<p>If i had average to below-average stats for UC Berkeley and did not receive a request for supplemental info does that mean a rejection?
I had a 2080 SAT I, 4.27 UC GPA, and some EC's. (It's crappy for Cal; I know)</p>
<p>It just seems my chances are zero after reading some of the old posts in cc that described ppl with stellar stats getting rejected!</p>
<p>no, only selected students receive questionnaires (<5%). Stop basing your chances off of some random guy posting his stats (credible or not) on an online forum. And for admissions I always believe some luck comes into play.</p>
<p>^^ agreed. That's only one case. If you didn't get the questionnaire, don't worry. You may have been rejected, but you may have been accepted.</p>
<p>dude, those are some pretty danm good stats man, don't worry. friends of mine last year got into Cal with a 4.1 UC GPAs and 1800 SATs.</p>
<p>People with "stellar stats" are rarely rejected from Berkeley. That's just not how the system is set up. The exception is: out-of-state students and people applying to super-selective engineering majors (e.g. EECS). Your stats aren't bad at all you have a decent shot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People with "stellar stats" are rarely rejected from Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd say that happens pretty often. Not nearly as much as at, say, Stanford or Harvard, but it still happens much more than "rarely."</p>
<p>I had a 2070 on SAT Reasoning, 4.14 UC GPA W, 790 Math 2, 770 Bio - Ecological, and I got in (spring admission though). Cal does not care too much for SATs. If you break 2000, you're SATs are by all means good enough.</p>
<p>^ That is because more weight is put on SAT IIs than SAT I.</p>
<p>Stellar, in this context, means higher than OP's.</p>
<p>there are alot of dumbass people who get into cal with lower stats than yours. alot of it is random, dont kill yourself</p>
<p>
[quote]
^ That is because more weight is put on SAT IIs than SAT I.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley rates "standardized test scores" to be "important." In addition, after having spoken to a representative about the matter (regarding the importance of SAT IIs), I was told the SAT IIs are not as important; this has been well-known. That's also why they're discussing eliminating SAT IIs but keeping the SAT I.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there are alot of dumbass people who get into cal with lower stats than yours.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't say "a lot." And that's on an absolute scale. In comparison to the majority, they are few.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley rates "standardized test scores" to be "important." In addition, after having spoken to a representative about the matter (regarding the importance of SAT IIs), I was told the SAT IIs are not as important; this has been well-known. That's also why they're discussing eliminating SAT IIs but keeping the SAT I.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As part of the rigorous training for becoming a CalSO counselor, in one of our training sessions concerning admissions the the Director of Admissions Walter Robinson indicated that more weight is put on SAT IIs, as they correlate more to the material learned in high school. This is backed by the fact that a study conducted by the UC found that SAT II was a better predictor of college performance than the SAT I.</p>
<p>
[quote]
in one of our training sessions concerning admissions the the Director of Admissions Walter Robinson indicated that more weight is put on SAT IIs, as they correlate more to the material learned in high school. This is backed by the fact that a study conducted by the UC found that SAT II was a better predictor of college performance than the SAT I.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm aware of the study -- yes, they found that SAT II was a better indicator than the SAT I, but they also found that GPA was much better than the SAT II.</p>
<p>And you don't see them attempting to eliminate the SAT I, do you? The SAT IIs are less important, and are thus up for elimination.</p>
<p>they will not eliminate either any time soon. the tests generate way too much revenue to just cut.</p>
<p>I wouldn't worry if I were you - I got 2060 SAT (34 ACT) & got regents from Berkeley this year. SAT II's weren't great either - 800, 730.</p>
<p>So don't worry! :)</p>
<p>why in the world would you even consider those scores being not great? 800 is perfect, and 730 is near it. 34 ACT is incredible, and the sat above 2000 is great. </p>
<p>i hope that's sarcasm...</p>
<p>^i didn't mean it to be sarcastic.</p>
<p>800 SAT II was in Korean, which is my home language & so many people get it =\ so i thought it really didn't count too much.</p>
<p>my SAT score, 2060, is lower than the post starter's so i thought i'd help reassure him that he shouldn't be worried.</p>
<p>My d received a 2270 on the SAT, scored 760 on both SAT II. National Merit Finalist. President of clubs, yada, yada. and we still have not heard a word either and we are in state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
they will not eliminate either any time soon. the tests generate way too much revenue to just cut.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Er, they generate way much revenue for the College Board, not UC Berkeley. That's like saying that Microsoft has no incentive to stop producing computers because Apple gets a lot of revenue.</p>
<p>To kyledavid80, the SAT Reasoning is the one that is less important, as it does not test anything taught in high school and as performance upon it is highly based on how many private SAT courses one has taken.</p>
<p>I have heard that increasing, increasing efforts are being taken to reduce the value of a high SAT Reasoning score.</p>
<p>The UCOP threatened a while about to get rid of the SAT Reasoning test from the UC application.</p>
<p>Achievement</a> Versus Aptitude Tests in College Admissions
SAT</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>