<p>Ok so I applied to UCLA with a 3.3 UW and 2040 SAT...and got in. If you wanna know exactly how I got in, I attribute it ENTIRELY to my ec's and my list of college classes taken from UCLA extension (2 classes), UCB Extension (2 classes), Harvard Extension (2 classes), MIT (2), Yale online (2), and BYU online (3)</p>
<p>I stocked up on these classes to make sure I had a fighting chance at my top school (UC Berkeley). Like I said earlier, I got into UCLA as a Neuroscience major after receiving a supplemental questionnaire from them about 2 months prior. What I'm trying to get at is the big question people on CC have been asking regarding UCLA and UCB. </p>
<p>Ive heard UCLA is more numbers based and UCB is more "holistic." That being said, I think my numbers sorta defy those observations and I want to know how my odds are at Berk. If I can get into a school that is more numbers based with those grades/scores, what does that say about my chances at a school that is more "holistic" (aka Berk)? Its been killing me since I got that damn UCLA acceptance lol</p>
<p>Any advice/feedback is much appreciated. Thanks guys!</p>
<p>well, you definitely fit the profile of a counter-intuitive, holistic admission, but those are also pretty impenetrable. We look year after year at the records of those accepted and those denied, and particularly in the ‘holistic, non-stats’ cases, there is precious little to explain why one gets the nod and the other 99 are sent a rejection. </p>
<p>It therefore all comes down to whether something in your story and record sparks a little flame of interest in the individual who was assigned as your admissions file reader. If they saw something special, then they flag your file. Now, a second reader has to pretty much agree, or a larger committee has to agree, before you are finally offered a spot, but without the first recommendation, someone with low stats is lost in a huge pile of unsuccessful applications, totally unlikely to ever be look at again. </p>
<p>I suspect that the extension classes helped your case at UCLA and probably at Cal, although we have quite a few who not only took extension courses but that registered and took full college courses at similar schools, contending with the admitted student bodies. Either case answers an otherwise open question - does an applicant do well at Cal, whether or not they did well in the easier, more structured and more supported high school environment. </p>
<p>Your college level coursework at a variety of institutions showed that, regardless of traditional measures of potential like SAT and traditional records of effort, like GPA, you were fully capable of rising to the challenge and prospering in a college environment. I think that means quite a lot, because the admissions committees know they have dozens applying for every spot and would hate to ‘waste’ a spot on someone who sleepwalks through four years, when an alternative student might gain the world from the richness of the school, its faculty and student body.</p>
<p>First of all, thanks for the well written response. And i agree with you that my classes are really what stood out in my file. I knew that my gpa wasnt too great so I started thinking of other ways i could show admissions officers my potential.*</p>
<p>I would like others to maybe take my example to bolster their chances as it obviously helped me out enough to turn what would otherwise be a surefire rejection into an acceptance. Im not saying this will always work, but if you’re passionate enough about your studies (as i was with mine), admissions officers will see that and will commend it.</p>
<p>As for me, one of my essays related to my applied major (CogSci) and my other essay reflected my career choice (medicine). Those essays coupled with the some 12 or 13 *extra classes i took (most of which were for credit) all relating to the medical sciences and human cognition are what im relying on. Thank you again.</p>
<p>Lol no its definately not like that. I worked for like two summers and earned some money here and there tutoring kids. And my parents met me like half way.</p>
<p>I would honestly say your chances for Berekeley are honestly the same as UCLA because you’re not getting in with your numbers, simply your unique course work. It’s going to be the human factor (ie, your file reader) like rider730 said that will get you the nod. So pretty much it’s luck. But good luck! You got into UCLA, so maybe that is a good sign for Berkeley as well. If you don’t even get in, it’s not like you have a bad back up school. Keep in mind Berkeley also does spring admits so you can also be admitted that way. </p>
<p>Not to be a jerk but may I ask why your unweighted GPA is so drastically low if you can take so many classes at top end universities and do well in them? I was simply wondering that when I read your post.</p>
<p>Lol ur not being a jerk. Its cuz i have C’s in classes like english and history. I never tried as hard as i should have in some classes because i never saw the importance of those classes to my future. Its still nowhere near valid but thats pretty much it</p>
<p>We send about 4 or 5 to ivies and about 20ish get into Cal/LA. Competition is actually pretty rough but it doesnt excuse me. I know i couldve easily done better</p>
<p>Hey, who’d have thought? I’m doing the same thing! </p>
<p>You applied as a freshman, right? Once you’re in, can you get credit for the courses you took? I know you get credit for summer session courses taken as an auditor at UC, but does it work the same way for online courses from other institutions, like the ones from Harvard and Yale?</p>
<p>ESPECIALLY if you were able to get lower division major requirements out of the way! **** yeah, dude.</p>
<p>Yea dude thats whats up. Although i dont think any of my other classes will get me credit besides the UC Extension courses and maybe the Harvard ones. In either case, it’d be nice to get some additional credits outta the way</p>