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

<p>Berkeley has a student class of 3500 freshman, and there are 875 people with 1500+ on their SAT. </p>

<p>About 250 National Merit Scholars. These numbers dwarf every ivy league, except Harvard in certain years. </p>

<p>Now if Berkeley all of a sudden only let in 1500 students, our stats will be as good as MIT/Harvard in SAT average (But still better in HS GPA and Class Ranking) but that means our school would be like everyone else's.</p>

<p>Berkeley, UCSF, UCLA, UCSD, UCI, UCR, etc... all have a responsibility to the people of California. And the public. And helping poor people. </p>

<p>If having this mission in life will lower our US News ranking, then so be it. Our ranking is still #1 and #2 on two very respected rankings. And the consensus among academics and university officials is that THES and NRC rankings especially are the most respectable rankings. </p>

<p>So we will always have a pro egalitarian policy. And thats not gonna change.</p>

<p>Well, actually Bigbrother, there's a certain school which shall remain unnamed but which is pretty closeby to which Berkeley rarely wins against when it comes to competing for HS seniors.</p>

<p>And while obviously schools and workplaces differ, because no analogy is perfect (after all, if it was a perfect analogy, it wouldn't be an analogy anymore, it would just be the original situation itself), I believe it is directly applicable in the sense that both institutions are striving to advance themselves. Giving an admission offer or a job offer to somebody who isn't going to accept it doesn't help the institution. That's why the NM scholar thing is not directly applicable. You can only count NM scholars who actually decide to matriculate. If Berkeley happens to know that a particular NM scholar is going to that closeby school, then Berkeley gains nothing by admitting that person. </p>

<p>The real question is then how do you make your school more attractive in the first place, such that more of the superstars will decide to matriculate? But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.</p>

<p>Here's a question for your theoretical world: Being that <em>nobody</em> can be guaranteed acceptance by a school like Stanford these days, how can Berkeley avoid rejecting highly qualified people (with the mindset that Stanford will steal them) only to find out that Stanford rejects them too? </p>

<p>Anyway, in this world, Cal doesn't win the majority of those Stanford admits, but it wins enough of them to make it a worthwhile cost. What's my evidence for this? That 95% of Stanford admits are also Berkeley admits.</p>

<p>BigBother has it right about athletes comprising most of the circa-800 SAT scores at Cal.</p>

<p>There are some overbroad generalizations being bandied about here as if they were Gospel truth and they aren't. A couple of nits: Stanford will win more battles than Cal in head to head competitions among students offered both but it is by no means unanimous. </p>

<p>Cal and UCLA admissions are both "fuzzy" and you will drive yourself nuts to no avail trying to figure out why a student was admitted to one and not the other or vice-versa. The two adcoms do <em>not</em> compare notes and there is not a policy of admitted to one, not admitted to the other.</p>

<p>Big Brother is wrong, however, about UCLA accepting more "below average" students (according to scores/GPA) than Cal. Cal does quite a bit more social engineering and has caught flack on the UC Board of Regents for doing so; similarly, UCLA does more than UCSD.</p>

<p>"What's my evidence for this? That 95% of Stanford admits are also Berkeley admits."</p>

<p>Doubtful considering that 50% of Stanford admits are out of state, and therefore many of them probably didn't apply to Berkeley.</p>

<p>I don't think it's always social engineering in UCLA's case. I've seen minorities with high stats get rejected from UCLA, and white kids with low stats get accepted. But that's just what I've seen. But I still don't think it's Tuft's syndrome. There was an official link somewhere on this site about Berkeley's exactly admissions process...rank the apps, put them in piles, etc. There was no step "reject overqualifed applicants".</p>

<p>samwise, I was referring to California students who applied to both. Replace "are also" with "would also be" if that makes you feel better.</p>

<p>Bigbrother, since you want to debate on the theoretical world, I think you would have to concede that if, again, in the theoretical world, it was true that you (somehow, say, magically) knew that a guy was going to Stanford, what incentive does Berkeley have to admit that person? </p>

<p>Now, taking it back to the real world, of course nobody can ever know for sure. But you can make educated guesses. And again, I would emphasize that handing out admissions slots is not a costless maneuver. The more admission seats you hand out to candidates who are so strong that they probably won't be coming, the less you have available to hand out to candidates who are less strong, but are more likely to come. At some point, you then need to make the tradeoff - how many seats should I allot to the very strong candidates, but who are likely to go elsewhere, versus how many seats should I allot to the less strong candidates. Again, the emphasis is that there is a real-world tradeoff here. </p>

<p>In the theoretical world, you could always figure out who really does consider your school to be first-choice, and who may consider your school to be second choice, but then won't get admitted to their first choice, and so forth, and then you could apportion your seats accordingly. In the real world, it comes down to percentages and likelihoods. Obviously you can never know if a particular individual smoker is going to suffer poor health, but you have enough statistical data to indicate that, in general, smoking causes bad health. Similarly, Berkeley has reams and reams of historical data that indicates that certain candidates with certain high qualifications are unlikely to attend. At some point, the benefits of providing seats to those strong candidates who are unlikely to attend exceed the costs of rejecting/wait-listing those less-strong candidates who are more likely to attend.</p>

<p>I repeat (again!): I'm not arguing with that! I agree with that (mostly). If the adcoms were all masters of game theory, they would probably come to similar conclusions to yours. </p>

<p>What I'm saying is that in the real world, it just doesn't happen. I'm not arguing that Berkeley <em>should</em> offer admissions to a 1600/4.0/800/800/800 football captain with a Nobel prize. But I am saying that in the real world, Berkeley <em>would</em> admit that guy. And so would ever other college out there.</p>

<p>Also, colleges are going to try to increase their chances at getting a student like that with scholarships. If Berkeley were to offer a student a full-scholarship and Harvard were to offer them no financial aid, Berkeley's chances at the student are much higher than before.</p>

<p>The most logical thing to me would be to accept all over-qualified candidates and just presume that only 5% will attend. That way they can still admit people who really want to come. After all, it's not like there are millions of over-qualified people out there. </p>

<p>The only thing that would happen is that the acceptance rate will go up. But who cares about acceptance rate when you can actually make the student body better? I'd rather have a 50% accept rate and a strong student body instead of a 25 percent admit rate with a weaker student body. Hmmmmm....that sounds a lot like UChicago vs. Berkeley.</p>

<p>wow, maybe all of this can be chalked up to the fact that cal has many restrictions on whom it can give preference to while private schools can d owhatever they want</p>

<p>No, Bigbrother, you admitted it yourself, not every college would admit that sort of superstar that you described. At the very least, Tufts might not. That is, after all, why it's called "Tufts" Syndrome. And you have also conceded to ubermensch that UCLA might not either. Would Berkeley? That's unclear. But there are at least some schools that won't. </p>

<p>And since you've played the 'scholarship' card, I feel entitled to do the same. Other elite schools, most notably, Caltech, are highly explicit in their use of merit scholarships to attract top students. Happened to 2 guys I know - they ended up paying far less to attend Caltech than Berkeley despite being California state residents. Furthermore, the notion of the Ivies, MIT, and Stanford being truly 'merit-scholarship' free is generally a misnomer unless you really are honest-to-God rich, in which you don't care anyway. Those schools are well known for being highly aggressive when it comes to shifting financial aid packages from loans/work-study to grants, such that it basically becomes merit-aid. They're not going to call it merit-aid, but that's what it effectively is. Consider the following quote on their 'under-the-table awards'</p>

<p>""Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth and Williams don't give merit-based awards.... Well, at least I wasn't one of the few under-the-table recipients," said a Trinity junior and scholarship winner who did not wish to be identified. </p>

<p>These "under-the-table" awards often come through increased research opportunities or "the tweaking of financial aid packages," said Guttentag. He added that Harvard has such a program, which gives students "less loan, and more grant," in their financial aid offers. </p>

<p>"They don't call it merit scholarships, but in a sense it is the same thing," said Melissa Malouf, director of Duke's Office of Undergraduate Scholars and Fellows. "They are going after the same students that we are." </p>

<p>The Harvard University financial aid web site states that the school does not adjust awards solely to compete with other universities. </p>

<p>"But, of course," the site reads, "we would be happy to review your award and perhaps make an adjustment if your financial situation or new information warrants it. We hope you will call to give us an opportunity to review your situation." </p>

<p>Stanford admitted that under such circumstances, financial aid awards can be reviewed to compete for students. "We will always be willing to review an application.... If there are no changes in the needs analysis, we don't change a package unless it is to add additional loan," said Hartley. </p>

<p>Berg, the President's Research Fellowship winner, went so far as to refer to Harvard's financial aid as a merit scholarship itself. "The schools that also attract the most truly outstanding students are not Stanford, Cornell, etc... but the ones that offer similar scholarships like Harvard's need-based aid. It's well known that they give much higher amounts to super-high achievers...." he wrote in an e-mail. "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.duke.edu/web/abduke/archive/Chronicle09-10-99MeritScholarships.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.duke.edu/web/abduke/archive/Chronicle09-10-99MeritScholarships.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, again, if you are clearly super-rich to not be able to get any aid, then you won't be eligible for these under-the-table awards. But again, if you really are super-rich, then you probably don't really care about aid anyway.</p>

<p>Finally, I would argue that you're not really necessarily making the student body better by just admitting lots of the superstars. In fact, you might be making it worse. That's why I emphasized the point that those who end up paying are those less-strong students who end up denied or wait-listed because you have extended an offer to a superstar. True, that superstar probably isn't going to take your offer, but the fact that there is a slight chance that he might means that you have to hold the spot open for him until he declines the offer, and then (and only then) will you be able to offer the spot to that other candidate, and by that time, that candidate may have already committed elsewhere. So you end up losing both candidates. So Berkeley either ends up with a smaller entering student body (which might be a good thing, but I digress) or has to go even further down the wait-list to the more marginal candidates before finding one that will come. </p>

<p>The point is, it's the case of a bird in the hand versus 2 birds in the bush. You can extend an offer to a 'sure-thing' candidate who is good, but perhaps not great. Or you can try to get the great candidate, but then risk not getting anything at all. </p>

<p>Like I said, the REAL issue at hand is why is it that those superstar candidates prefer to go somewhere else. If Berkeley can fix that (and I'm not holding my breath), then this whole problem becomes moot.</p>

<p>I admitted that UCLA might reject the student, but not because of Tufts syndrome, but because from what I've seen of UCLA admissions, it's very unpredictable. But just because they might reject them doesn't mean they will, in fact, they almost certainly will accept the 1600/etc. person. If they had Tufts syndrome policies in place, then we could assume that they almost certainly would reject that person, who is unlikely to matriculate at UCLA. But that's just not how it goes, and that's why I think Tufts syndrome, even at Tufts, is not a common practice, and is probably more due to sloppy essays and lack of enthusiasm than being overqualified.</p>

<p>Yes, I already knew the stuff about the elites and merit aid.</p>

<p>I was arguing that schools usually can offset your pure Tufts syndrome thoeries. If an academic superstar gets into MIT and the University of Wyoming, MIT almost certainly is going to get that student. But if Wyoming offers them a full scholarship, suddenly they've got a much better chance at the student. They're probably still not going to get him, but they've improved their odds. That's all I was arguing: that schools have tools like aid, honors colleges, perks which can make their odds worrthwhile at an overqualified student.</p>

<p>Your evidence that the elites can also play the merit game is only evidence that they can offset Tufts Syndrome too. And why wouldn't they? The only school that <em>always</em> knows that it's going to have the best statisical chances with matriculating a student is Harvard. </p>

<p>What would you think about the UCs enacting ED/EA policies? Seems to me that that's the best way to get the best people who really want to go.</p>

<p>Well, I would argue that clearly the best long-term way to offset Tufts syndrome is to simply become a better school, such that more people really would prefer your school as their first choice, or at least, will think of you higher on their preferred list of schools. Again, I would point to the examples of Stanford and MIT. It really wasn't that long ago when both of these schools were basically regional backwater schools of little prestige and little consequence. Now they are undisputed members of the elite cream, and are in fact the true first choice of many students (not as much as Harvard is, but they're still a lot more highly regarded than they were in the past). Heck, even 100 years ago, Harvard would often times get beaten out by Ox-bridge. Now, not so. As your school gets better, your school will become a more highly regarded destination. </p>

<p>However, the point stands that something called 'Tufts Syndrome' exists at least in theory, and probably in practice. We can debate how much of it occurs and who is doing it, but I think we can all agree that, first of all, it can occur and, second of all, that there is nothing inherently wrong or insidious with it. Your discussion about how schools can use merit awards and/or grants is all true, but only confirms the fact that Tufts Syndrome can and does exist. Why counteract anything with money if there's nothing to counteract? The point is while lower-level schools have tools at their disposal to land star students, that's only a tacit admission that without those tools, they are probably not going to land such students. Hence if one of these lower-tier schools for some reason elected not to use these tools, or don't have these tools at their disposal, then at some point (determined by just how strong a particular student is) there is no point in admitting a truly strong student. </p>

<p>So while I think we all agree that the best long-term strategy is to simply make your school better, the question then becomes how do you get there from here. You talk about ED/EA techniques, and that might help. Merit scholarships are obviously another way, although in the case of Berkeley, they should be true merit scholarships (not like the extant Regent/Chancellor scholarships where the amount of the award is based on your family's income - they should be true merit awards with a fixed amount of money regardless of how much money your family makes). Or how about a true 'honors college', with guaranteed 'honors housing'. Again, not like the present-state guarantee of some sort of campus housing available through the Reg/Chanc Scholarships, yet that housing could be at any of the dorms, I'm talking about taking one of the nicer dorms like Foothill or a dorm with a primo location like Unit3 and converting it into an exclusive honors dorm (or maybe not the whole dorm, just a part of the dorm, depending on how many honors students you're talking about). Or how about preapproval to enter any major you want, including the impacted ones like EECS or bus-ad, without having to undergo the full transfer process? How about Telebears priority and/or seminars available only to honors students? How about a private and exclusive office, say, in the MLK student center, open only to honors students, where each student has his/her own locker, own desk, own mail folder (where he can receive letters and packages), and other amenities?</p>

<p>First of all, to head off any objections, let me say that I am taking a lot of these ideas from other honors program at public universities, most notably the Honors Programs at UCLA and at the University of Michigan. </p>

<p>I would also argue that EECS at Berkeley is, in effect, an 'honors program', in that if you are admitted into EECS, you have the freedom to go to any major you want (except bus-ad), but it's very difficult to get into Berkeley and transfer into EECS later. So in terms of the freedom to choose which major you want at Berkeley, EECS is basically a "de-facto honors program". Those who understand the Berkeley system well know that if you want maximum flexibility to choose your major, you apply through EECS. Unfortunately, most people don't understand that so they come into Berkeley as non-EECS students, then find that they want to do EECS but can't transfer over. </p>

<p>I'm also not saying that you have to use all, of even any of my ideas or that my ideas are the only good ones. I'm just throwing some ideas out there. I'm sure there are better ones. The point is not to sit here and debate specific ideas. What is really important are not the ideas themselves, but rather the climate to generate ideas. The Berkeley administration simply has to realize that consistently losing top students to the elite private schools is a bad thing, and should resolve to doing something about it. Once the administration has made up its mind that this is a bad thing and they are going to compete vigorously for the best students, then I am sure that many good ideas will flow. But the first thing for Berkeley to do is realize that there is a problem. I get the very strong feeling that the administration thinks everything is going fine and there is no need to do anything.</p>

<p>"We can debate how much of it occurs and who is doing it, but I think we can all agree that, first of all, it can occur and, second of all, that there is nothing inherently wrong or insidious with it. "</p>

<p>I'll agree with that, but I'm sticking to my point that in reality it's almost nonexistant. </p>

<p>"Your discussion about how schools can use merit awards and/or grants is all true, but only confirms the fact that Tufts Syndrome can and does exist. "</p>

<p>No, it only confirms the background of the theory. Not the "reject overqualified people" part.</p>

<p>I agree with the honors college. I know someone who went to UCLA instead of Cal because he got honors there. However, the people I saw got in were not really overqualified, like all other UCLA decisions it seemed kinda random. I agree about the merit scholarships too, the UCs ought to pump them up, though unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the appropriate time financially.</p>

<p>What would you think of letting in more out of staters?</p>

<p>Why would a student, who if accepted to Stanford, want to choose a Berkeley honor college? Stanford's dorms are nicer than Berkeley's and everyone at Stanford is already guaranteed housing for as many years as it takes to get a degree. I even heard that many dorms have empty rooms because housing is so plenteous. People at Stanford can pick basically whatever class they want to. They even have the luxury of shopping for classes for a few weeks. If they don't like the professor, or think the class is too boring, they can basically change their schedule right up until midterms start!</p>

<p>Everyone at schools like HYPS live better than the honors students at less prestigious schools. The financial aid is better, the bureaucracy is better, the campus is more luxurious, and the classroom environment is more academic. Also, having an honors program seems like it would promote a class system that divides the campus into the haves and the have-nots.</p>

<p>Ubermensch, do you love Stanford or are you <em>in love</em> with Stanford? Either way, community college boy, it's a school you don't go to and never will, so perhaps you should keep your useless comments to the Transfer Students board.</p>

<p>You are sadly mistaken you welfare-recieving, housing-project pell-granter. I graduated from UCLA, and never went to any community college? What were you smoking......your Stanford rejection letter?</p>

<p>I must be confusing you with another Stanford troll on this board who doesn't go there. I can understand spending your days trolling for a school if you have a semblance of a relation to it, but what good does it do a UCLA grad to talk about Stanford for 3 hours a day?</p>

<p>Well, ubermensch, to answer your specific question, this theoretical Berkeley honors college should be able to match all of things that you mention about Stanford. I would agree with you that the average Stanford dorm is nicer than the average Berkeley dorm, but we're not talking about the average Berkeley dorm here, we're talking about taking one of the best Berkeley dorms, sprucing that up, and making that into an honors dorm. I am fairly certain that such a thing would be at least the equal of the average Stanford dorm. Furthermore, the idea of guaranteed Stanford housing - Berkeley already does that under the aegis of its Reg/Chanc Scholarship program. So it's not anything that couldn't also be done easily within the honors program. And the idea of picking whatever classes you want - like I said, that same sort of privilege could be given to the Berkeley honors students through Telebears preferences or whatnot. Finally, the idea of dropping classes, that's a nonsequitur. Berkeley students right now have the option of freely dropping classes until the 8th week, which is basically past midterms. So it's the same thing. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I would point out that plenty of Phd students happily choose Berkeley over HYPS. Stanford routinely loses PhD applicants to Berkeley. Why is that, if Berkeley does not have the resources to offer a strong academic experience? The answer is that Berkeley has the resources to offer academic programs that are as strong as any other school in the country, including Stanford. When it comes to training new PhD's, Berkeley gives away nothing to Stanford. It's just that Berkeley does not have the willpower and desire to offer an elite undergraduate program. It's not about "can't". It's more about "don't want to". They have the means, they just don't have the will. </p>

<p>Yeah, to BigBrother, I think ultimately, Berkeley will have to look at admitting in many more out-of-staters. I think the California state residency should only be useful in getting a tuition subsidy, but should offer no advantage when it comes to admission. Again, I would appeal to how Berkeley runs its PhD admissions. The individual departments at Berkeley don't offer easier admissions to certain people just because they're from California. Ergo, they are able to compete for the best minds in the world, not just from the state.</p>