<p>No, the heart of the matter is that you dispute the stanfurd survey, which you can in no way disprove.</p>
<p>I don't dispute the Stanford survey. Did I ever say that I don't believe the Stanford survey? I am attempting to explain how the events of the Stanford survey might have come to be.</p>
<p>But why? Why not just say, "both schools are difficult to get into and both schools sometimes turn down people that would seem like a shoe in." This is vintage sakky, implying that if you are from California and you got into stanfurd that there is no way you could get turned down from Cal unless something funky was going on, namely that the survey was skewed with a disproportionate amount of out of staters. Its not as if the survey said the 3/4 or even 1/2 of the students got turned down, it says that one in three, which doesn't surprise me one bit. Cal turns town hundreds of people every year with near perfect stats, so why wouldn't those people then go on to stanfurd?</p>
<p>I hate to say it, but your argument is beginning to break down GentlemanandScholar simply because you have an inability to grasp basic statistics. I seriously doubt that it is possible, beyond a few apocryphal cases, for a Stanford acceptee to be rejected from Cal unless they are a non-resident. This is not, however, necessarily a "bad" thing, simply because Cal's entire raison d'</p>
<p>^Well... what if you have legacy status at Stanford but not at Berkeley? how big of a difference would that make?</p>
<p>I think we can safely assume that the discussion is focused on the admission standards of each university and thus exclude those with legacy from consideration.</p>
<p>Ok Gamma, grasp these stats:</p>
<p>In 2002 there were 14 Ca residents denied admission into chemestry with a 4.07 gpa average and 1484 sat average. Another six were denied with a 3.95 gpa and 1530 on their SATs.</p>
<p>For environmental design there were 16 Ca residents turned down who had an average gpa of 3.9 and SAT scores or 1451</p>
<p>For engineering, there were 427 Ca residents denied admission with a 4.04 average gpa and 1463 on their SATs. Another 148 Ca residents were denied admission with a staggering 4.30 GPA and 1539 on their SATs!</p>
<p>For L&S there were 203 Ca residents denied admission with an average GPA of 4.08 and an insane 1537 on their SATs.</p>
<p>So, Gamma, where do you suppose all of these Cal rejects went off to school?</p>
<p>And I don't think anyone is argueing that a Ca resident with a 4.3 gpa and 1539 on their SAts should be denied at Berkeley. We're not talking about what is right and wrong with admission, were talking about facts. And the fact is that many, many qualified students are denied admisson, for whatever reason, and those students probably aren't going to be going to UC Davis. I'm sure many of them, even had they been accepted, would have gone elsewhere, namely Stanfurd, Harvard, MIT, or CalTech. And I don't know why you'd say we should exclude legacy as a factor, because, again, we're not talking hypotheticals here, we're talking about real people who took a real survey. Why would we take out legacy for those real people?</p>
<p>Does anyone have statistics as to how many cross-applicants are accepted to only Stanford or Berkeley, and how many are accepted to both?</p>
<p>If all it takes is a 4.07 and a 1484 on my SAT, then wow, I guess I'll be attending HYP, MIT and Stanford next year. Plus, I assume that your drawing these statistics from the Moores report that drastically changed Berkeley's admissions, especially comprehensive review. As Chancellor Berderal affirmed in his rebuttal to the report:</p>
<p>"Focusing on the SAT I total score as the dominant measure of academic 'quality' is especially problematic. Research conducted on UC applicants and enrolled students demonstrates that, of the three major quantitative indicators of academic preparation (high school GPA, SAT II scores, and ACT/SAT I scores), SAT I scores are the least predictive of first-year success at UC. The relatively greater reliability of GPA and SAT II scores are officially reflected in UCs Eligibility Index, which weights GPA most heavilyconsistent with its relative power in predicting UC successand ACT/SAT I least heavily."</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/06_admit_rmb.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/06_admit_rmb.shtml</a></p>
<p>So, if you discard the SAT scores, your numbers don't look particularly impressive. It would, however, be very interesting to find out where they ultimately did go though.</p>
<p>Additionally, Chancellor Berderal argues:</p>
<p>"When evaluating each applicant, Berkeley readers review not only the entire application, but also a data summary that includes 58 separate numerical data points about that student and his or her educational circumstances. In evaluating each applicants academic record, readers not only examine quantitative indicators, they also study closely the actual transcript, which shows course-taking patterns, course-by-course grades (as opposed to averages), and trends in academic performance." - Ibid</p>
<p>It is understandably difficult to draw conclusions about these applicants who were denied with only a scarce few parameters. Furthermore, I do believe that we must exclude legacy because it muddles the matter beyond reasonability. The question is more so if a student has equal standing in both Universities, will he be accepted from one and rejected at the other? You could then make the argument that President Bush's admission to Yale and almost guaranteed hypothetical rejection from Berkeley obviously means Berkeley is far superior to Yale. A non-sequitur indeed. Oh, and if I come off as antagonistic, I don't mean to be! I enjoy debating, so I hope I'm not upsetting anyone :).</p>
<p>"President Bush's admission to Yale and almost guaranteed hypothetical rejection from Berkeley obviously means Berkeley is far superior to Yale."</p>
<p>Not true. During Bush's time, Berkeley accepted anybody who was eligible for admission, and the eligibility idex was quite low at the time.</p>
<p>Gamma, you are completely missing the point. First, it doesn't matter if admission practices changed after this report because the stanfurd survey was conducted in or around 1999-2000, so the data is reasonably fitting. Second, legacy does come into play here because, like I said, we aren't talking about hypotheticals of which school is harder to get into or which school is better, we are only talking about the stanfurd survey. I'm not sure what the stats for average admits to HYPS are, but I'm willing to bet that having a 4.30 gpa and 1570 SAT would put you near the top of their class.</p>
<p>No, it would actually put you in the center or upper middle. Many people I meet have higher stats than that. They also have mind-blowing ECs.</p>
<p>The offical averages might be lower cause I hang around the techie crowd.</p>
<p>Rooster, so stanfurds average incoming GPA is 4.3 and its average SAT is 1570? Please post those stats if you don't mind. And please refrain from the "well the people I hang out with scored_____ argument." I really don't care what your friends scored. THe official averages will work better. Thanks</p>
<p>Actually I'll just go ahead and post them myself. </p>
<p>Average high school GPA of all degree-seeking, first-time, first-year (freshman) students who submitted GPA: 3.9</p>
<p>75th percentile SAT verbal: 770
75th percentile SAT math: 780 </p>
<p>Which means that having a 4.3 GPA and 1570 SAT would indeed put you at the top of the Stanfurd class</p>
<p>Damn, I only got a 1540 on the SAT. Not Stanfurd material.</p>
<p>I've got some bad news Uber, the President has never lived in the state of California. Now I know he's a Reaganite, but I think the distinction is quite clear...</p>
<p>Oh, and sorry GentlemanandScholar, I admit I have deviated from the subject. I entered the discussion on the question of the difficulty of out of state admissions and was never really involved in the whole question of the survey - I even had to go back to previous pages to figure out what exactly you were talking about :). I'm just as much a Berkeley fan as anybody, but if we're comparing schools based on admissions standards, Stanford obviously wins. Personally, I am attending Berkeley because it is my first choice and I can't think of anywhere better for my major. Berkeley also has one of the most dynamic and interesting metropolitan areas of anywhere I've ever visited. You must concede that Stanford's standards are higher for admission, but that distinction reflects little on the actual undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>Yeah, I'd never try to argue that Cal has higher admission standards. It would be pretty easy to track down the numbers and see that stanfurd is quite a bit more selective than Cal, but that was never my argument.</p>
<p>I started this post and am going to attend stanford. My SAT score is 1240 (URM) and ecs were average. By the way i love reading what poeple have posted on here before going to sleep every night or when i wake up...hehe.</p>