<p>FredFredBurger:</p>
<p>"Kyle, she is instate, has a 2370 and is a val. UCB and UCLA are safeties, period."</p>
<p>No. Tell that to the people with 2300+, great ECs, leadership positions, etc. who get rejected from Berkeley. Here's one example: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=164782%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=164782</a></p>
<p>"They don't care about ECs a lot (as to overshadow extremely great stats) and especially in light of her Ivy level stats she is in."</p>
<p>Er, what? How much do you actually know about Berkeley/UCLA? See this:</p>
<p>More than 50% of applicants with over a 4.0 were rejected.
More than 50% of applicants with an ACT score of 31-36 were rejected.
More than 50% of applicants with SAT Critical Reading score over 700 were rejected.
Almost 60% of applicants with SAT Math score over 700 were rejected.
More than 50% of applicants with SAT Writing score over 700 were rejected.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles/chart_ucb.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles/chart_ucb.pdf</a></p>
<p>Obviously, Berkeley isn't very numbers oriented. It's widely known that essays and extracurriculars are hugely important in Berkeley admissions. The same can probably be said about UCLA. I've seen people with a 3.5 GPA get in because they had really awesome ECs. I've seen rather average people get in because their essays really distinguished them.</p>
<p>You seem to be impressed simply because of her SAT score. Look at the rest: weak ECs for the Ivies, average for Berkeley (music, a few sports, French, NHS), and her awards are mostly on the school level. The national-level French award, though, is one of the highlights.</p>
<p>"I'm serious, the only school I would not be surprised she's denied from is Stanford (cuz it's just that good)"</p>
<p>Then you obviously haven't seen much around CC, have you? Happens to tons and tons of students with better resumes than the OP -- even at Brown, Columbia, etc.</p>
<p>"Though I agree, I would say Brown is more of a match and CMU a safety."</p>
<p>You don't really understand the concept of a "match" either. I'll say it again: "matches" are those that you are very likely to get into; you're supposed to choose them along with a safety or two, and a few reaches if you want. Thus, NO Ivy is a match for anyone, because it isn't a for-sure thing at all. (A safety, by contrast, is one that you'll most definitely get into.)</p>
<p>I wouldn't be surprised if she were rejected from Stanford, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, and Amherst, and to a lesser extent JHU and Northwestern. I would be surprised if she didn't get into Berkeley and UCLA, but that doesn't mean they're safeties. More like matches.</p>
<p>Why am I saying all this? Because when ~45,000 people apply to Berkeley and ~50,000 apply to UCLA (making them two of the most popular universities in the country), admissions get tough, very tough. This year's admissions cycle demonstrated that -- all over CC, people were shocked: UC admissions have gone crazy. People who thought UCSB was a safety were rejected; people who thought UCLA was a match were rejected; people who considered Berkeley a safety were rejected (and even after appealing, were rejected again). It's been happening more and more often, so it's now safe to say that Berkeley/UCLA are no one's safety. (Not that they ever could have been before -- CC has a twisted view of reach/match/safety, and Berkeley/UCLA are two highly selective schools that should always be, at best, considered a match. Safeties are those definite ones like CSU Northridge, etc.)</p>
<p>llpitch: funny that you'd mention her SAT score. While the score is awesome, it wouldn't be what gets her into Berkeley/UCLA -- it'd be her impressive GPA, which is much more heavily stressed than the SAT/ACT.</p>