<p>So most of you on CC probably know me as the guy that got into Cornell but not Berkeley. I've thought about college decisions this year, and it seems that the UC system, especially Berkeley, has been getting really really random. I don't want to sound cocky or anything, but it seems that Berkeley would rather have a student take one or two aps and get a 3.8 than have a student take 12 aps and get a 3.73. I thought that colleges would appreciate initiative, I've taken 32 units of college classes at a local jc. I even self studied a couple aps. Yet I was rejected from berkeley, and I had a 35 ACT score also, with a 800 lit and a 770 WH and a 740 BIO E SAT 2. I thought that maybe I just wasn't smart enough for Berkeley, but then I hear about kids from my school getting into Berkeley that are seriously brain dead. One took 2 aps and got one 3 and a 2, and a 1770 on her sats. She did however have a 3.9 gpa because she was one of those people who just worked hard. In class whenever the teachers had discussions she wouldn't know what to say, and on exams she just reiterated whatever teachers told her. It's not just her, I know lots of kids at my school that have me wondering how they got into berkeley, while I didn't. I mean I even got into Cornell for chrissakes..I don't want to bag on the people who feel they were lucky to get into Cal with low stats or whatever, but I feel that Cal places too much emphasis on gpa. A high GPA doesn't correlate with intelligence, so why should it have so much weight in college admissions? If i had taken fewer aps, i probably could have gotten a higher ap but I'm an individual who genuinely likes to learn, so I would not be being true to myself if I did not take a "hard" class for fear of jeopardizing my GPA. </p>
<p>I guess I'm just feeling bitter because some people who only know how to regurgitate what they've been told made it to Berkeley. I guess only private schools like Cornell look at courseload when they make a decision. I</p>
<p>don't want people telling me I'm just a bitter ignorant fool. Say what you will, but it's becoming increasingly evident that a lot of unqualified students get admitted to cal. I guess that I am just a bit bitter since I won't be going to Berkeley my dream school while this guy at my school who I feel isn't cut out for Berkeley is going, and he'll probably drop out or something. But then again life ain't fair.</p>
<p>things happen. move on. live happily ever after. </p>
<p>honestly, i don't think it makes much of a difference if you don't go to your dream. people get used to things after a while, so even their dream schools will look not so dreamy after a couple of months. i would celebrate my own achievements if i were you. going to college isn't about the college, it's about you. so yeah. just a bit of what i've learned this year. hope it helps.</p>
<p>I got into Berkeley (appeals) and UCSD and i agree that UC admissions does seem to be getting more and more random.
friends with good ecs (e.g. football, girlscouts) and good test scores (32's and 2100's) and alright gpas (3.7 and 3.8) didnt get into places that they should have. The first person got into ucsd for winter 08 and the second person got into davis.</p>
<p>I bet this happens every year. People saying that the UC selection process is getting more and more random, blah blah blah. The problem is that these few cases where people get in with ridiculously low stats or get rejected with ridiculously high stats get the most exposure and attention (obviously), and people focus more on these and start to imagine that the whole system is flawed in going down. This type of thing really bugs me (more so when people are just bitter because of their being rejected and start to make generalizations about the university, saying that Cal places too much emphasis on GPA coming from the person that got rejected for having a lower than average GPA). Look at the whole picture. 7365 students were accepted (that's quite a lot), and I bet the people that "should have" gotten in with their stats (there's still always the essay, ECs, awards/honors, work experience, etc.) compromise less than 2% of the admission pool.</p>
<p>GPA is a very good measure (considering what limited resources these public universities have to measure how good of a candidate you are) to determine your academic abilities and how much effort you put into high school (of course, you could be a genius and slacked off and still gotten a 4.0, but that checks itself as you still have that degree of intelligence that the university wants). I don't see anything wrong with placing a decent amount of emphasis on GPA as that number marks all of your grades in high school (well, really just sophmore and junior year due to the UC GPA system; but still, it's much more than just a number, despite what people think). 3.73 weighted GPA isn't very competitive; I know you took a bunch of AP classes, but these are the consequences (you aren't able to devout yourself as much to each individual class as if you had fewer, and in turn you aren't able to ace them). The system works for the other thousands of people, and I honestly think the issue lies not with the university but with your decision to take so many AP classes because you have a desire for knowledge. This is a bad thing as it can really screw up your GPA and get you rejected a few places, but it's a good thing in that that's a very nice trait that very few students have these days and is respected by all teachers. It's not like your efforts didn't pay off; in your biased opinion you may think that they didn't because you didn't get into Berkeley, but in reality they DID because Cornell is FAR (FAR!!!) from a bad school.</p>
<p>"The problem is that these few cases where people get in with ridiculously low stats or get rejected with ridiculously high stats get the most exposure and attention" true true, okay maybe not more random, just random to begin with, putting ucla aside for a second since it changed its admissions process this year (and thus will probably be more random than last year). I agree that gpa is important, but i dont think that it is a <em>very</em> good measure because i know tons of people that can pull the rememorization A in high school but would and do horribly in college classes that they might be taking during HS, which i think are a much better indicator of success in college (duh). backstory: at my small hs all students spend 1/2 their day taking cc classes. HS is just very different from the college class the you will face, so while it is a good indicator i dont think that it is a very good indicator of success in college. And also, i have done much better in my college classes than my hs classes</p>
<p>Well I wouldn't say that Berkeley only looks at GPA - in my experience I found they actually do consider your entire background. </p>
<p>I had a 3.25 Junior year GPA, and I got into Berkeley. The thing is that Berkeley realized that I got that GPA because I took tons of difficult/AP classes (hard ones, like Physics C: E&M, not those trivial ones like Environmental Science and Music Theory). On the other hand, my ECs were well below average (a little leadership, volunteering, and a few awards). However, I've taken a solid 40 transferable units at my CC, and my test scores were good (I missed 100 points total out of 4800 in my SAT 1 and 3 SAT 2 tests).</p>
<p>Honestly, I didn't expect to get into Berkeley. From what I heard they were basically a "formula" school which inputs GPAs & test scores into a computer which basically decides your admission based on a formula. Given my stats, I can see this is not what Cal does.</p>
<p>This is more than I can say for many private schools, even ones that are significantly worse in my field of interest (Computer Science, if you couldn't tell from my username), who almost certainly rejected me for my GPA without caring for anything else. I'll be honest: Cornell, rank 10 in Computer Science, rejected me while Berkeley, rank 3 accepted me. Does that make sense to you?</p>
<p>"hard ones, like Physics C: E&M, not those trivial ones like Environmental Science and Music Theory"
lol yeah i know what you mean, i did a similar thing to kill my gpa although mine wasnt that low, but i will only have ~28 units, not 40</p>
<p>thanks dean, but it's hard knowing i was rejected while someone i feel was not cut out for it got in. but yeah i've decided to go to ucla with regents, so maybe i'll see you there.</p>
<p>mathtastic_nerd - Considering the few resources that they have, I think GPA qualifies has a very good measure of one's high school academic abilities (and they can obviously see if you've taken AP classes or not along with your GPA, so that's not a problem). You may know tons of people with high GPAs that you think would do horribly in college, but that doesn't hold any water in the grand scheme of things (just consider how many people with high GPAs that would NOT do horribly in college; it's all relative).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Honestly, I didn't expect to get into Berkeley. From what I heard they were basically a "formula" school which inputs GPAs & test scores into a computer which basically decides your admission based on a formula. Given my stats, I can see this is not what Cal does.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley and UCLA do not have plug and chug numbers and SATs to output admissions decisions. The other UCs, however, do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is more than I can say for many private schools, even ones that are significantly worse in my field of interest (Computer Science, if you couldn't tell from my username), who almost certainly rejected me for my GPA without caring for anything else. I'll be honest: Cornell, rank 10 in Computer Science, rejected me while Berkeley, rank 3 accepted me. Does that make sense to you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Assuming you are a California resident, I can make sense of it.</p>
<p>Roughly:
They allocate 4500 pts to GPA, several thousand points to SAT scores. a couple hundred points to the number of community service hours, couple hundred points if you have low income, and a couple hundred of points to the personal statement. no matter how convincing your personal statement is, it will only be worth xxx points. there are other factors too, but i'm just trying to explain what i mean at this point.</p>
<p>This means, no matter how convincing your personal statement is, for UCSD the personal statement will never be worth more than xxx points. Whereas for UCB and UCLA, a personal statement can make or break you due to comprehensive review.</p>
<p>My friend was rejected by UCSD because she did 98 hours of service, and 100 hours would have given her the extra 100 points to boost her over the cutoff. luckily, she managed to appeal her way in. (in case you wonder how she knows this, she called in and asked why she got rejected)</p>
<p>Looks like my question was too vague. I meant how can you make sense that a school would accept me but a school with a rank 3 times worse would reject me. If that was indeed what you were answering, then that's kinda my point. Cornell wouldn't have rejected me if they looked past the numbers like Cal did.</p>
<p>cppdev - Are you a California resident? These public schools favor applicants of their state a lot more than out-of-state applicants (After all, California tax dollars are paying towards these UCs, so it only makes sense that they should be more lenient toward in-state applicants compared to out-of-state applicants).</p>
<p>
[quote]
So most of you on CC probably know me as the guy that got into Cornell but not Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Given that you have 7 posts, most of us probably don't know you at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't want to sound cocky or anything, but it seems that Berkeley would rather have a student take one or two aps and get a 3.8 than have a student take 12 aps and get a 3.73.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm...that actually sounds like the case at a lot of top universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't want to bag on the people who feel they were lucky to get into Cal with low stats or whatever, but I feel that Cal places too much emphasis on gpa.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, and then there are people who look at someone who got in with a 3.5 and say "Berkeley doesn't care enough about GPA." GPA is important because frankly, it's the best they got. It'd be great if Berkeley could have some kind of measuring device that determines how smart/hard-working each applicant is, or even better, if Berkeley can see into the future and see how successful each applicant is at the university. Unfortunately, they can't, so they look at indicators like GPA and SAT scores.</p>
<p>Bottom line is: I agree with you that college admissions is pretty random sometimes and they often reject more qualified students over underqualified students, but it's due to a few reasons: #1 the admissions process isn't perfect, #2 what they consider qualified may not necessarily be what you consider qualified, or what I consider qualified, and #3 they also look into other factors like diversity and athletics.</p>
<p>i feel like one of those people who probably shouldent have gotten into berkeley...i mean i have a great GPA and all, but only took a few AP's senior year and none (only honors) junior year. Compared to other people on this board, i feel very blessed to have gotten in. Then again, my HS kinda sucks and the bar is low around here anyways, so maybe that played a part, i really dont know...</p>
<p>there's gotta be more you're not taking into account. like what major you applied for..some majors are impacted and are harder to get into. like EECS i'm pretty sure has an acceptance rate of below 10%. 6 or 7% maybe.
or maybe your essays just didn't cut it</p>