<p>"People may just be confusing safeties with matches."</p>
<p>No, we're just confusing safeties with backups, not matches.</p>
<p>"There have been a lot of Ivy League calibre students attending and applying to USC. It's quite competitive."</p>
<p>^ditto</p>
<p>I think part of what is fantastic about USC is all the amazing merit scholarships they offer. I've definitely heard of people who have decided to go to USC with a full scholarship instead of Brown with little financial aid.</p>
<p>P.S. However, I have yet to hear about anyone who chose USC with full scholarship over STANFORD...</p>
<p>Yea, three people from my school got full scholarships at USC, but all chose to attend MIT, Princeton, and Stanford with not-that-much aid. But they were pretty well off, so I guess finances weren't an issue.</p>
<p>The phenomenon of ELC kids getting into Berkeley at a high rate could be valid even if their ELC status is ignored. It's an instance of common response-- both ELC status and good chances of getting into Berkeley are caused by the student's rank in the top 4% of his/her high school. It's not their ELC status that's getting them easy admission; it's that they were of a high enough caliber to be selected for ELC.</p>
<p>That being said, my safety is UCSD.</p>
<p>My safeties are Imperial College London, and University College London.</p>
<p>The rest of my applications are all reaches and American. With 8 reaches, I hope I can get into at least one of them. :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
or California residents, UC's can easily be safety schools because it is soo much easier to get in if you are in California.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't say it's "soo much easier." It's easier, yes, but not by an unbelievable margin. It's still extremely difficult to get in if you're in-state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a previous poster said, the ELC program gives an applicant a 57% chance even at Berkeley
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really, this is basic statistics: you can't gauge chances based on a percent like that. Such logic can be applied only to random events. Admissions are not random events.</p>
<p>
[quote]
yes they do use those numbers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, they really don't care about ELC status. Why? Because they can gauge a student's academic excellence by a) the rigor of the course load, and b) the grades earned in those courses. How do you think they have 99% students who were in the top 10% of their classes? How do they know whether the student was in the top 5-10% (ELC flags only top 4%)? They don't. They can tell where the student would be given their courses and grades.</p>
<p>FWIW, I've spoken to representatives of the admissions office; that's where I first heard that ELC doesn't matter for Berkeley.</p>
<p>If you want further proof, look at the schools that are ELC guaranteed; Berkeley isn't one of them:</p>
<p>University</a> of California - Counselors</p>
<p>But more convincing is the info straight from the horse's mouth: in Berkeley's common data set, under basis for selection, class rank is "not considered."</p>
<p>p. 6</p>
<p>
[quote]
she said that ELC applicants do have a better chance than non ELC applicants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you misunderstood her. She was probably saying what Kristina did: "It's not their ELC status that's getting them easy admission; it's that they were of a high enough caliber to be selected for ELC."</p>
<p>Think of it like this: Harvard accepts 75% of the perfect scorers on the SAT. Does that mean that if you have a perfect score on the SAT, Harvard is a safe match for you? No. Rather, the acceptance rate for perfect scorers is so high because the students are already very strong applicants, and thus are accepted at higher rates. It's just like Stanford's near 20% acceptance rate for SCEA applicants, or Chicago's 40% acceptance rate (though this is delving into self-selectivity, a related concept).</p>
<p>
[quote]
With enough extra curriculars and good essays you can almost guarantee admission. I don't see the logic otherwise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From what you described, that means you're a solid match for Berkeley. Your chances are very good, as you seem to fit well for it. But it isn't a safety; a safety would be that you have a nearly 100% chance at the school.</p>
<p>A match is defined at 70%. A safe match is 80%, and a safety is 90% and above. The whole point of a safety is so that you have a guarantee, that you'll be going somewhere if rejected everywhere else; a school that accepts nearly 1 in 5 is really not safe at all, even if you do think you're a strong applicant. Not to mention Berkeley rejects tons of people with very high stats, great ECs/awards, etc. Why? Because there are 45,000+ applicants (twice Stanford's applicant pool) and only so many spots in the freshman class. Just look at the stats profiles or mychances.net -- tons of in-state and out-of-state students who are rejected with great resumes.</p>
<p>Here's a discussion of reach/match/safety if you'd like recalibration of your definitions:</p>
<p>It depends on the school too you know for UC. For the past 2 years, my school has sent ~100 to UCB and ~120 to UCLA each year since it is a really hard school and the kids are very smart. Our counselors told us that the UC's specifically look at the kids from our school in one pile since they like our kids that much. I'm not trying to sound arrogant, but since I'm at the top of my class, 2370, 800 Math Chem Phys, I can pretty much call UCB and UCLA a safety.</p>
<p>^^ again, your school's track record doesn't matter so much that you could call it a safety.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Our counselors told us that the UC's specifically look at the kids from our school in one pile since they like our kids that much.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wonder how your counselor was privy to such information. (I doubt it.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
'm not trying to sound arrogant, but since I'm at the top of my class, 2370, 800 Math Chem Phys, I can pretty much call UCB and UCLA a safety.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd say it's a safe match at best. Look at past applicants -- plenty with 2300+ have been rejected, even with strong GPAs. Also, Berkeley particularly de-emphasizes the SAT (as they even know its worth), so extremely high scores don't phase them.</p>
<p>Again, schools that admit roughly 1 in 5 are not safe enough. If you want to consider them safeties, go ahead, but you're missing the point of a safety.</p>
<p>I'd still say that's a pretty ignorant post -_- but whatever.</p>
<p>UC Davis is my safety...</p>
<p>The hubris at CC...</p>
<p>
[quote]
UC Davis is my safety...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now that's more like it.</p>
<p>@ kyledavid80: I know you've spoken to an admissions representative at Berkeley or whatever, but opqpop's counselor might be privy to such information, because after all, a few high school counselors are readers for UCs. I know for a fact that our high school has a reader for UCLA that rotates between the five GCs every year. I found [url="<a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0304/admissions1.html%22%5Dthis%5B/url">http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0304/admissions1.html"]this[/url</a>] older article (yeah it's 1998, I'm not really in the mood to look through their websites for anything more recent, but rest assured, the admissions process hasn't changed much) and anyway, as of that year, they had 5 bay area high school counselors reading for UC Berkeley. It's under "An Experienced Team of Readers." Truth be told, I don't know what school these people came from, but if they think their school is a safety or even a safe match, far be it from me to call them a liar.</p>
<p>Missy Jo: true, it's possible that he or she is privy to it, but at least for Berkeley, a large part of the admissions team this year has been replaced with interns.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if they think their school is a safety or even a safe match, far be it from me to call them a liar.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They can think that, yes, but that doesn't mean it's true. It's the student's merits that will get him or her in, not the school. Sure, the student is compared to his or her peers in order to see whether he or she has taken advantage of all resources available and how he or she has succeeded with them (as the article you link to mentions). But if a school sends a lot of students to a school, it's because the students themselves were qualified; the school itself has little to nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>Now, I'd say that opqpop is a match to maybe a safe match if the ECs/awards and essays were great. But a safety? High selective universities should not be safeties for anyone.</p>
<p>From the article:
[quote]
The readers this year are comprised of 31 professional admissions or outreach officers in the Office of Undergraduate Admission and Relations With Schools (OUARS), 10 part-time readers, six volunteers from other units on the campus, and five Bay Area high school counselors who read applications as paid interns.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It says the Bay Area high school counselors read applications as paid interns, so to say a lot of interns have replaced interns would be... strange. Regardless of how prestigious it is, it is still a state school with the same reading process as LA, SD, and other UCs. I know that last year there was a reader from "Undead Tree" high school (I didn't want to put the name, but you can probably figure it out) that I met at a CA educator's conference. If they rotate, they're probably not a reader this year, but the point is the counselors are still on board and it would be a little naive to think that the high school attended has absolutely nothing to do with it. Yeah, everything is read in context, but when the reader sees you succeeded at a particularly well-known public school and everything else lines up, it's not hard to call it a safe match, which can be easily confused with a safety.</p>
<p>As for the whole issue regarding matches, safe matches, and safeties, the article you provided talked about reaches, matches, and safeties. Then you said something about 70% being a match, 80% being a safe match, and 90% being a safety. How can you quantify fit? I can't just calculate and say I have a 33.23, repeating of course, percent chance of getting into Stanford. Let alone, a percent difference of 10 between match and safe match, and safe match and safety. So someone thinks they have an 87% chance (again, how they quantify that, I don't know), of getting into UCB. I guess by your categorization, they can call it a safety if they round up to ninety. When it comes to schools and fit, it really shouldn't be discussed in a numeric sense, and, in the case of opqpop of safe match versus safety - ten percent difference and she/he assumes safety means he/she's hubristic? Harsh much?</p>
<p>I know at least the entire southern California branch of the admissions team has been replaced with interns this year, perhaps even more areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a little naive to think that the high school attended has absolutely nothing to do with it. Yeah, everything is read in context, but when the reader sees you succeeded at a particularly well-known public school
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The school's rigor is definitely taken into account, of course, as well as resources and such that the school offers. But opqpop, like many others, wasn't basing his claim on the school, but on the # accepted, and so it's a safety. No -- the school (read: its resources), as well as your peers, are taken into account, but it would be a match/reach/safety mostly on your own merits, not simply because a bunch of students from your high school got in before.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How can you quantify fit?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's simply a matter of matching numbers to terms. A 70% is a match; that's what counselors, the College Board, etc. see it as. A 50% is equivocal -- it could go either way, so it'd be a slight reach. Anything below that--i.e. when the odds are against you--is a reach. That'd mean a 60% would be about a high match. A safety is defined as 90%+, so a safe match is an 80%.</p>
<p>I don't usually do percents, but I definitely go by 10% intervals. 87% is far too precise (tenfold).</p>
<p>
[quote]
percent chance of getting into Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, of course not -- Stanford is very difficult to predict. For most students, it's a reach. For those whom I think it could go either way for, I would say it's a slight reach. It'd be a match for very few people -- usually those with hooks. It's a safety for no one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When it comes to schools and fit, it really shouldn't be discussed in a numeric sense
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought so too, for the longest time, claiming that %s are far too precise for such an unpredictable game. But then I realized, all the terms that I used--that counselors use, that others on CC use--fit into a few intervals that fit perfectly with %s, as long as you go by 10% intervals. The only reason it's in percent form is that people like "chances"--it "makes sense." I had suggested before that CC use a 1-10 scale, but people seem to like percents / are fine with the terms.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ten percent difference and she/he assumes safety means he/she's hubristic? Harsh much?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You see, when something takes on "safety" status, it has a new quality to it: it is one that you will most definitely, without a doubt, get into, largely because it isn't very selective and you're well beyond qualified. Schools that have very low acceptance rates--and yes, if it's in the 20s, it's low--shouldn't be considered safeties. That's too risky -- the whole point of a safety is to eliminate the risk factor of college admissions.</p>
<p>Now, for opqpop, I would be wary to call it a safe match even--it'd depend largely on ECs, honors/awards, and essays.</p>
<p>And the hubris comment was directed more at CC as a whole, or at least the large number of students here whose arrogance is their fatal flaw, those who think schools like Georgetown and such are safeties.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know at least the entire southern California branch of the admissions team has been replaced with interns this year, perhaps even more areas.
[/quote]
Southern California branch? I have no idea what you're talking about because readers are regional, hence
[quote]
five Bay Area high school counselors who read applications as paid interns.
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li>Readers that are GCs are from the Bay Area, there aren't any from southern California. We have readers for UCLA, and I know UCLA still has readers and hasn't replaced GCs with non-GC interns as you say, because my high school has one.</li>
<li>GCs read applications as paid interns. They are interns. I don't know what you mean when you say interns are replacing interns.</li>
</ol>
<p>I'm glad you clarified the hubris aspect - I agree that Georgetown, Stanford, and private schools in general should not be safeties for 99.9999999999999% of the population. (There could be a case of a valedictorian recruited athlete legacy who has published research and has relatives that donate millions to the school each year - it sure would suck to be that kid :-) It's highly unlikely that such a kid exists, hence the insanely high percentage I posted, but even then, maybe such a kid would be humble enough to say it is a reach school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Southern California branch? I have no idea what you're talking about because readers are regional, hence
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know, but what I'm saying is: I know for sure that the entire southern California branch has been replaced; I've heard rumors that even more parts have been replaced.</p>
<p>I'm not sure whether there are any GC interns still at Berkeley, as that article is 10 years old now, but there very well may be. At any rate, we don't even know whether opqpop's is one of them.</p>
<p>What southern California branch are you talking about though? As I mentioned before last year I met a GC from a bay area high school (I think that was the "Undead Tree" reference in post 55) at an educator's conference as a student representative who was a reader for UCB and I didn't ask much about admissions requirements or anything, just the generic "what's that like?" or "how many students are in your caseload?" And in any case, the way my GC explained it, the GCs are assigned by region. Like I said I'm from southern California, hence the fact that we have no UCB readers, but rather UCLA readers. UCB GC readers are from northern schools, hence my question: what southern CA branch for Berkeley are you talking about?</p>