<p>Does anybody have the stats for the average GPA of admitted students for each major at CAL? I've been surfing the web but I can't seem to find them. The only thing I found was the % of admitted students for each department.</p>
<p>You are not going to find any GPA's for students admitted by major because CAL accepts students by departments within L&S.</p>
<p>Oops I thought you meant average GPA period, sorry I was no help.</p>
<p>"You are not going to find any GPA's for students admitted by major because CAL accepts students by departments within L&S."</p>
<p>Well, what about departments then? The average admitted gpa per department would still be useful.</p>
<p>"The average admitted gpa per department would still be useful."</p>
<p>This struck me as being funny. I do the same thing, go around looking for average GPAs in an attempt to predict my chances, but the last word I would use to describe this information is useful. It may make you feel good, or it may make you feel bad, but it's ultimately useless, meaningless information.</p>
<p>^^^ Lol, I do the same, and I have a 4.0, I don't know what exactly I am looking for.</p>
<p>What I also hate is how the admission officers talk about a "holistic" process of of reviewing the application. I mean come on, what exactly is "holistic"? Are ECs more important or grades. What about family background or personal statement? All the information the UCs give are completely useless.</p>
<p>After looking at that pdf file, I feel as if I should have gone to a CCC. Not only is it cheaper, the transfer admission is also easier.</p>
<p>Blargh.</p>
<p>"What I also hate is how the admission officers talk about a "holistic" process of of reviewing the application. I mean come on, what exactly is "holistic"? Are ECs more important or grades. What about family background or personal statement? All the information the UCs give are completely useless."</p>
<p>I wouldn't go that far. What they mean when they describe the review process as "holistic" is that your admissions decision is, at the very least, partially subjective. Everybody is different, and there is no way for you to know exactly what will make the school like you and what won't. Even the admissions officers can't know this with absolute certainty. This is why the average GPA of past admitted applicants ultimately has no meaning - it has no bearing whatsoever on your potential for admission. Especially since your GPA is essentially set in stone at this point, and you never actually have any control over your GPA assuming you're already working to your full capacity. You give it your best shot and you work with what you get, which is all that you can reasonably expect from yourself.</p>
<p>There's a dirty job I've done for all my life without
time-off called being me.
Though the hours are long and my pay is poor - I can't resign it's
all I'm qualified to be!
- Skyclad, A Well Beside the River</p>
<p>"I wouldn't go that far. What they mean when they describe the review process as "holistic" is that your admissions decision is, at the very least, partially subjective. Everybody is different, and there is no way for you to know exactly what will make the school like you and what won't. Even the admissions officers can't know this with absolute certainty. This is why the average GPA of past admitted applicants ultimately has no meaning - it has no bearing whatsoever on your potential for admission. Especially since your GPA is essentially set in stone at this point, and you never actually have any control over your GPA assuming you're already working to your full capacity. You give it your best shot and you work with what you get, which is all that you can reasonably expect from yourself."</p>
<p>The GPA for past admittance form a trend, and these trends can be useful for understanding the admissions process a bit better; also, I completely disagree with one's GPA being out of their control, unless they are burdened by some substantial fiscal issues forcing them to work, anyone can get a 4.0, especially at a CCC.</p>
<p>"The GPA for past admittance form a trend, and these trends can be useful for understanding the admissions process a bit better; also, I completely disagree with one's GPA being out of their control, unless they are burdened by some substantial fiscal issues forcing them to work, anyone can get a 4.0, especially at a CCC."</p>
<p>The GPA is one thing that the school looks at, and obviously some schools are going to prefer a higher GPA on average, but it doesn't benefit you the slightest bit to know what this GPA is. There is no way to use the average to accurately predict your chances of being accepted, so the only purpose it serves is an emotional one: it makes you feel good if you're above it and bad if you're below it. If your GPA is substantially lower then the average, it could indicate that applying wouldn't be worth it, but there's no way to know that for certain. And the averages for the UCs are similiar enough that an individual school's average isn't relevant.</p>
<p>"The GPA is one thing that the school looks at, and obviously some schools are going to prefer a higher GPA on average, but it doesn't benefit you the slightest bit to know what this GPA is. There is no way to use the average to accurately predict your chances of being accepted, so the only purpose it serves is an emotional one: it makes you feel good if you're above it and bad if you're below it. If your GPA is substantially lower then the average, it could indicate that applying wouldn't be worth it, but there's no way to know that for certain. And the averages for the UCs are similiar enough that an individual school's average isn't relevant."</p>
<p>I am not asserting that basing your entire opinion upon the GPA of a past accepted applicant is viable, what I said was that to know the trend GPA of accepted applicants can provide useful insight into the admissions process. And the average GPA at individual UCs vary greatly, even between UCB and UCLA there are differences; the UCs' admissions process is no way uniform.</p>
<p>"to know the trend GPA of accepted applicants can provide useful insight into the admissions process"</p>
<p>Well I guess that depends on how you define "useful insight". What you're trying to do is predict a probability based on a single aspect that carries an unpredictable amount of weight in a majorly subjective process. You can look at the numbers all you want if it makes you happy, but every year you're going to see people with relatively low GPAs get into Berkeley, people with relatively high GPAs get rejected, and people who get rejected from SB but accepted to Berkeley.</p>
<p>"but every year you're going to see people with relatively low GPAs get into Berkeley, people with relatively high GPAs get rejected, and people who get rejected from SB but accepted to Berkeley."</p>
<p>There must be good reason for the statistical deviants you brought up. Maybe the person with the low GPA was competing against 10 people for 11 spots. Or maybe he has Godly ECs. Likewise, the person with the high GPA may be applying to a competitive department( such as Hass ) and may end up competing with 99 people for 7 spots. </p>
<p>I'm just suggesting that admissions might be more predictable than you think.</p>