<p>TheBanker, you must be delusional if you think a 4.0 and 32 is “above the average” to get into UCLA/UCB/USC. Those stats are the CUT-OFF. Anything below that will get your application thrown out before they even bother with your essay or ECs. And for the record, UCLA is the least holistic UC of all. Remember that.</p>
<p>Agree with entries so far and here are a few others:</p>
<p>William & Mary, Rose Hulman, RPI, Rochester, Reed, Kenyon, Grinnell.</p>
<p>I think Americans hype prestige a lot - I think HYPSM type schools give a generally better undergraduate experience and a superior name in the world, but they aren’t your golden ticket anywhere. They are superior to certain schools, no doubt but I don’t think you should obsess that much, unless you like the OP are an international student. </p>
<p>OP, I am also an international applicant but I lived in the US. </p>
<p>Berkley, UCLA, NYU, UMich, the big state flagships have good names. McGill has a strong name in the world as well. John Hopkins acceptance rate is not that high, but certainly higher than the Ivys. Research output and professional school name greatly influences the reputation for a school, so I would look at schools who do well on that front.</p>
<p>@STheart, I’ve been through the college admissions process and fielded scholarships from these three schools, so I think I know what I’m talking about. You, on the other hand, are still in high school…</p>
<p>To clarify: OP is looking for schools that “punch above their weight”, so to speak. Essentially, schools whose reputations aren’t necessarily reflected in their difficulty to get into. UCB/UCLA are definitely on that list when you consider 1) there’s a single application to apply to all the UCs, and all it takes is an extra check (and the extra application fee) to apply to another UC, and 2) UCB/UCLA/USC all have tons of sports fans. THINK for a moment about how these two factors impact the number of applications they receive. </p>
<p>(By the way, my outlook on USC was really soured when I heard that a friend made a deal with someone he knows in the admissions office to get a guaranteed transfer into USC if he could maintain above a 3.5 GPA. Apparently this is pretty widespread there…I can’t imagine this happening at other top places, where large donations don’t necessarily translate into admit letters.)</p>
<p>STHeart: No, 4.0/32 is not a cut-off, especially at UCLA (don’t know about internationals, but in general, it isn’t). Among enrolled students: That score would be slightly beyond 75%:<br>
[AIM</a> | UCLA](<a href=“http://www.aim.ucla.edu/profiles/cds.aspx#cdsC]AIM”>http://www.aim.ucla.edu/profiles/cds.aspx#cdsC)</p>
<p>[Profile</a> of Admitted Freshmen, Fall 2012 - UCLA Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/adm_fr/Frosh_Prof12.htm]Profile”>http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/adm_fr/Frosh_Prof12.htm)</p>
<p>The above link even suggests that a 32 at UCLA is actually above the average for admits as well (75%, I don’t know).</p>
<p>At USC, 32 is a point below the admitted students 75% and the enrolled students 75%:
<a href=“http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/1213/USCFreshmanProfile2012.pdf[/url]”>http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/1213/USCFreshmanProfile2012.pdf</a></p>
<p>The same could be said for Berkeley’s enrolled students:<br>
<a href=“http://opa.berkeley.edu/statistics/cds/2012-2013.pdf[/url]”>http://opa.berkeley.edu/statistics/cds/2012-2013.pdf</a></p>
<p>Amongst admits, it’s average or slightly above. If the GPA is unweighted (even if weighted, as long as it’s between 3.7-4.0, the chances are okay), 4.0 is fine, it is not a cut off:</p>
<p>[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>Point is, these places are selective, but let’s not exaggerate. However, it is suggested that internationals applying to places like Berkeley need to be as good as the OOS students which are about 100 points higher on SAT than In-state student admits on average (GPA is between the 3, IS, OOS, Int. is only slightly different)</p>
<p>I would suggest my alma mater (Emory), but I don’t know if it’s prestigious enough for this person. It’s not hard to get into though and it’s really solid despite it’s issues.</p>
<p>@intparent
"OP - No one can really give you much advice without more info. Did you take the PSAT? What is your unweighted GPA? What can you afford? What state do you reside in? Do you have any geographic constraints? What do you think you want to major in? </p>
<p>Here is the thing about “prestigious universities” – most of them are hard to get into. That is why they are “prestigious”."</p>
<p>I don’t live in the US, I’m taking a scholarship to study there. I’m an international student.
I haven’t decided the state which I will be studying in. I haven’t taken anything belonging to SAT or SAT preparation but I prepared myself ( I bought and read the SAT prep books ).
My GPA ( from 4 ) is approximately 4.0.
And I want to major in Mechanical Engineering</p>
<p>@TomSrOfBoston
“OP: You posted on 1/10/2013 that you would be graduating high school in June, 2013 and you haven’t taken the SAT yet? Are you taking a gap year?”</p>
<p>Yes I am, my scholarship requires that I take a gap year.</p>
<p>@Mom2collegeKids</p>
<p>"I’m not sure if Cal is a good example. Are you instate? What are your stats?</p>
<p>When a school has a XX% acceptance rate, that doesn’t mean that YOU have that chance of acceptance. Some students may have a 90% chance, some may have 10% chance…depending on stats, residency, etc.</p>
<p>Prestigious schools aren’t going to have easy acceptance rates. Because they are “prestigious,” they get a gazillion apps.</p>
<p>I just saw that you’re an int’l, therefore acceptance rates really may not apply to you. Those rates are often for domestic students. I doubt Cal is accepting 20% of int’l apps. </p>
<p>Also, do you need FA? If so, that will make things even more complicated."</p>
<p>I mentioned berkeley as an example for what I meant, not because I said it’s easy to get in.
If you see the requirements and compared them to MIT for instance you’ll see that it’s UC berkeley is easier. I’m not saying that they’re easy to get into, I’m just saying that they’re not as hard as the others.</p>
<p>Anyways thank you guys for your help, If you have other useful information please inform me.
Thanks again :)</p>
<p>UC berkerly is easy to get in, may be the student ffrom CA know the chances and apply only the chance is high. That might make the accecpte rate is high.</p>
<p>Can you answer the question about financial aid? Because if you need it, it may not matter what is prestigious… plus, as others have pointed out, knowing that you are international changes the statistics on how hard it is to get accepted. So having that information is helpful.</p>
<p>The easiest “prestigious” universities to get into are the top state flagships, because they have a strong brand based on their research (UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UMich Ann, UWisconsin-Madison, UNC Chapel Hill). They have a big student population and compared to similarly prestigious private schools are significantly less selective, especially if you are an in state applicant. The top Canadian universities (McGill and Toronto) are also the same kind of mold of large public research intense, graduate school focused universities, so they can be added to that category of “easy” to get into prestigious universities. </p>
<p>It is worth mentioning though that the name brand of these flagship schools comes from their graduate research (and their graduate schools are correspondingly much more selective than their undergrads) so they may or may not really be significantly better for undergraduate education than less prestigious state schools. </p>
<p>That said if name brand prestige is really important for you and you don’t have an Ivy quality application the above schools can be a good choice for you, and for graduate school any of the above is always an excellent choice.</p>
<p>Never mind, if you want mechanical engineering, you should try one of those flagships (and maybe Georgia Tech, which is going to be excellent for it) anyway. You really wouldn’t want to go to any of the top privates (with exclusion of maybe 3 of them) for mechanical engineering (I mean, maybe if you value the so called “experience” of being at such schools over the education you’ll get in the applied sciences, then I guess…otherwise, not so much. They usually serve the other pre-professionals much better). Often these flagships and places like Georgia Tech kick butt in engineering, especially industrial, mechanical, and aerospace.</p>
<p>Hmm, if the OP’s query is asking about the easiest route to a prestigious school, here are a few ideas: </p>
<p>EA, and especially ED, rates are higher at a few schools. (Keep in mind that FA is important here and some of the numbers will be bloated by specialty admits.) </p>
<p>I recommend ED 1 or 2 at Emory (~40%), NYU (Stern), or Middlebury (41%). Other schools to consider: Brown (18%), Claremont McKenna (39%), W&M (47%, higher if you are male), Cornell (29%), Dartmouth (29%), Duke (29%), Johns Hopkins (36%), Northwestern (33%), Pomona (26%), Smith (56%), Vanderbilt (27%), and Wake Forest (42%). I am missing many. I think Michigan would be included in that list. </p>
<p>Do remember that EA is not always easier. Georgetown had a lower acceptance rate than RD. Because the applicant pool is stronger, SCEA admission at Harvard and Yale is not meaningfully easier than RD. </p>
<p>A second option is transferring. You could apply to Oxford at Emory and transfer. Or you could transfer to Columbia from Columbia GS or Barnard. Or transfer from a Californian school to UCB, USC, or UCLA, all of which have significant transfer populations. Vanderbilt, Emory, and Northwestern have transfer rates that, though still incredibly selective, are kinder than regular admission rates. </p>
<p>If the OP is just looking for the easiest, prestigious school to get into RD, then I would say Wake Forest, Michigan, Smith for girls, and W&M for males. </p>
<p>If the OP is looking for schools that fly under the radar with reasonable acceptance rates: CWRU, URochester, and Georgia Tech for STEM majors; Kenyon, Grinnell, Macalester, Hamilton, and Richmond for LACs; and Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin, and University of Washington for publics.</p>
<p>If you want to major in mechanical engineering, you should look at Michigan, Illinois, UCLA, Georgia Tech, etc. Most of the best schools for ME are public research U’s, along with a few elites like MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford.</p>
<p>The issue with Berkeley is that if you’re out of state, it’s ridiculously expensive, and they don’t offer any scholarships. UNC Chapel Hill might be worth of a look. USC also offers scholarships, but I doubt anyone, especially international employers, will view it as Berkeley’s equal. Of course, this all depends on how much you’re willing/able to pay/borrow.</p>
<p>Junior: The person wants to do Mechanical Engineering. Top Privates are not the best for everything. If you’re doing engineering, especially the 3 I mentioned, you should want to go to the best public schools. In addition, Public schools are usually on the leading edge of STEM education (it’s like the public schools innovate in that area first, mainly to figure out how to deal with their large class sizes, and then private schools follow slowly once they see it working) anyway. STEM courses may sometimes be harder at some top privates, but often the pedagogy is lacking (good science teachers at top privates are often known for giving good lectures, which a significant amount people don’t even learn from despite being “enamored” by the awesome lecture. Many top public schools have started big movements toward interactive, PBL, and inquiry based learning in large STEM courses). I mean, no need to advocate for finding easier ways to get into the top privates when you can probably get a better Natural, Science, Physical Science, or engineering education experience at the top publics. It isn’t as “cozy” (privates have smaller sections), but “cozy” isn’t always good. It would be like choosing a cozier, “more prestigious” school at the expense of a better education at a less cozy, but still prestigious institution. I’d have the cake and eat it too. Take the relatively high prestige (and sometimes lower costs) and the STEM education at these places and run.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks, bernie. 
In that case, Georgia Tech, Purdue, IUIC, Michigan, Penn State (apply in September), UCLA, Wisco, VT, UT, and UCSD are all excellent. </p>
<p>I’ll echo the comment that UCB is not very generous to internationals. Penn State is rather pricey for everyone. Not all of these schools are considered broadly prestigious, but for mechanical engineering they are all top-notch. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but it is a little tricky for internationals. Not many schools meet 100% need, and most of them are private. (I think UNC and UVa, which just reverted from its no-loan policy, are the only publics. I could be wrong.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MIT takes offense. 
Stanford might too.</p>
<p>No dis to the OP, but this is a pretty funny thread title, akin to “looking for a totally hot and wealthy spouse who isn’t picky about who they marry.” :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If only Carla Bruni was a college…</p>
<p>Stanford can kind of take offense, but not MIT. It does things very well, but other schools do do several things outside of engineering better. In addition, I’m sure that places like Tech and Berkeley may even outrank some of its engineering depts or be very close in rank. But honestly, at the undergraduate level, there are likely many places that do just as well as they do despite being larger. I feel like, unless you are inside of departments with smaller class sizes, the academic experience at many top privates (especially in STEM) is over-rated. They are good for things like pre-med (because of the support system and the fact that they essentially tailor their curriculum to pre-meds, especially intro. courses. They also tend to stick to more traditional methods of teaching and pedagogy which is usually friendlier to pre-meds). Even that can be questionable, as attrition in the sciences at selective institutions is apparently very high (I mean, the people that “survive” end up well-off for the most part, but good STEM education wouldn’t result in people merely trying to survive. They would also learn). At least MIT, like most other STEM dominant schools has moved forward. The other top privates (apparently Stanford is no exception) just throw you in a giant lecture hall and give you a difficult exam and maybe give you good lecturers (though I’ve seen exceptions and have heard of the same at other schools). Often the pedagogy doesn’t fit the level of mastery they expect on those exams at these places (Emory is trying to move away from it, but still…I don’t know if there will be success. Chemistry will try to do the SCALE UP model when the chem. building is finished. Biology has always been trying softcore interactive methods and some teachers do a partially case based course. Don’t know if it helps if only 1 intro. course is flipped). You’re expected to just master it based upon the fact that you are smarter than average. Never mind actually learning it in class and retaining the material. The system clearly favors the best test takers.</p>
<p>Helpful commentary, bernie. Thanks! And I am a pre-med at Georgetown, so wish me luck!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have enough experience to refute this (not many people do), but what is your comparison point for the top privates being over-rated? Compared to the price-point of public schools? Compared to the quality of public schools? </p>
<p>I think you are trying to make the point that faculty quality trumps class size, which is true in a sense, but I don’t think there’s reason to dismiss every private school as a viable option. </p>
<p>This is parsing one of the finer details, but some students find the grade inflation at top privates an appealing aspect. For instance, why is Brown called the happy Ivy? Because they have an open-curriculum and a 3.7 GPA average? Or because their professors do well in the NRC rankings?</p>
<p>As another example, Georgetown doesn’t curve its class grades. I almost went to UVa, where the number of As in STEM courses is capped at 33% or something similar. Which would you find more inviting? </p>
<p>Concerning the price-point of publics, full-pay for OOS at Berkeley isn’t much less than full-pay at Caltech. In-State full-pay at Penn State is ~30k, which isn’t much better than an average FA package at many top privates. </p>
<p>Of course 63k for a ME degree at GWU isn’t going to be attractive to anyone, but quite a few people would go for a general engineering degree at Harvard over an engineering degree at Wisco given a similar COA.</p>
<p>Btw, how was your experience at Emory?</p>
<p>Grade-inflation: That’s why I say that the privates are good for things like pre-med (and the pre-professionals in general). It’s part of the “support” I talk about. But if you’re actually trying to learn and push yourself beyond requirements and grades necessary to get into these programs (to be pre-prof. usually means to play it safe anyway, so unless the teacher or course is easy, the learning should and often does go to the backburner) and maybe develop a background necessary for a future scientist or something (I mean, there is a clear reason that some elite schools like Penn, Northwestern, and Princeton have started an Integrated Science Program targeting such students), you need teachers that use methods that actually encourage retention of information and better problem solving ability; and not just for the next exam coming up, but in general. Usually, active learning facilitates this better.<br>
As for Georgetown, they say they don’t curve, but if you come across any truly difficult course that is primarily exam based, they’ll curve (maybe Georgetown doesn’t design courses where averages dip to 50-70). They’ll likely curve much higher than places like Emory, Vandy, JHU, and the rest of the 3.3-3.4 average club.
[Georgetown</a> University](<a href=“http://www.gradeinflation.com/Georgetown.html]Georgetown”>Georgetown University)
I’m sure the upward trend hasn’t slowed.
As for Emory MY personal experience was awesome, but I realize that it doesn’t necessarily provide that experience to everyone, and nor does it really want to. The place is a heaven for pre-professionals, and in science pre-med. To make my pathway through academics and the science curriculum the norm would jeopardize the current system in which many pre-meds are successful. They’ll learn more, but get lower GPAs. Given that many schools like this have a baseline of traditional pre-profs., it’s hard to change. What you’ll find is that while the average experience could be much better in terms of education, hardly no student realizes that because the average pathway affords a lot of comfort and higher grades, even if they are mainly learning in the same modes as they did in high school. What’s ironic, is usually the better teachers (the ones that get higher ratings) are the ones doing it differently. These people are typically avoided though. Many classes that I took beyond, intro., for example, only had top pre-health students (including people who considered MD. PhDs) or pre-grad people, or “random” folks. In other words, these more difficult teachers tended to have more diverse students and that made it interesting on top of their non-traditional teaching style. I actually applaud Emory for finding so many science teachers that actually do alternative methods successfully. I’ve looked at syllabi at comparable schools for the same/similar courses, and it is a rare feat. My freshman orgo. class, for example, was PBL, Cell biology was a mixture of active learning methods (there were always case studies or presentations), organismal form and function (PBL), physical biology was PBL, Evolutionary Biology was PBL, Organometallic (PBL, same teacher as for orgo). Outside of my experience, I know that there is a full-blown CBL section of gen. biology that is actually popular (but it may partially because her exams are easier than the cases), and several more (The biochemistry 2 prof., who is new, uses CBL, and actually maintains high rigor). </p>
<p>So my academic experience at Emory was well above average (it was challenging in a good way and lesser so in a way where I was just trying to do well on exams), and because I did it that way, I managed to retain a lot more than many of my friends (I’m not pre-med and could help them with MCAT questions, for example, which would be really weird since they would have taken biology like a year ago and me 2-3, and now more). I would honestly recommend, despite the need to maintain a high GPA, for you to at least try a couple of science courses that are taught and/or test in a different style from your stereotypical pre-medical lecture course (if you could find them). They’ll improve your skills a lot and likely ready you for the MCAT passages. Organismal(and Evolutionary biology) for me was “data-based” exams where we were presented a dataset for each problem and told to make various conclusions and design experiments based on what we know. And Cell biology would present several abstracts and we would have to address various questions about them, mainly proposing our own molecular model for the phenomenon described, finding a way to test it, etc. They required lots of analysis, thought, and creativity not found in many science courses and is good for anyone who will take a GER subject test in biology (biochemistry and molecular cell in my case) or an MCAT. Sometimes, algorithmic learning isn’t good enough to do extremely well on these. </p>
<p>Best to expose yourself to something that extends beyond it before one starts prepping. Tt would probably suck to remotely know a bunch of content, but not know how to apply it. Then, as I normally see, you spend your time relearning content AND learning how to truly problem solve for the first time. The MCAT won’t be like a standard level bio, chem, physics, or orgo. test where the seemingly difficult problems just so happen to be similar to a problem you already did in the book or a p-set. It’ll be more like the profs. that teach at a higher level and throw numerous curveballs. You’ll need to more or less be able to go off of nothing or think/analyze “on the spot”. Such courses are help developing this ability early on. At Emory, many of these teachers also happened to write long questions (or pre-texts to questions) where you would have to decipher or sift through info. before addressing the questions. Though sometimes frustrating when you’re doing it, it builds skill as well (MCAT passages and experimental sections of the 2 GRE subject tests I mentioned call upon the ability to handle this). Many people love “straight-forward” (usually recall based) exams and then these standardized exams hit them and they cry “X class didn’t prep me or teach me this”. They honestly did it to themselves by not stepping outside the comfort zone just once and taking the one that would have prepped them for it (they likely thought it would be like the SAT/ACT over again). Don’t fall in the trap. Take mostly easy-medium courses, but take a risk at least once, preferably toward a course that could help you content wise as well as skill wise.</p>