Everyone Check This Out If Your Interested In Berkeley's Admissions

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
21

<p>Bluebayou:</p>

<p>A good possibility, but unlikely. If you look at the Comprehensive Review of each UC, one of the things they consider is the location. For example, UCLA states that going to a school in Los Angeles may be a factor in some cases for admission (a paraphrase, mind you). Cal does the same thing; it's comprehensive review draws from the Oakland and San Francisco area. Hence, she wasn't admitted because of geographic diversity. The entire UC system works again geographic diversity;for example, the comprehensive reviews of UCs give preference to Californian students (though UCs do admit students from all 50 states) and to those in their immediate vicinity. UC San Diego tends to admit students from the Imperial County and San Diego County. Nonetheless, this doesn't always apply (or else you'll never have students from all over California).</p>

<p>You can examine their comprehensive review at each UC's admissions webpage. </p>

<p>Another case in point:</p>

<p>The valedictorian of the school (last year 2004) was also accepted into Berkeley; she was also accepted to Yale, Harvard, Columbia, and Cornell. Her situation was different; she was a track star, high SAT I and IIs, tons of ECs, great APs. Yet she was rejected from UCLA.</p>

<p>There are several more cases like that in past classes. In 2002, two sisters were both accepted into Berkeley, but rejected by UCLA. That same year, a student was admitted into UCLA, but rejected from Cal. It can be said that in all these cases, both were excellent candidates for admissions to BOTH universities, not either one.</p>

<p>Simply, the UC admissions game is inconsistent. Rarely (at least in my experience; that is, watching my friends graduate) do students get into both Cal and UCLA. We'll see if this situation holds true this year for me (I applied to both Cal and UCLA). In the first case (in another post), the student should've been rejected from Cal becaues she lives in SoCal.</p>

<p>As for yield, I'm not sure to what extent it plays in the admissions game. US News and Reports deided to get rid of yield in its ranking system.</p>

<p><<if many="" kids="" from="" your="" socal="" school="" prefer="" to="" go="" elsewhere,="" e.g.="" berkelely,="" ucla="" has="" been="" known="" accept="" fewer="" that="" hs.="">></if></p>

<p>If we're talking about my high school, this doesn't quite apply. UCLA and Cal have admitted students equally at our school (for the past decade) according to my college advisor. However, the ranges yearly. C/O 2004, more students got into Cal; C/O 2003 into UCLA; C/O 2002 into Cal, C/O 2001 into UCLA; and 2000 for Cal. It has alternated for my HS the last several years. This information was again provided by my college advisor.</p>

22

<p>hey guys id dont think any of you noticed but the the site is 6 years old. just read the copyright statement at the bottom of the page. 6 years back SATs were a lot different. berkeleys admission policies have probably changed and the site is no longer valid.</p>

23

<p>I would posit that there's another phenomenom going on, which is that if you are a true superstar candidate, then lower-tier schools may reject you for being 'overqualified'. Not only that, but they have justification to do it. </p>

<p>I know this may seem controversial, but hear me out. If UCLA sees a truly super-star strong candidate such that UCLA strongly believes that this person is almost certainly going to go to an elite school like HYPSMC, then there is little point for UCLA to admit that person. By admitting that person, UCLA has to reserve a spot for that person and hence has to deny or waitlist somebody else who is less strong but who is far more likely to matriculate at UCLA. A school like UCLA knows full well that a lot of very strong students who are applying will probably end up going to one of the higher-ranked schools. So if you have strong reason to think that somebody isn't coming, then there's no point in admitting that person. Offer the spot to somebody who might actually take it. </p>

<p>The kicker, of course, is that you never really know for sure whether somebody is coming or not. True. On the other hand, you can make some good educated guesses. A guy who is valedictorian with perfect test scores, wins the Math Olympiad, and has award after award after award and a laundry list of unbelievable EC's is probably going to end up going to HYPSMC. Or perhaps more explicitly, let's say you already know a guy has been admitted to Harvard EA. Let's face it. The majority of people are going to choose Harvard over UCLA. So UCLA knows that the chances of landing a guy who has been admitted to Harvard are not good. The chances are not zero, but the odds are clearly not in UCLA's favor. And since UCLA has only a limited number of seats to hand out, it may make perfect sense for UCLA to reject this person and hence offer the seat to somebody else who they actually think they have a decent chance to get. {I don't want anybody to say that they know some rare person who turned down Harvard for UCLA - we're talking about what the majority of people would do, and I think we would all agree that the majority of people would not turn down Harvard for UCLA}.</p>

24

<p>While your argument is convincing in theory, in real life I simply don't see Tuft's syndrome happening very often. Look at the overachievers on this site and others and try to find people who get accepted to Harvard and rejected by UCSB. Tuft's syndrome is an extremely rare occurance (though perhaps it should not be, because in theory, you're right). But most of the time the student with stats much higher than the school average isn't going to be rejected; they'll be offered a big scholarship.</p>

<p>With the frontline thing in question, I think it's mostly the work of an adcom showing off. "We're going to accept someone with very low scores, and reject someone with very high scores. See? We look at more than scores." The comment she makes is "Maybe he'd be happier at UC Irvine". Does that really sound like Tuft's Syndrome?</p>

25

<p>I know a kid who picked Berkeley over Princeton. I know that if I got into top UCs and top private schools, it'd be a hard choice (especially if I got scholarships, like BigBrother just said). So I'm hoping UCs don't do the Tufts syndrome thing!</p>

26

<p>Is that thing real???? Do they really say stuff like that, is that really the way that applications are presented to the berkeley admissions committee?</p>

27

<p>Nah masha, in reality it's a lot more complex.</p>

28

<p>damn lol. I wish it was like that!</p>

29

<p>I can see choosing Berkeley over Princeton if you live in California and want to be close to home. For me, it's just too soon to be THAT far away from home. It's undergrad, anyway. In 4 years' time, the umbillical cord will probably be cut.</p>

30

<p>damnnnnnn berkeley accepts people with 800s on their SAT!! I'm sure the student had significant life challenge which he/she overcame marvelously. But how the heck are they gonna be able to keep up w/ their classes at Berkeley?</p>

31

<p>Relax paul, pretty much anyone actually at Berkeley with under 1000 is going to be too busy on the football field to care about classes. Those weren't actual decisions.</p>

32

<p>Hey, bigbrother, I'm not saying that Tuft's syndrome is particularly common. I'm saying that in the cases that it does happen, I think there is often times a very good reason for it. It's not just to manipulate the yield rankings as some people have stated. There is a legitimate administrative reason for adcoms to reject candidates that are so strong that the adcoms don't think those students are seriously thinking about coming.</p>

33

<p>Yeah, but I would bet that happens much, much more often for reasons like sloppy application and bad essays rather than being overqualified.</p>

34

<p>Hey Sakky, Berkeley's rejection of overqualified candidates reminds me of an interesting documentary I saw on 60 minutes. Apparently, the police department rejects applicants who score too high on the policeman's aptitude test. One person scored well above the mean and his application was denied. When they investigated it further, they found out that all people who scored above a certain limit were rejected. This also happens when people apply for jobs as a prison guard and as a fireman. </p>

<p>Strangely enough, in some professions like being a policeman, a fireman, or a prison guard, too much intelligence can be a DETRIMENT. Maybe they need to draw upon their more basic, arenaline-type instincts rather than depend on analytical skills when they are on the job. </p>

<p>So what does this 60 minutes study imply about schools like Berkeley? I'd say that when Berkeley rejects stellar applicants, they are creating an atmosphere where TOO MUCH intelligence is simply not appreciated. It's better to be average rather than to strive to reach the top. Maybe this explains why many of the students at Berkeley are so lazy, and why they hate that "overachieving" university across the Bay. People who score too high and succeed too well are the enemy.</p>

35

<p>I would argue that 'Tufts Syndrome' (or whatever you want to call it) is nothing more than an extension of the old notion of being overqualified. Let's face it, there is such a thing as being overqualified for a job. For example, let's say you're running a company and you need to hire a basic low-level computer tech guy, and some dude with a PhD in computer science from MIT applies for the job. That guy is clearly clearly better than anybody else you could ever hire. But that's not the point. A legitimate question you have to ask is why is a guy who is this strong applying for such a low-level job, and how serious is he in taking the job? The guy might be taking the job just as a temporary bivuoac, while waiting to get the high-level job that he really wants, at which point he will quit, and that leaves you the problem of having the fill the position again. Or if he does take the job, there is the significant possibility that he will quickly become disgruntled as he realizes that it's simply too low-level for him. The point is that there is clearly a mismatch, and you may ultimately be hurt by hiring this guy. It's not a question of whether the guy has the skills to do the job, it's now a question of, for a guy that is that strong, what exactly is his motivation to do the job. </p>

<p>Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that Berkeley is like a low-level job. It's just an analogy. Yet it serves to illustrate the point. There is an institutional interest in every organization in not bringing in people who you have reason to believe don't really want to be there. In that analogy above, if you make an office to that guy, then you have to wait for him to accept the offer, and during that time, somebody else who you could have hired instead might end up getting a job elsewhere, and so you've lost both candidates. Or, if he does come on board, he may start thinking that the job is too low for him and start becoming publicly and loudly disgruntled and basically become societal poison in the office. Similarly, if Berkeley admits a student who is too strong, then you have to waitlist another student and ultimately you might end up losing both students. Or if that strong student does come, he may eventually start thinking that he's just too good for Berkeley and he should have gone to another school, and basically spend the next 4 years in Berkeley as a disgruntled student and a negative influence on campus.</p>

36

<p>You keep repeating the same points and nobody seems to be disagreeing with your theories. But in practice, Berkeley just doesn't appear to actually reject people on the grounds of being overqualified, and neither does any other school, even Tufts.</p>

37

<p>Also your analogy fails because schools and workplaces have different goals. Workplaces simply want the job done best. Doesn't matter who does it, what matters is the result. </p>

<p>In colleges, the "who" does matter. That's why colleges brag about NM scholars etc, because they are trying to give the impression of a smart student body. So Berkeley, like every other college on the planet, does have the goal of increasing the image of its student body. And thus I doubt that Berkeley, a school that can and does win admit battles with any school in the nation, will want to risk losing any possible genius it can have a chance at nabbing.</p>

38

<p>Actually, I'd have to say that UCLA does this a lot more than Berkeley does. Berkeley doesn't reject highly qualified applicants as much as UCLA does.</p>

39

<p>ubermensch : Here's some change. Go buy some food. Take care and dress warm.</p>

40

<p>Well I hate to agree with someone like you, but in this case I do. In my experience, UCLA admissions seems to both reject higher than average students and accept below average students more often than Berkeley.</p>