<p>Wow, some of the people slamming Berkeley in this thread are absolutely ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that Berkeley ranks VERY high in chemistry and chemical engineering and has an excellent business program (it's no HYPS of course, but it gets the job done for anyone looking for the six figure salary). Berkeley is well known for the sciences and has brand-name recognition akin to that of many other top colleges. I don't attend Berkeley or live in California, but that doesn't mean I have to be completely ignorant of UCB's credentials. No one EVER said Berkeley's better than HYPS. All that was said/implied was that it should not be treated as a second rate school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact of the matter is that Berkeley ranks VERY high in chemistry and chemical engineering and has an excellent business program
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It ranks VERY high in more or less every discipline (I believe it ranked in the top 10 in 35 of its 36 grad programs in the NRC ranking, and top 10 in all of the ~65 programs measured by US News) -- which is why it does deserve credit. But again, I'm not claiming it's another HYPS -- nor do I see much of that at all.</p>
<p>I disagree with the people before me who say that you won't get into MIT because you don't have a very scientific background. </p>
<p>My opinion is that half the battle is convincing the admissions office that you can succeed in the institute requirements. They are designed such that there is always something that you struggle with- physics majors have to take biology, economics majors have to take chemistry, math majors have to take humanities- if you think you demonstrated in your application not only that you will be motivated in Sloan, but you can also work hard learning to think the way MIT wants you to think, you have a better chance than if you knew physics frontwards and backwards and inside out.</p>
<p>Good luck!</p>
<p>I didn't chance the OP because im not familiar with the Ivy League, and im not gonna give a BS assessment.</p>
<p>I was just expressing my opinion</p>
<p>She would rather go to Harvard, Yale, MIT, Wharton + Berkeley and UCLA have higher admissions rates = Berkely and UCLA are safeties </p>
<p>PERIOD</p>
<p>Regardless of what you guys think, they are safeties for her. Okay? If you can't get into any of the schools listed in this thread, then go to your bed and cry, stop whining on here. This is flutterfly_28's chance thread, not anyone else's. End of discussion.</p>
<p>You have a great chance for all of your choices OP. Don't worry. You should be able to get into one or two at least. Good luck.</p>
<p>
[quote]
She would rather go to Harvard, Yale, MIT, Wharton + Berkeley and UCLA have higher admissions rates = Berkely and UCLA are safeties
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Person X wants to go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford. MIT isn't his first choice. MIT has a higher admission rate. Therefore, MIT is a safety.</p>
<p>You clearly don't quite understand how safeties work. It has nothing to do with preference (that has more to do with backups, which aren't the same). To decide whether it is a safety, you look at your stats and see how they compare to the school's stats and such. Then, you decide whether they're a safety. A safety is defined at 90% and higher (as per College Board, counseling services, etc.).</p>
<p>Not to mention that acceptance rates have no bearing on selectivity. Chicago has about a 40% acceptance rate; does that mean it can be a safety? Or that it's less selective than Northwestern, or Michigan, or JHU? No.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Regardless of what you guys think, they are safeties for her.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We're stating our thoughts. That's the whole point of a chances thread, you see?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay? If you can't get into any of the schools listed in this thread, then go to your bed and cry, stop whining on here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Er, so now those who post in chances threads are obviously trying to get into those schools too? And that if you disagree with another's idea on chances, you are upset you can't get in? What kind of twisted (and stupid) logic is that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is flutterfly_28's chance thread, not anyone else's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said it wasn't flutterfly_28's? Nobody, to my knowledge.</p>
<p>oh my god. kyledavid80, we honestly don't care. go argue someplace else. you're the one who's making the personal attacks. nobody here wants to go to berkeley or ucla, so nobody gives a ****</p>
<p>Wow, you would make any excuse to keep on arguing. Alright, I'll help you spam.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To decide whether it is a safety, you look at your stats and see how they compare to the school's stats and such. Then, you decide whether they're a safety. A safety is defined at 90% and higher (as per College Board, counseling services, etc.).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sigh, I'm talking about the common perception of a safety. In that definition, a safety is a backup. If you applied to a school just in case you don't get accepted to your top choices and that school has a much higher admissions rate, then that is regarded as a safety. It is simply accepted that way. Your so called definition is nothing more than a suggestion of what a good safety should be. </p>
<p>How can you even know your exact chances of getting in? Okay, let’s say in the future there is a perfect “chancing machine.” Let's say that the OP has an 89% chance of getting into University of Connecticut, but a 91% chance of getting into NYU. Does that mean NYU is a safety while the U of C is not?</p>
<p>
[quote]
acceptance rates have no bearing on selectivity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you please define selectivity for me?</p>
<p>
[quote]
We're stating our thoughts. That's the whole point of a chances thread, you see?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, it's to state your thoughts. But, more specifically, it is to state your thoughts on the OP's situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So... Berkeley and UCLA were your safeties? </p>
<p>Aw, poor you, having to settle for Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read your own words. Is this what you're supposed to do in a chance thread? huh?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps you don't see it. To remind the OP of how lucky he is would maybe lead him to be more thankful for what he has -- rather than morosely "settling" for excellent universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>uuuuhhh, I’m pretty the OP knows that UCLA and Berkeley are very good colleges, you don’t have to sarcastically prod her like she’s a little kid. She wants to get into other colleges, understand???? Nothing you’ve said so far even slightly contributes to this thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a new member, you should read the terms of service regarding courtesy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look who’s talking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Er, so now those who post in chances threads are obviously trying to get into those schools too? And that if you disagree with another's idea on chances, you are upset you can't get in? What kind of twisted (and stupid) logic is that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What the **** does that mean? What chances is there to disagree with? In case you haven't noticed, you haven't chanced the OP at all. All you've done is tell the OP to shut up and settle for her safeties.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who said it wasn't flutterfly_28's? Nobody, to my knowledge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>uuuummm. She started this thread. She is the OP, so it's her thread…….she presented the topic, and that's the topic we're suppose to talk about. I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you to comprehend.</p>
<p>a safety is a school that you can go to if you don't get accepted to your other schools. and certainly this person can go to UCLA and berkeely if she doesn't get into other schools. Why? cuz she already got in. duh.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure that the most common definition of safety is a school where the kid's stats are above the 75%, and not the 90% score for the school. Maybe CB is more conservative, but I've seen Tokenadult and many other posters on here cite the 75% number.</p>
<p>
[quote]
kyledavid80, we honestly don't care.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you don't care, then don't post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you're the one who's making the personal attacks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As soon as you can point out exactly where and why, I'd be happy to respond.</p>
<p>
[quote]
nobody here wants to go to berkeley or ucla, so nobody gives a ****
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The OP applied, so I think she just might want to (not to mention she already said they're great schools).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sigh, I'm talking about the common perception of a safety. In that definition, a safety is a backup.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ad populum fallacy.</p>
<p>A "backup" is slightly different: it's one you've been accepted to and that you can fall back on. For example, if you applied EA to Caltech and were accepted, but you want to go to Stanford instead and you applied there RD, Caltech would be a backup. It wouldn't be a safety, though.</p>
<p>Yes, this is just a matter of semantics. But they're good distinctions to draw.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you applied to a school just in case you don't get accepted to your top choices and that school has a much higher admissions rate, then that is regarded as a safety.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. Again, selectivity and acceptance rate are not the same.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your so called definition is nothing more than a suggestion of what a good safety should be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's what all of this is: suggestions. I suggest that you not apply to only reaches; I suggest that you thoroughly investigate your schools before applying; I suggest you not use rankings to guide your choices. These are all suggestions, and generally good advice. Any admissions counselor worth his or her salt would not tell you that any school with such a low acceptance rate (nearing 20%) should be your safety; it's not safe enough. Sure, you can consider it such, but the whole point of a safety is for more certainty in admissions.</p>
<p>Prime example: Northwestern has a 27% acceptance rate, higher than Berkeley or UCLA. Does that mean that it should be your safety? No. It really shouldn't be -- it's far too selective for that. Simply because your higher choices have lower acceptance rates doesn't mean it's a safety.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Could you please define selectivity for me?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's the standard for admissions, not the acceptance rate. Chicago has a 40% acceptance rate; is it, therefore, less selective than Berkeley? Of course not. Chicago is known for having a very self-selective applicant pool. Stanford would have a 40% acceptance rate, too, if the right students applied. For the tippy-top privates, the applicant pools are very *un*self-selective. Half of Stanford's applicant pool, for example, is eliminated as "non-competitive" in the first reading.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Read your own words. Is this what you're supposed to do in a chance thread? huh?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I commented on his/her use of 'safety.' If a person were to get into MIT EA and were worried about getting into Harvard RD, and seemed morose about "settling" for MIT, you'd see quite a few posters saying, "Aw, poor you," and "Don't worry -- MIT is an excellent school!" and the like.</p>
<p>
[quote]
She wants to get into other colleges, understand????
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As has been stated multiple times, reminding her of the caliber of Berkeley and UCLA would perhaps make her feel better and less apprehensive about admissions to her top choices. This same thing happens all the time in threads on CC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look who’s talking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I haven't made any uncalled-for personal attacks ("inferiority complexes" and such).</p>
<p>
[quote]
In case you haven't noticed, you haven't chanced the OP at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have; please read more carefully ("Berkeley and UCLA were your safeties?" "your chances at your reaches are excellent").</p>
<p>
[quote]
She is the OP, so it's her thread…….she presented the topic, and that's the topic we're suppose to talk about.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You said, "This is flutterfly_28's chance thread, not anyone else's." I said, "Nobody said it wasn't." This was based on your illogical assumption that others chances are based on the fact that they cannot get in. I don't know why you added that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm pretty sure that the most common definition of safety is a school where the kid's stats are above the 75%, and not the 90% score for the school. Maybe CB is more conservative, but I've seen Tokenadult and many other posters on here cite the 75% number.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A 75% is far too precise IMO. Why? Because when you define by 10% increments, you have a 1-10 scale, which is reasonable. When when you go between them, you increase the scale twofold or even tenfold. Thus, it'd be 1-20, or 1-100 -- which, to me, is too precise to tell in the admissions game.</p>
<p>I think the other posters were just throwing a rough number out there, which is what chances generally are. Here is generally how I've seen counselors and organizations define reach/match/safety:</p>
<p>reach - <50% (where the odds are against you)
match - 70%
safety - 90%+</p>
<p>Thus, all the other terms that members use on these boards fit well between them:</p>
<p>10% - nearly impossible
20% - big reach
30% - reach
40% - reach
50% - slight reach
60% - high match
80% - safe match
100% - guaranteed</p>
<p>To flutterfly_28: if my message before wasn't clear, I'll clarify. You have an excellent chance at getting into your reaches. I was thoroughly disappointed with Stanford when you were rejected, while others with much lower SAT scores (but comparable ECs/awards) and URM status were accepted. (In fact, I lost a bit of respect for Stanford then, and I've always held Stanford in high regard--yes, even while I hold Berkeley in high regard too. =p) Despite that, I think you will get into at least one of your reaches.</p>
<p>Food for thought: Berkeley's overall yield is about 43%. The yield for the Regents' and Chancellor's scholarship recipients is almost exactly the same; why, you ask, would so many give up such a great scholarship? It's because those who receive Regents' are often the same type of students who get into tippy-top private schools.</p>
<p>Good luck. =)</p>
<p>haha, wow are you of all you guys debaters?
anyway thank you butterbattle and peach chardonnay :)
and kyledavid as well for being SO helpful! lol just kidding i know you're a good guy.</p>
<p>so i'm just going to cross my fingers and hope things work out, but either way I know I'll have a great college experience at an amazingly awesome school =)</p>