<p>I got in UChicago and WUSTL SO TAKE THAT UC BERKELEY!</p>
<p>Phew now I feel much better.</p>
<p>so earlier in february i recieved an invite to the womens in engineering event at berkeley. it said i was a highly competitive applicant, and invited to me to cal day which is after admissions is anounced.</p>
<p>but i got rejected</p>
<p>why is this? i’m oos student</p>
<p>The holistic review process doesn’t emphasize academic merit enough. Many admitted students have subpar test scores and poor academic records. It’s a shame that Berkeley admits such unqualified students and educates them with subsidies from the taxpayers.</p>
<p>tastybeef, just because some students have ‘subpar’ test scores doesn’t mean they aren’t qualified. i certainly don’t think Cal’s admissions decisions are anywhere near perfect, but it is test score and GPA driven enough as it is.</p>
<p>i am sure for good reason that those who scored below 2000 were able to prove themselves to be qualified one way or another (ECs, hardships, talent, etc)</p>
<p>tastybeef,
I understand that you’re a current Berkeley student, so you probably know a lot more than I do. Still, is it fair to paint so many applicants with such a broad brush? Like Lantern said, those with “subpar” grades and test scores (subpar being an extremely relative term) must have had some extraordinary extracurricular commitments and academic potential, or they wouldn’t have been accepted.</p>
<p>wingless, TheBlackLantern, and JulianBernardino</p>
<p>Yes, I realize there is more to the admissions process than just grades and test scores. It encompasses extracurricular activities as well as personal statements. But the bottom line is that GPA and test scores are the best indicators of college academic performance that are available. While some may contend that the predictive powers of GPA and test scores are not strong, it is certainly better than those of volunteering and whatnot. As a student who has gone through a lot of weeder courses, I can tell you that this admission process sets up many students, especially those with low SAT scores and poor academic records, to fail. These students find it hard to keep up with the heavy courseloads and find it even harder to keep themselves in the higher half of the curve. Many of these students become frustrated and end up with GPA’s too low to get them into grad school or professional school.</p>
<p>In essence, for these students, going to Berkeley actually impedes their future careers as they will graduate with low GPA’s. So why does Berkeley admit them in the first place just to set them up to fail? ****, I don’t know, but I’ve seen many such cases.</p>
<p>wingless, TheBlackLantern, and JulianBernardino</p>
<p>@ tastybeef:
True that the GPA and test scores are best indicators of college academic performance, BUT are you going to develop and survive in the social world ? </p>
<p>With extra curricular activities and volunteering your going to grow as a person with integrity and morals.</p>
<p>Maybe people have low gpas and test scores because they’re too busy helping others and being leaders. </p>
<p>If someone is going to concentrate on GPA and test scores, then yeah they’ll be successful in college but are they going to grow as honest people or people who are smart, cunning and sly?</p>
<p>some people here are wayy too mean.
i didn’t have the SATs (1910) and i still got in, and if i got in, then i believe im equally qualified as all those other thousands of people that did get in. just because im not a genius doesnt mean i don’t deserve to get in. its the hard work that counts. ugh ppl! lol</p>
<p>ok that was way too emotional. anywayyyyyy
lol</p>
<p>Lol yeah i got in with an 1880, but i explained why i didnt have the scores on my uc app</p>
<p>I believe everyone who got in has the capability to do well in college if they put the time and effort into it.</p>
<p>I believe everyone who got in has the capability to do well in college if they put the time and effort into it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is it with this faulty assumption that those who have high GPA’s and SAT scores are incapable of interacting with others and surviving in the real world?</p>
<p>Those who do well in high school are often those who work well in groups and present ideas effectively in front of the class. Those who can’t do either end up with poor grades.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, come on, we’ve all been through this process before. Let’s be honest, most people do volunteering and most EC’s just for application padding. Besides, almost all applicants have the same generic EC’s anyway: volunteering, clubs, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not even conducive to your point. What is wrong with being successful, smart, cunning, and sly? These attributes are not mutually exclusive with honesty. I can be cunning and sly in working within the boundaries of the system’s rules. That would make still make me honest, because I’m not breaking any rules.</p>
<p>Anyway, this is akin to the assumption that those with good academic records can’t function in the real world. Except the notion is now that they can’t develop into moral members of society. Why can’t those who have good grades develop a sense of social norms and ethical conduct?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not trying to be critical. I’m here neither to congratulate you nor to rain on your parade, I’m just telling you the truth. Your admission into the school necessarily excludes another more academically qualified applicant from getting accepted. Since Berkeley doesn’t do interviews and only requires 3 short personal statements, it can’t form strong character judgments of the applicants.</p>
<p>As such, how can many be quick to proclaim that those with high GPA’s and SAT’s have not gone through any personal growth? Similarly, how can they say that those with low GPA’s and SAT’s have indeed gone through hardships? And even if they had, should that be necessary and sufficient for their admissions?</p>
<p>My point is clear-- Berkeley’s admission process leaves much to be desired. It chooses to include SAT’s, but does it with inconsistency, occasionally admitting low-scoring applicants and rejecting high-scoring applicants. Its holistic review relies on skimpy resources of 3 personal statements which have questionable natures without interviews. So, what remain as relatively consistent and reliable predictors of success in college and beyond? GPA and SAT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’d be surprised to see how many people spend hours upon hours studying organic chemistry only to score below the median.</p>
<p>Rejected</p>
<p>[<em>]College Accepted to [UT,USC,BU]:
Stats:[ul]
[</em>]SAT:2150 composite, 2210 superscore
[<em>]SAT II: 690 MII, 690 Eco Bio, 630 Literature
[</em>]ACT:N/A
[<em>]GPA: 3.95 UW
[</em>]Rank:2 of 415, top 1%
[<em>]Other Tests (AMC, AP, IB): English Language - 5, Human Geography - 5, Cal AB - 5, US History - 3, World History - 3
[/ul]Subjective[ul]
[</em>]Essays: They were good essays, but probably could have done better. I spent a lot more time with Stanford’s.
[<em>]Supplementary Material: Once again, probably medium quality
[</em>]Hook(recruited athlete, legacy, Nobel Prize): None noteworthy
[/ul]Personal[ul]
[<em>]Location: TX
[</em>]High School Type: Socioeconomically disadvantaged, though there is a mixture of high-scoring kids because of a single neighborhood that’s in it (which happens to be where I live).
[<em>]Ethnicity: 50% Hispanic, 50% white
[</em>]Gender: Male
Other[list]
[<em>]Extracurriculars: Varsity Swim Team (4 years), Student Council Rep., National Honor Society, Leadership High School, Founder of Green Club, Mayor’s Youth Advisory Council, Interact
[</em>]Awards: National Hispanic Scholar, National Merit Commended, State Farm Scholar Athlete, National Honor Roll, AP Scholar with Distinction, lots of swimming-related awards, Academic All-America
[*]Advice? Commiserations? Feel like bragging?:[/ul] I didn’t realize how difficult it was to get into Berkeley for OOS students, but I feel like my SAT-IIs are horrible and they seem to haunt me everywhere I get rejected from.</p>
<p>Ok I was rejected by Berkeley. Here’s the kicker: all test scores I turned in were perfect scores (36 ACT 800 math 2 and chemistry), I have a 4.7 gpa, what I consider to be pretty strong ec’s, and after rereading my essays I think they were pretty decent. What is the deal this year? I don’t mean to sound arrogent but I have already been accepted at several schools I though for sure were harder to get into than Berkeley.</p>
<p>^^Are you OOS? Did you challenge yourself in your classes? How good were your essays in the POV of the adcoms?</p>
<p>There are some people that argue that Berkeley admissions is not very holistic. Your case and many others tell a different story. I think that with so many OOS applicants having very strong test scores and perfect UC GPAs, it comes down to your essays, ECs, and the classes you took. </p>
<p>At the top tier schools, perfect test scores alone will never get you in, although they will certainly not keep you out. Standardized tests are more of a way to see if the applicant is smart enough to do well at the school. College adcoms will not really care that one applicant got a 2350 while another got a 2150 (but if one applicant got a 1605, that is probably a red flag). If all other things are equal, which is rarely the case, then it may very well come down to test scores. But grades, classes, and possibly ECs and essays are more important than test scores.</p>
<p>I’m a bit late but, rejected by UCLA and UCB. I knew it was coming. Bryn Mawr or Mount Holyoke now!</p>
<p>Colleges need to use the holistic process of acceptance in order to weed out the cheaters, the super rich that had lot of tutors etc, and the lucky ones that just so happened to get the easiest classes and teachers to get the high GPAs. There are SO many different factors that it’s mind boggling and YOU CANNOT JUDGE JUST BY SCORES.</p>