<p>If you look at the Naviance-like charts at the end of this document from one high school in southern California:
<a href=“http://www.pvphs.com/pdf/CollegeAcceptance.pdf[/url]”>http://www.pvphs.com/pdf/CollegeAcceptance.pdf</a>
it looks like USC is slightly less selective than Berkeley or UCLA, but the patterns look somewhat different. UCLA has the smallest “fuzz” zone when looking just at student GPA and test scores, while USC has the largest “fuzz” zone. This may indicate either large variations in selectivity by division or major, or heavier consideration of factors other than GPA and test scores, or both.</p>
<p>At schools where selectivity varies by division or major due to capacity limitations, enrolled students can change into the impacted division or major, but that typically requires a competitive admission process or at least a high GPA in the prerequisite courses in college, since spaces in the major are typically opened only through attrition.</p>
<p>Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. “If you are a student from the northeast attending Alabama, then you are a top of the class student with amazing scores” does not equate to “If you are a top of the class student with amazing scores from the northeast, then you are attending Alabama.”</p>
<p>I imagine that’s from a particular HS right uc? Interesting. One problem is that this is only one example of a sample. If you trusted USC’s own numbers, they are more selective than UCLA and very close to Berkeley. However, I don’t know if I should trust them. However, looking at this chart makes me once again, question the practices at the privates. It was interesting how one student got into Duke but not other less selective elites (like JHU). They must go based on what they define as “fit”. Someone w/a 1430 got into Berkeley and Duke, but not USC (this is the same person I think who didn’t gain admission to JHU). It’s very interesting and almost unpredictable to some degree. Perhaps at publics it’s more of a numbers game. </p>
<p>ucb: look at poor number 15 lol. Poor thing was near perfect numerically but didn’t gain admission to any privates that they applied to. Wonder what was their weakness (likely that they had no ECs).</p>
<p>Yes, it is from one particular high school.</p>
<h1>15 got into one private school, USC, as well as two public schools, UCLA and UCSD. Did not get into Berkeley or several super-selective private schools. No ECs listed at all. GPA might have been an issue if applying to one of the more popular engineering majors at Berkeley (which places higher weight on GPA than test scores).</h1>
<ul>
<li> University of Michigan (top 25 school; accepts around 33%)</li>
<li> Emory (has Oxford College of Emory which allows you to transfer into Emory)</li>
<li> NYU (has a general studies program that lets you transfer into CAS)</li>
<li> Rochester (strong academics, low yield – applying early would give a boost)</li>
<li> Georgia Tech (highly regarded – accepts around 40%)</li>
<li> Case Western (accepts around 40%)</li>
<li> Boston University (accepts around 40%)</li>
<li> UC system (accepts a sizeable amount of transfers from community colleges)</li>
<li> Wake Forest (SAT optional)</li>
<li> Maryland (accepts around 50%)</li>
<li> University of Wisconsin (accepts around 50%)</li>
</ul>
<p>I would say BigTen public schools like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Those schools are fairly easy to get in but are still very well regarded internationally.</p>
<p>I would definitely second Tulane, NYU and Wake Forest. The UC’s may be a little deceptive acceptance rate wise if you are not an instate. The same applies for my state flagship UNC.</p>
<p>Michigan’s overall acceptance rate for OOS students is probably around 25%, and for OOS applicants to engineering likely under 20%. Middle 50% ACT scores for OOS engineering freshman probably around 32-34, same as many top privates. By all means, apply; it’s a great engineering program and a great university. But it is not “fairly easy to get in.”</p>
<p>^^^ Re; post #66 & #69,
The OP is interested in mechanical engineering. I would definitely not recommend Tulane, NYU, Wake Forest, or Emory for that field. U Rochester is a good school overall but not particularly highly regarded in engineering. Better bets among private schools are BU and Case Western. Top publics in this field include UC Berkeley, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, Texas A&M, UCLA, UCSD. VaTech, Penn State, Ohio State, and U Washington (all top 25-ish in the field), but schools like Michigan State and NC State also have pretty good programs.</p>
<p>If you cant get prestigous, name recognition is a good substitute. Employers may not know much about schools like Amhurst or Bodoin, even though they have excelent rankings. They will recognize the University of X, where X is any state with a significant population.</p>
<p>Kenyon College is a top liberal arts college. 33 % acceptance rate, plus gorgeous architcture.
UT is another, top in the nation and not that hard to get into.</p>
<p>There’s a definite difference. But this is selectivity, engineering quality is another matter. I’m citing JHU and Duke as these schools were mentioned earlier in this thread.</p>
<p>Yes, I am speculating a bit. But the figures you cite are for Fall 2012. Here’s what we also know: for the Fall of 2013, undergraduate applications to Michigan jumped from 43,000 to 47,000. As a result, the university reduced its overall admit rate to 33%; that’s a known, published figure. I am speculating that the admit rates to Engineering and Ross (the business school) are lower than the university’s overall rate based on anecdotal reports, generally confirmed by admissions officers, that these are the most difficult undergraduate programs to gain admission to. </p>
<p>I am also speculating (because the university doesn’t supply the data) that admit rates for OOS applicants are well below those of in-state applicants, and therefore well below the figures published for the university as a whole. In published reports, the director of admissions has been quoted as saying that Michigan’s in-state admit rate is nearly 50%, based on a pool of only about 10,000 in-state applicants. (It’s not that they’ll let just any in-state applicant in, but the in-state applicant pool tends to be highly self-selecting because it’s generally known that you need to be an excellent student, probably in the top 10% of your class, to have any reasonable chance of admission, and GCs generally steer lower-performing in-state students toward other schools). If that number held this year (and Michigan’s pool of graduating HS seniors has been declining, not increasing), then most of the growth in applications was probably from OOS applicants, and the admit rate for OOS applicants must have been well bellow 33% to get a “blended” admit rate of 33%, combining in-state and OOS applicants.</p>
<p>It also stands to reason (though it is concededly only speculation) that the entering class stats for OOS students also skew higher, insofar as they’re coming out of a highly competitive applicant pool. You’re right that we don’t know the distribution of in-state v. OOS engineering freshmen, but if it’s anywhere near the overall university distribution of 60% in-state/40% OOS, and if I’m right that OOS stats tend to skew higher, perhaps especially in highly competitive programs like engineering, then it’s not an unreasonable assumption that OOS engineering freshmen in 2013 would have an ACT median of 33 (1 point higher than the 2012 figure for all engineering freshmen) and a middle 50% of somewhere around 32-34.</p>
<p>Speculation, certainly, but I’d say well-grounded speculation.</p>