<p>Yeah, collegeperson is right. We all know that stanfurd students are really just trying to make berkeley look better. When they were filling out their surveys they said to themselves, "man, how can I make berkeley look better right before are schools play the most important game of the year? I know, I'll lie and say I was rejected from thier school!" Yeah, that's gotta be what happened. And those darn stanfurd daily people purposfully added all kinds of bias to the questions like, "If you applied to Berkeley, were you accepted or rejected?" C'mon, look at the bias in that question. How's anyone supposed to be able to even answer that, its so chalk full of bias! The nerve of those stanfurd daily people!</p>
<p>You're a bright kid, collegeperson.</p>
<p>Why thank you aim78. I'll lend you some insight on my awe-inspiring brightness. Maybe in time you can learn to be as great as I am. </p>
<p>Lesson #1: Be extra careful when you come across student initiated surveys that were not conducted by any official organization, and were carried out right before an incredibly emotional event like the Big Game. (Which, by the way, is attended by a lot of graduate students who do in fact get rejected by Berkeley's PhD programs). </p>
<p>You will learn, my son. Just remember: When collegeperson12 walks through a village, entire families come out to greet him and offer their daughters. Maybe in time you will learn to become half as great as me.</p>
<p>Keep telling yourself that. Make it your mantra. "I am cool, I am cool, I am cool." Whatever helps you sleep at night is ok by me, mister cool-guy. I'm sure all those families are locking up their daughters as we speak.</p>
<p>The number "one-third" really struck me. So I went and looked over that article again. I don't think that statistic can be relied on too heavily. First of all, the survey was not taken seriously. The article says that "In addition, 330 responses came from loyal but pernicious Cal students, who in true Big Game rivalry fashion crashed the survey in an attempt to tamper with the results.</p>
<p>Consequently, numerous survey entries peppered with comments like Stanford sucks and Go Bears and renditions of the Cal fight song had to be removed from the final data set."</p>
<p>Also, the nature of the survey is highly unreliable. To quote the articel once again, "The Daily ran a two-week online survey inviting a wide range of Stanford community members undergraduates, graduates and alumni to weigh in about Cal and the historic cross-Bay rivalry. This story presents the results of the survey, which was written and developed by sophomores Feng, of Stanford, and Simler, of UC-Berkeley."</p>
<p>An online survey with no verification process is highly suspect. People can log in many times, Berkeley students can pose as Stanford students, and vice versa. </p>
<p>If this was something released by an admissions office or an official polling organization (like Gallup), then I would be inclined to believe it. But some flimsy online survey doesn't really convince me at all.
<a href="http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=6812&repository=0001_article%5B/url%5D">http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=6812&repository=0001_article</a></p>
<p>1/3 does sound wrong and too many. Look at <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=59551%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=59551</a>.
Berkeley's admission is more like Northwestern, UCLA, Wesleyan in terms of difficulty. One Berk admit even got rejected from USC. Also notice how quite a few were indeed rejected by Stanford.</p>
<p>Rooster, where did you read that people can log on many times? Or are you just trying to slip that in? And as far as students posing as each other, yeah, if they steal or hack the other students student ID and Password. And yeah, this survey is far from being scientific, but that doen't change what people wrote. If you want to be a conspericy theorist, thats fine by me, but I think its hilarious watching you guys scramble around trying to convince yourself that your better then your counterparts across the bay. Couldn't it just be that Cal admits and rejects alot more people than Stanfurd and the two use different criteria in their decision making? I've heard of much stanger stories then being accepted at Stanfurd and rejected at Cal. The whole thing is just funny to me, so go ahead and try to convince yourself that this couldn't be true. Everyone is lying.</p>
<p>Listen guys, nobody is disputing the fact that Berkeley is a Stanford reject school. What defines a reject school is the number of cross-admits that school fails to win over. Stanford-Berkeley cross-admits overwhelmingly choose Stanford upwards of 99 percent of the time. If these "one third Berkeley rejects" did in fact get into Berkeley, it wouldn't have mattered because they would have chosen Stanford anyway. I agree with you guys that 1/3 is too high of a number and that the survey was conducted poorly. However, if for the sake of argument that number was correct, it wouldnt change a thing. Tufts also rejects overqualified applicants who get into Stanford, Yale, and Harvard. Does that mean that HYS are Tufts-reject schools? I think not. If Berkeley does in fact reject people who are admitted into Stanford, it wouldn't matter because those kids would have chosen Stanford anyway. If Stanford rejects kids who are admitted into Berkeley, however, it does matter. Those kids would have liked to go to Stanford but have to "settle" for their worse choice.</p>
<p>For once Gutrade and I agree. He has no class and is a complete A-hole, but we agree nontheless. I would say that 8 out of 10 students would go to stanfurd over Cal if they had the chance. Like I said before, it would be awefully hard to turn down the invitation to the private club. People, especially kids, are unsure of themselves and want to feel wanted. There is absolutely nothing wrong with picking stanfurd over Cal. Its an awesome school. That still doesn't change the fact that the perception that every stanfurd kid could have gone to Cal had they wanted is wrong. The fact is that 1/3 of all of these people self reported that they were turned down at Cal. Why would they do this? Because its true! </p>
<p>p.s.
I only wish gutrade wouldn't have missed the deadline to apply to Cal because I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have got in. Then he could be a total California reject instead of just a stanfurd reject.</p>
<p>Like I said before, I can see how that 1/3 statistic might have come up. The fact is, Stanford draws from a more nationwide applicant pool than does Berkeley. Only a relatively small percentage of Berkeley applicants are from out-of-state, whereas the percentage of Stanford applicants who are out-of-state is quite significant. And the fact is, it's far far easier to get into Berkeley from in-state than from out-of-state. In fact, it may well be easier to get into Stanford from out-of-state than to get into Berkeley from out-of-state. Hence, that group of 1/3 may just come from out-of-state Stanford students who also applied to Berkeley out-of-state and didn't get in.</p>
<p>Hence, that 1/3 statistic may well be factual, but is also somewhat misleading in the sense that most Berkeley applicants are in-state applicants
A true apples-to-apples comparison would look at the in-state Berkeley applicants vs. the in-state Stanford applicants. Of course, we'll never know the true stats for that comparison.</p>
<p>Sakky is right. But the number still counts.</p>
<p>First, I don't agree with sakky. I don't think many people who apply to stanfurd from another state also apply to Cal. Why would they? It costs alot more and if they think they have the stats to get into stanfurd then they are probably also applying to Harvard, Yale, etc. I think that most people that apply to both stanfurd and Cal are instate, because Cal is the logical second choice for instate apps. Anyway, the % accepted instate at Cal is almost the same as out of state, so unless the stats for out of staters are much higher, then I don't know where you get the idea that its just as hard to get into Cal oos as it is for stanfurd. If you have those numbers please post them, because I believe (I might be wrong) that for in state its around 23% and out of state is around 20%.</p>
<p>Cal is a very desirable school no matter where you live, just as California is a desirable state to live in. Out of state applicants to Stanford might also apply to Berkeley to increase their chances of going to school in California. I think admissions for both schools are slightly different. Berkeley looks at each applicant individually and decides if they're strong enough to be admitted. Stanford looks at the applicant pool in general and decides who to admit based on what is missing. They also might admit URM's and legacies with lower stats. Berkeley admissions are more fair, Stanford admissions are more selective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, I don't agree with sakky. I don't think many people who apply to stanfurd from another state also apply to Cal. Why would they? It costs alot more and if they think they have the stats to get into stanfurd then they are probably also applying to Harvard, Yale, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. They are applying to all of the above, and often times also to Berkeley. Keep in mind that admission to schools like HYPSMC are basically a crapshoot, and they know that. Hence, these applicants look to apply to a wide range of schools to ensure that they get into at least one. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that most people that apply to both stanfurd and Cal are instate, because Cal is the logical second choice for instate apps.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not talking about most people. I'm talking about those specific people who got into Stanford but not Cal. I think that a great proportion of them are out-of-state. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, the % accepted instate at Cal is almost the same as out of state, so unless the stats for out of staters are much higher, then I don't know where you get the idea that its just as hard to get into Cal oos as it is for stanfurd. If you have those numbers please post them, because I believe (I might be wrong) that for in state its around 23% and out of state is around 20%.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Come now. You know that this is a figure that can't be measured by admissions percentages alone. Self-selection plays a tremendously strong role here. You know and I know that a lot of California residents will apply to Berkeley even if they have little chance. After all, many of them are applying to some UC's anyway, and so applying to Berkeley is just another checkbox and another fee. But you use the same application, with the same rec's, etc. On the other hand, out-of-state applicants may only apply to one UC (to Berkeley) which means that there is a stronger self-selection factor at work. Basically, you are only going to do all the work of creating a whole new app in order to apply to Berkeley out-of-state only if you think you have a semi-reasonable chance of getting in. </p>
<p>Besides, consider these quotes:</p>
<p>"out-of-state or international applicants, for whom admission standards are much higher"</p>
<p>So gentlemenandscholar, are you saying that Berkeley itself is mistaken when it says that admissions requirements for out-of-state students are, in their words "much higher"?</p>
<p>Sakky, you amaze me! I love all your "you know and I know" stuff. I can always get a smile from that. Now, as far as your response, you dig yourself a whole. You say that apps to HYPSCM also aply to Cal because they need to ensure that they get into "at least one," Implying that Cal represents "at least one." Fine, but in your post a few days ago you say that getting into Berkeley as an oos might even be harder then getting into Stanfurd. So if its that big of a crapshoot, how can they count Berkeley as a safety? As far as the admit numbers, I can only go by the data provided, which I believe states that % are similar for in state and out of state. If those numbers are correct (can someone look them up, please) then we have to take them at face value. You are always so ready to look for a conspiracy, but if those numbers didn't represent the type of students then why wouldn't Cal make note of that to let us know. It would only help their reputation if they said, "while the % are roughly the same for both groups, the SATs, GPAs, and ECs are all much, much stronger for out of state students." You and I both know that you are grasping at straws.</p>
<p>Sakky is entirely correct about the difficulty of applying to Berkeley from out of state. As a self-described Berkeley fanatic (and prospective math major), I computed several statistical models prior to the admission decision using data gathered from out of state acceptees in years previous. Most of us have tried to navigate the labyrinthine storehouse of pdf files on the Berkeley servers, occasionally modifying urls in an attempt to mine hidden data. Unfortunately, I no longer have the specific files to reference, but with my approximate model I was able to see where I fit as an out of state student and where Berkeley fit among other schools. Using the available criteria implemented by the Atlantic Monthly's Selectivity Survey, I was able to loosely determine that Berkeley's out of state admissions were easily in the top five of the Atlantics judging (well above Stanford). I realize that these statements carry no weight, but I found no need to preserve my neurotic scribbling for latter debates :). Hence, Sakky's argument is entirely plausible according to my currently unsubstantiated yet truly accurate results - trust me!</p>
<p>There was only one person from my school who applied to both Stanford and Berkeley. He was rejected by Stanford, accepted at Berkeley, so who knows? Stanford admissions seems to be more unpredictable, whereas Berkeley seems more numbers-driven. The aforementioned person had the numbers (1600 SAT, for example) but weak EC's, which very likely played a big part in the admissions process.</p>
<p>Ok, if Cal is harder to get into as an oos than stanfurd, then why are any student who are also appying to HYPSMC add Berkeley to their list to "ensure that they get at least one?" Don't they know that its harder to get into Cal then most of the rest of those schools? Wouldn't they instead apply to all of the big guys (HYPSMC) and then add, say, Northwestern to the list to ensure that they get "at least one?" And if its so darn hard to get into Cal, not to mention the tuition, why are these people even applying there? Sakky, any thoughts?</p>
<p>Not many people actually know how difficult it is to get into Berkeley from out-of-state. The guy who I mentioned before thought of Berkeley as a safety school.</p>
<p>Wait, but Sakky says "self-selection plays a tremendously strong role." So doesn't that mean the they DO know how hard it is so only the best of the best even bother to apply? So what I would like is for Sakky to answer the question of why these people are even applying there?</p>