<p>SAT: 2100 (740 M, 700 CR 660 W)
SAT II's : Chem 720 IIC 740</p>
<p>AP's: Sophomore year - Comp Sci A (3),
Junior year - Physics B (5), Calc AB (5), Chem (4)
Senior year - Calc BC, Statistics, English, US Hist</p>
<p>College courses (both taken junior year): Elementary Spanish I and II (A)
General Chemistry I with lab (A)</p>
<p>EC's: 4 years basketball, pretty much year-round commitment (varsity 2, varsity captain 1)
2 years varsity cross country
4 years tennis (1 JV, 3 varsity)</p>
<pre><code> NHS (senior year)
Student Council (junior and senior years)
100+ hours community service at homeless shelter
camp counselor for two summers at bible camp
NIH biomedical research internship 8 weeks, 40 hrs/week
</code></pre>
<p>Essays: Pretty good, could have been better</p>
<p>USC safe match? What USC are we talking about?</p>
<p>Average GPA of admits to USC this year was 3.86, SAT 50% range was 1920-2180. This makes the OP a match. Safe match would have him on the higher end of this range, which he is for SAT but not for GPA.</p>
<p>And unless Cal and UCLA somehow magically change their admit pools this year, how is Cal any harder?</p>
<p>First of all, 3.87 is his UNWEIGHTED GPA. BIG DIFFERENCE considering he's taken 4 AP's and 2 college courses. BIG DIFFERENCE. Thus, he is on the higher side of both the SAT and GPA ranges. Second of all, his EC's are much better than the average USC admit. </p>
<p>USC is DEFINITELY a safe match.</p>
<p>Moreover, i claimed Berkeley and LA are both reaches, but Berkeley is more of a reach. The average GPA and SATs at Berkeley are a bit higher AND Berkeley is widely known for counting EC's, work experience, and an applicant's ability to overcome obstacles much more than LA. LA is infamous for relying VERY heavily on #'s (i.e. only GPA and SAT). Thus, Berkeley is even more of a reach for him/her than LA. Period.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The average GPA and SATs are a bit higher
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope. The average admitted GPA for both Cal and UCLA was a 4.26. The 50th percentile range for the SAT for both were virtually the same.</p>
<p>
[quote]
LA is infamous for relying VERY heavily on #'s (i.e. only GPA and SAT). Thus, Berkeley is even more of a reach for him/her than LA. Period.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is this sureness of information based on? A cousin's friend's guidance counselor's testimonial? Just because you say "Period" doesn't mean that it's true.</p>
<p>Second, no i am not basing my info on "a cousin's friend's guidance counselor." Just take a look at the % of 4.0+ students that each school denies. Cal denied 8% higher in the 2005 (i dont have 2006 info). And then look at the % of students each school denied with SAT Verbal scores 700+. Again, Cal denied 7.4% more. Then look at the % of students that each school denied with SAT Math scores 700+. Again, Cal wins that battle by 4.2%. Then look at the % of students each school denied with SAT Math IIC 700+. Once again, Cal wins that battle, but this time by 10.1%. Do you need to be convinced any further that Cal admits a lower % of students with higher #'s than LA and thus look more at other factors (EC's, work experience, life context)? Its kinda obvious.</p>
<p>Second, it still doesn't radically affect the "reach" status. Reach is what it is, a sort of nebulous "you're in the 25th-45th percentile range of admits" sort of prescription. Statistically speaking, the percentages you list aren't really that meaningful for someone in that range anyway.</p>
<p>Who said I didn't just concede but didn't feel like making a big deal out of it? What, do I have to specifically say that you're right every time you are? Sheesh.</p>
<p>I got the figures from an annual publication from the University of California which lists all the schools and their averages and the % each school admits with students within various GPA/SAT ranges. Most counseling offices have them. </p>
<p>It doesnt "radically" change things, but enough for Berkeley to be considered even more of a reach than LA.</p>
<p>Just because UCLA is admitting students with higher numbers doesn't mean they're taking students with worse ECs. That's a statistical assumption of the worst kind.</p>
<p>Your deduction is completely wrong. They are NOT admitting students with higher #'s than Cal, they are admitting students with high #'s at a significantly higher rate than Cal, thus proving that they are more concerned about #'s than Cal is. And if Cal is not as concerned about #'s, they must be more concerned about something else (EC's, work experiecne, life context). Thus, Cal is more of a reach than LA.</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Since we don't have sufficient data to actually see who gets admitted with what types of ECs, it's actually not a good deduction either way. Do you know, for a fact, that UCLA's higher end admits are less excellent than Cal's as far as EC activity goes? I sure don't, and I can't say that for sure.</p>
<p>Heck, we could say that Cal is just giving higher end students the boot to make way for athletes. That doesn't make it true, but some have voiced suspicions.</p>
<p>Ok, now were arguing about something you know is ridiculous. Cal does admit athletes and that does mean tehy have to reject regular students, but so does LA. Plus, the # of athletes accepted at either school is VERY small compared to the entire admitted class. </p>
<p>I am not saying there aren't other possibilities explaining Cal denying a higher % of students with high #'s than LA, but the most blatantly obvious one is the increased consideration they give to other aspects of a student's application. Its just pretty damnn obvious.</p>
<p>This is my point: not necessarily. We can't say, for certain, what is happening exactly. One year is not enough to establish any trends, and unless we run regressions based on the admission policy over time, we can't say what's going on.</p>
<p>We can say that higher GPA and SAT earners are somewhat more likely to be dinged at Cal. We can say that they are somewhat less likely to be dinged at UCLA. We cannot, however, say WHY this is happening, as there are literally dozens of confounding variables we cannot remove at this moment.</p>
<p>This is the problem with these discussions: too little data, too many arguments.</p>
<p>I noticed that in the admission stats for ucla and berkeley, applicants are at a bigger disadvantage for being OOS or international at berkeley, but not necessarily at ucla. It was 25% in-state, 20% OOS, and 11% international for berkeley but for ucla, it was 26% in-state, 27% OOS, and 22% international. For berkeley, the further removed you are from california, the more at a disadvantage you are and for internationals, it's a mere 11%. For ucla, it was around the same for in-state as OOS with internationals at a slight disadvantage. Do any of you guys know why this trend exists?</p>