<p>Berkeley is not “all that selective?” Some of you private school elitists are a joke.</p>
<p>Say, someone from New York wants to major in economics. Would Berkeley be easy for him/her to get into? </p>
<p>Would it be easier for him to get onto the economics program at Berkeley than to, say, Emory?</p>
<p>What about for someone from Orange County, CA, (in-state) who wants to major in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS)? Would it be easier for him to get onto the EECS program at Berkeley than into, say, Vanderbilt University?</p>
<p>In the following thread created nearly 4 years ago, Papa Chicken ranked Berkeley at #26 in his selectivity ranking:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/687793-selectivity-ranking-national-us-lacs-combined-usnews-method.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/687793-selectivity-ranking-national-us-lacs-combined-usnews-method.html</a></p>
<p>I don’t know exactly where Berkeley would stand today if we recalculated using his formula. Here’s how Berkeley and Vanderbilt compare on each of his factors (plus GPA) according to the latest data posted by USNWR (admission data for Fall 2011):</p>
<p>School …Admit Rate … Average GPA … SAT CR … SAT M … HS top 10%
Vanderbilt … 16.4% … 3.8 … 680-770 … 700-780 … 89%
Berkeley … 21.6% … 3.7 … 600-720 … 650-770 … 98%</p>
<p>It may be misleading to compare GPA and HS rank across public v. private colleges, since the applicant pools are likely to be quite different. Vanderbilt draws from a more geographically diverse pool that presumably includes more private high school students. Based only on admit rate and test scores, Vanderbilt is somewhat more selective than Berkeley.</p>
<p>According to the stateuniversity.com ranking of SAT 75th percentile scores, Berkeley is 36th and Vanderbilt is 12th.</p>
<p>Anyway, the short answer to the original question is “Yes” (Berkeley appears to be one of the ~20-40 most selective schools in America).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think public data exists to answer such specific questions.</p>
<p>For perspective, compare Berkeley’s recent admit rates to historic Ivy League rates. The admit rate for Yale’s class of 1997 was 22.9% (higher than UCB’s 21.6% for F2011).
(Source: [Detailed</a> Data | Office of Institutional Research](<a href=“http://oir.yale.edu/detailed-data]Detailed”>http://oir.yale.edu/detailed-data))</p>
<p>I would put Berkeley somewhere between the 20-30 most selective schools. Some programs are obviously more selective, such as EECS. Williams and Berkeley are the two most selective public schools, IMO.</p>
<p>RML certainly poses a very important question. Due to having a different purpose, Cal simply looks at different factors than the top private schools. Looking at a SAT/GPA graph of the admits of Cal, one instantly notices that high school academic performance is by far the most important factor in admitting a candidate. There very few outliers once the unweighed GPA declines below 3.5. The rejection zone is relatively clean.</p>
<p>[Berkeley</a> - GPA and Test Scores Needed for Admission](<a href=“http://collegeapps.about.com/od/GPA-SAT-ACT-Graphs/ss/berkeley-admission-gpa-sat-act.htm]Berkeley”>UC Berkeley: Acceptance Rate, SAT/ACT Scores, GPA)</p>
<p>Now take a look at the graph for USC, a school often seen as comparable to the top UCs. Immediately, one notices that the acceptances/rejections are haphazard, with many people accepted well below the average GPA.</p>
<p>[USC</a> - The University of Southern California - GPA and Test Scores Needed for Admission](<a href=“http://collegeapps.about.com/od/GPA-SAT-ACT-Graphs/ss/usc-university-of-southern-california-admission-gpa-sat-act.htm]USC”>USC: Acceptance Rate, SAT/ACT Scores, GPA)</p>
<p>Now, finally, lets look at Harvard. The graph shows some similarities with USC’s. Acceptances do not depend as much on a strong GPA. Indeed, Harvard accepts a larger percent of under 3.5’s than Berkeley does. </p>
<p>[Harvard</a> University - GPA and Test Scores Needed for Admission](<a href=“http://collegeapps.about.com/od/GPA-SAT-ACT-Graphs/ss/harvard-admission-gpa-sat-act.htm]Harvard”>Harvard University: Acceptance Rate, SAT/ACT Scores, GPA) </p>
<p>The analysis:</p>
<p>-Berkeley immensely values high school performance
-Admission to Berkeley can be predicted with a higher degree of confidence
-Private schools are more unpredictable</p>
<p>Conclusion:
For a student who has done what he’s supposed to by performing well in class, there is a relatively high chance of being accepted to Berkeley and a smaller chance of being accepted to the top privates. For him, the top privates are more selective.</p>
<p>For a student who performs relatively poorly academically, there is a relatively higher chance of being accepted to privates and lower chance of getting accepted to Berkeley. For him, Berkeley is more selective than the top private schools.</p>
<p>Thanks for your post, tk, but I think your data for Berkeley aren’t updated. I don’t think Berkeley’s average GPA for admits is 3.7 (unweighted). It’s actually 3.89 (for in-state) and 3.91 (for OOS and International). The SAT’s CR is 620-760 not 600-720.
[Student</a> Profile | UC Berkeley Office of Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://admissions.berkeley.edu/studentprofile]Student”>Student Profile - Office of Undergraduate Admissions)</p>
<p>
Williams is a private school. The two most selective public schools are Berkeley and certain programs at Cornell which allow NY students to pay in state rates. </p>
<p>Also Berkeley’s percent admitted is artificially low when compared to the other top tier schools. Most students, even if they KNOW they’re not qualified, will check off that box on the UC app, and pay the money just in case they might get into Cal. There’s no additional essay as is the case with other private schools.</p>
<p>Haha, here we go again. Another BS thread started by the resident Cal fanboy. </p>
<p>Do we need an advance preview of how it will read for a few pages? </p>
<p>RML starts with an utterly disingenuous question. After polluting the boards with relentless boosterism and erroneous statistics for years, he now asks how … Selective Cal is! Seriously. </p>
<p>Next will come a few targets, if not Notre Dame, Rice, or Vanderbikt, it will be that pesky Chicago. With an asinine comment about how Chicago CDS look … If we can believe the omniscient Filipino gets to see the elusive CDS of Chicago! </p>
<p>Then we will see a few posts to defend the poor state universities that do not get the recognition some would like to see. Michigan and Alabama anyone? Oops, forgetting the Southern UC branch reps! </p>
<p>Then we will read again about misrepresented numbers such as 21 percent admissions and 99 percent rankings at Cal, ignoring how BOGUS those numbers are. TK, your numbers ARE wrong. Cal admits around 25 percent freshmen, and not 21 percent. Just as RML always does, you are looking at estimated or erroneous numbers.</p>
<p>And then we will move in the direction of SAT super scores versus one sitting scores … Without ever wondering how mythical those statements truly are. A lot more mythical than the fact than TWO THIRD of all applicants do find a seat in the UC system. And that thousands get annual admission offers via transfer admissions from JUCOs. Selective data to show a fabricated selectivity … How novel!</p>
<p>Except for a few twists and churns, that is how this thread will read. Yawner 342, it will be. The same filled to the brim thread with half truths, misrepresented numbers, veiled attacks on private schools, and the ever present ad hominem hurled at anyone who might correct the pompon weaving fanboys. </p>
<p>Did I miss anything?</p>
<p>Sorry, I misspoke. William and Mary and Berkeley. Although Umich is nearing.</p>
<p>Nope you seem to have covered it all!</p>
<p>Let’s just ignore xiggi’s post. He’s known as an anti Berkeley, Michigan, UVa poster. He’ll write anything to look those schools bad. Seriously. Him and Pizzagirl are much alike. They’re both anti-State Us.</p>
<p>RML, it matters not what any of us say about the Vandys and similar schools. You prefer Berkeley; others prefer smaller privates with more geographic diversity. It’s all good. Why can’t you be content with that? Why are your feelings so personally hurt that some people either don’t care for or don’t prefer Berkeley? Why is your self esteem so fragile?</p>
<p>You know, some people don’t like Northwestern. Shrug. Their problem, not mine, and I see no reason to convince them otherwise.</p>
<p>As others have constantly pointed out in other threads xiggi has posted in, we’re talking about Berkeley, not the entire UC System. </p>
<p>The purpose of the UC System is for public service. And 21% vs 25% does not make an analysis bogus. Yes, there are spring admits in significant numbers, but they wont affect the numbers to throw the analysis into bogus territory.</p>
<p>I find RML’s analysis to be far more complete and convincing than anything xiggi says. Pizzagirl is also generally prefers a qualitative analysis rather than using facts to support her views.</p>
<p>EECS is one of the most selective programs in the country, purple turn down many top 10 schools for it. Everyone in California tries to get above 2250 scores for Berkeley. Unfortunately, getting in is not as simple as u think. A recent graduate from my school got rejected from Berkeley with a 2260 and 4.5 gpa (but I’m not sure which school she applied to). </p>
<p>Sent from my SPH-D710 using CC</p>
<p>“But my school IS good! Is too! Besides, my wife’s family in Asia was impressed and they are the arbiters of prestige!”</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, you’re veering away from the topic of this thread again. Don’t be boorish, insulting… and stick to the topic if you want to contribute something substantive, okay? </p>
<p>Again, please read the thread’s topic and understand it well before you would even try posting nonsense again.</p>
<p>Fine. In general, Berkeley is not quite as selective as top privates. So what? As a state school, it has a different mission. A feature, not a bug. It’s still an excellent school, so why does it need constant “defending” and why does RML need constant reassurance? </p>
<p>Begging for Berkeley compliments on thread after thread is what’s boorish.</p>
<p>I really don’t see Pizzagirl as a basher of any school.</p>
<p>Not in this thread, but in many others she has been a feckless storyteller. </p>
<p>We need more analysts, and fewer raconteurs.</p>