<p>*UCB-saftey
*</p>
<p>Berkeley is NOT a safety for anyone.</p>
<p>I wonder what UCB’s admissions percentage is for candidates with GPA and SAT scores above their 75th percentile. I would have been inclined to suspect that it was 80%+.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^ Its pretty much like a safety IMO, because the op is in-state and has stats that are way higher than the average AND UC’s DO NOT practice A.A. which means that the OP won’t be “hurt” by being Asian. OPs stats and in-state residence are enough to compensate for his Ecs. I don’t think the OPs EC’s are weak, I’d say they are just average for a college applicant. Having just “average” ECs will hurt the OP at elite schools, but I don’t think it will hurt the OP for UCB. I have friends from Cali who have gotten into UCB with weaker stats (2150 sat scores, and 3.8 unweighted/4.1 weighted), and similar ECs.</p>
<p>Who knows? I had 3.98/4.3+, 1550/800/800/780, in-state and I was still rejected from UCLA back when I applied (and that was when acceptance rates were 1/3 higher).</p>
<p>I once read an article from a newspaper that the most highly weighted factor for the admission to the flagship state school in our state (Texas) is the class rank and GPA. The importance of the standard test score is at the distant second. The ECs are relatively a small factor. This was a while ago though so it may not apply today. Arguably, it is fairer to the students who do not have access to the resources in order to build up their ECs since they were 4-5 year old. However, it may go too extreme on that direction IMO, as they (mainly the congressmen who control the funding of the public universities) may insist the rank-1 student from a non-competitive HS be treated the same as the rank-1 student from a competive HS.</p>
<p>NCG, I agree it could happen. Your posting reminds me that, in several years, the state university decides to use the academic merit, essays, as well as the LOTTERY SYSTEM, in order to decide who is in and who is out for one of their programs (I think it is some honor business program or something similar to that.)</p>
<p>The way it worked was:they select, say, 1000 students who are qualified according to their GPA/ranks (maybe essays as well if they have time to read them). Then, they randomly select 750 students to be admitted to that program. They may claim that they will have more diversified body of students for this program (maybe limit the number of “gunners” in this way.) This reminds me of the lottery system of immigration policy – They also use this to diversify the pool of the immigrants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m a little startled at this. Of course AA is illegal. I don’t think anybody really believes that the UC system is actually in compliance with the law on this matter.</p>
<p>EDIT: Of course, AA is illegal only in the public university system in California. Nationally it remains legal.</p>
<p>* Its pretty much like a safety IMO, because the op is in-state and has stats that are way higher than the average AND UC’s DO NOT practice A.A. *</p>
<p>I don’t think you understand how UC’s do their admittance. If you think that every in-state student with very high stats who applies to UCB gets accepted, then you’re wrong.</p>
<p>UCB and UCLA both reject instate kids with high stats. That’s because the UC’s count GPA more than test scores. That gives them flexibility. The UCs also have some leeway in their formulas to allow them to select some URMs that would not normally get in.</p>
<p>The UCs do not use a strict objective formula for admittance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^ Class Rank is the most important factor. You can have a 1200/2400, and a 2.3 gpa but as long as you are top 8-10 percent of your high school class you get in. I think the application needs to be more holistic taking into account ECs/SAT scores/GPA/LORs/Essays</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^ Wait I am a little confused, are you saying that even though A.A. is illegal in the U.C system, that they still practice A.A? I always assumed stoped practicing A.A. due to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke back in the 1970’s. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would rule on this issue. Why hasn’t there been a lawsuit that has reached the supreme court on this matter? (I am sure a lot of have been filed over the years)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^ I understand that gpa is more important then test scores at UCs, but even if you were to look at the OP’s EC’s/GPA/and test scores, the OP has extremely high chances at UCB. I would be incredibly surprised if the OP gets rejected from UCB. Like I said before, the OP’s ECs are considered “average”. Having stats that are higher than 90 percent of the kids at UCs will be more than enough to make-up for average ECs, average LORs, and average essays (I am just assuming the OP has average LORs and essays). Maybe those high stat kids that you are referring to got rejected because of bad LORs/Essays/ECs. What I was trying to say is that the OP’s chances are high enough where he can consider UC schools as safetys.</p>
<p>Bakke did not illegalize affirmative action. Nor did similar cases before the Supreme Court of the United States more recently, Grutter and Gratz. Affirmative action in public schools in higher education remains legal so far as the federal government is concerned.</p>
<p>These three cases establish that (1) schools may not use hard “quotas” in practicing affirmative action, and (2) an automatic, always-given, quantifiable “bonus” counts as a de facto quota and is also illegal. </p>
<p>(Justice Ginsburg’s dissent correctly argues that prong 2 is complete nonsense, by the way. Justice Souter agreed: “Equal protection cannot become an exercise in which the winners are the ones who hide the ball.”)</p>
<p>What you’re thinking of is California Proposition 209, which was passed by referendum and illegalizes affirmative action in California public universities.</p>
<hr>
<p>More importantly:
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>Seriously…</p>
<p>UC Berkeley is not a safety for anyone. It just isn’t. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that the OP will likely get rejected; I’m just saying that there is no certainty. </p>
<p>It can be a match, but not a safety. </p>
<p>If the UCs practiced an objective admissions formula, admittance might be assured, but they don’t. If they did, the schools would have even less diversity than they presently do.</p>
<p>And, yes, UCs do practice a method that really could be considered to be somewhat AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It all depends on your definition of safety. IMO, a safety is a 90% deal, i.e., 10% chance of getting rejected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Higher, actually. It was 85.6% last year. Since the OP is significantly above the 75th %, his/her chances are even better, assuming s/he is applying to Letters & Sciences. (The specialized schools, such as engineering & chemistry and theater can be different.)</p>
<p>But as norcalguy showed, there is a ~10% chance of not being admitted. Two years ago, UCLA flat out rejected a kid from our HS who was accepted at Stanford and WL’ed at Harvard. Cal rejected a kid who was offered a Regent’s Scholar at UCLA, and received merit money at Hopkins. But still, those two campuses were safeties (by my definition).</p>
<p>Now, if your definition of safety is 99.9% chance of admissions, they I guess the term ‘safety’ is limited to the local Cal State. :)</p>
<p>UCs have, over the past decade had a segment of their admits who were reviewed under holistic admissions standards, this is not true AA, but allows life experiences to be a part of the items considered.</p>
<p>I have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence of kids with say 1300/2100 & 4.0s rejected from UCLA/CAL over the past 10 years.</p>
<p>*It all depends on your definition of safety. IMO, a safety is a 90% deal, *</p>
<p>A safety really should be a school where you are assured that you’ll be accepted. Some people only have one safety, so if there is even a 10% chance of being rejected, that could still mean that you’ll end up with no schools. </p>
<p>It really is not reasonable to think that a school with a 22% admittance rate is a safety unless maybe you have those stats and are a male URM.</p>
<p>Percent applicants admitted: 22%</p>
<p>Now, if your definition of safety is 99.9% chance of admissions, they I guess the term ‘safety’ is limited to the local Cal State.</p>
<p>Not necessarily. </p>
<p>A safety can be a lower UC where you have guaranteed admissions because of class rank. </p>
<p>Even without guaranteed admittance…a school like UCR would certainly be a safety and a good pre-med choice if absolutely necessary.</p>
<p>Or, it can be a school like LMU, USD, or SFU (if you know that those schools are affordable). Santa Clara probably could be considered to be a safety with those stats. Any of these schools would likely give generous merit scholarships…especially SFU. SCU would likely give half tuition. </p>
<p>With those stats, a student could get assured big merit (free tuition or more) at various other schools as well. </p>
<p>So, this student could have several safeties. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course you’re right that that isn’t, in and of itself, affirmative action. Officially, the UC system doesn’t acknowledge any outright violations of 209, which prohibits
“preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin” in public universities.</p>
<p>But holistic admission can include affirmative action, and I don’t think there’s any serious doubt that it does in the case of the UC’s.</p>
<p>If M2CK wants a different term, we can call them “better bets” (my premed advisor’s preferred term).</p>
<p>On the other hand, in that case, I don’t think any applicant necessarily has to apply to any “safety” schools.</p>
<p>*But holistic admission can include affirmative action, and I don’t think there’s any serious doubt that it does in the case of the UC’s. *</p>
<p>Of course that is what the UCs do. If they didn’t, the schools would lose any suggestion of diversity. </p>
<p>If the UC’s went to a strict “test scores and GPA” formula, the UCs would fill up with students from upper-class and upper-middle class schools in San Diego, Orange County, LA, and San Francisco…and a high acceptance rate for students from private schools.</p>
<p>Using a holistic formula gives the wiggle room to admit kids that would not likely be admitted under an objective formula. That could also be contributing to the UC’s 5/6 year graduation rate. Some of these kids are not really ready to be in a UC and must start in sub 100 classes.</p>
<p>Nothing in 209 prohibits socioeconomic consideration, which the UCs do openly. 209 prohibits race-based affirmative action, which the UCs almost certainly also do (not openly).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m having trouble following the statistical logic. The FACT is that an applicant with the OP’s numbers has a better than 90% chance of acceptance at Cal and UCLA. (The numbers are available on UC Statfinder.)</p>
<p>The 22% acceptance rate is derived from the ease of the UC “common app”…anyone with $60 or a fee waiver an apply. </p>
<p>It’s kinda like HYP soliciting apps from unhooked good-but-not-great kids in good-but-not great high schools. Such kids have zero chance, not ~8%. OTOH, a 4.0/2250 has a higher chance than 8%; perhaps double (or triple) that AVERAGE number.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>If you want to take that risk for your child, then fine. :)</p>
<p>But, when my Asian niece applies to UCs next year with her high stats, I’m still going to tell her not to consider UCB as a safety because I don’t think 90%+ of high stats in-state Asians who apply to UCB get accepted…and even if they do, she could be in that 10%. UCI can be her safety…UCR can be her safety…other schools can be her safeties…UCB can be a match.</p>
<p>I plan on my hypothetical child being too smart to bother with college. (Now I just have to find some genius to marry.) :)</p>
<p>Let’s take bluebayou’s 86% (source?). Even applying to just two such schools (in this case, Berkeley and LA) would give you a 98% chance at admission. Toss San Diego into the mix and it’s basically 100%.</p>
<p>(I’m assuming independence. If anything I think it’s a little ROSIER than that, since I think some of the Berkeley and LA rejections are because they think the kid will go to some other school.)</p>