evidence. Not to be an alarmist, but I'm urging my families with these financial profiles not to count on the mid-level UC's as matches or even safeties (esp. after perusing this round's UC results on CC, as well), but to be very serious about your application strategies & also to include CSU's & privates in the mix.</p>
<p>it doesn't surprise me that a 3.7 UC gpa is not as competitive as it once was; there are just too many kids maxing out on honors/AP to deny them. Plus, the state is still growing. </p>
<p>kluge:</p>
<p>I believe ses factors have a rather large impact on admissions or each campus would not be comprised of ~33% Pell Grantees. As UVa found out this year (when they dropped ED), the number of Pell Grants matriculants doesn't change unless a campus seeks them out. If ses was not such a factor in admissions, I would guess that Cal & UCLA would be primarily comprised of suburban kids from top schools (or city kids, such as from SF-Lowell). Ditto Davis & SB.</p>
<p>Blue, I may or may not agree with you, depending on what you mean by "impact on admissions." 89% of all admittees to Berkeley had a 4.0 or higher GPA. Of the approximately 1000 sub-4.0 admittees, about 300 were recruited athletes who did not qualify for UCB admission on their academics. So that leaves about 700 students admitted to Berkeley - out of over 10,000 admittees - who were neither recruited athletes nor 4.0 HS GPA applicants. I don't know who those kids are, but I don't see that they had a major impact on the overall admissions, even if they were all poor kids. On the other hand, if you're saying that a 4.0 GPA applicant who is Pell Grant eligible will have a better chance than a 4.0 GPA applicant from an affluent family, you may be right.</p>
<p>I seriously doubt that even that impact would extend to Davis, Irvine and SB, though, since the admissions rate for 3.8+ GPA applicants to those schools is very high. Top students from anywhere in the state with those stats will get into one or more of those three campuses, unless they have very little else going for them (test scores, challenging curriculum, etc.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
On the other hand, if you're saying that a 4.0 GPA applicant who is Pell Grant eligible will have a better chance than a 4.0 GPA applicant from an affluent family....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, that's what I intended. Even a 3.8-3.9 Pell Grantee would most likely beat out a 4.0 wealthy kid under holistic admissions, IMO.</p>
<p>It just can't be random chance that each and every campus has 33% Pell Grantees.</p>
<p>But the numbers just don't bear that out, bluebayou. I don't know much about Pell Grantees, but Berkeley admitted almost 9,000 applicants with 4.0+ GPA's, and only about 800 non-athletes with GPA's below 4.0. Even if every one of the 800 sub-4.0 candidates is poor, that doesn't make a big dent in the almost 12,000 4.0+ applicants who were rejected. (And it's unlikely that poverty is the only reason a sub 4.0 applicant would be accepted.) Lots of 4.0+ students being rejected, obviously for a lot of reasons. Given the distribution of the numbers, it's hard to see poverty being much more than a "tip" factor.</p>
<p>kluge, the point is that poverty is often only one of many challenges such a candidate faces. Accompanying that could be the challenge of family circumstances, recent immigration, personal setbacks, and more -- all without the economic advantages that help to compensate for those. There are a surprising number of variously disadvantaged students that actually manage to accomplish more (additionally) in the non-academic spheres (such as talents, such as outside classes, etc.) than many middle-class students do. The latter can often be cocky about their chances at a UC. Put the former together with a 3.9, and the combined assets can outweigh a 4.0 with fewer add-ons.</p>
<p>I think you're right, epiphany. Although the raw number is still quite low for sub-4.0 applicants. I find it pretty amazing that a kid without the kind of advantages my kids take for granted can accomplish what some of these less fortunate youngsters have done. I think most people agree that some kind of acknowledgment of that kind of overcoming of adversity has a place in college admissions - most of the debate is about how much of a factor it is. What blows me away is the sheer volume of kids applying to UC with UC GPA's over 4.0 - 20,000+ applying to Berkeley last year alone. 20K kids with 4.0+ GPA's! No wonder it's hard for the merely bright kids to try to get in.</p>