<p>
[quote]
Self-selectivity plays a decent role, but do you seriously believe that the applicants to UCLA/Cal (acceptance rate of at least 20%+) are MORE self-selective than Harvard (which had an acceptance rate of 8.98% in 2007)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, yes. Harvard's applicant pool is amazingly un-self-selective; that's why its admit rate is so damn low. Same with Stanford. But in University of Chicago's case, for example, the applicant pool is very self-selective -- to the point that the acceptance rate is roughly 40%, yet the average SAT score is Ivy-level.</p>
<p>In the case of Berkeley/UCLA OOS, consider this: OOS applicants know: that it's highly competitive in-state, with over 40,000 applicants each; that it's even more competitive out-of-state, since UC's purpose is to serve California residents first; that it's going to be roughly the price of a private since they're OOS (~$42,000/year); that they aren't going to be offered much aid, since they're OOS; and that they can probably get in somewhere equivalent with better financial aid. So, why apply? Thus, the applicant pool ends up very small, especially in comparison to the in-state applicants, and it also is very self-selective. Despite that, the OOS acceptance rate was lower than the in-state acceptance rate (at least, in Berkeley's case). Consider this: of the total acceptances at Berkeley, only 9% were OOS. Obviously Berkeley is limiting it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so in order to have a good shot at being accepted, you need to be in roughly the top 75% stat-wise of the accepted students (averaging 20% and 15% for 17.5%)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What? You mean you need to be top 75% stat-wise of the entire applicant pool, right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
which isn't that tough.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can't make such a judgment, though. By that logic, you have to be top 60% to have a good shot at UChicago, so therefore it's even less tough. That isn't the case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For UCLA the top 75% has a SAT score of 1770+ and for Cal, the top 75% had a 1790+ (from CollegeBoard college profiles), however, this does not in anyway mean that just having a 1770 will cut it
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't understand your point. The SAT, for one, isn't superscored at the UCs, as it is at top privates; the SAT isn't nearly as stressed, either, in part because it's known that GPA is much more indicative of one's success in college. Now, compare the stats that Berkeley stresses with a top private's: 99% of Berkeley's freshmen were in the top 10% of his/her graduating class; the average UW GPA was a 3.9; the average W GPA is a 4.3 (out of a possible 4.4 -- UC GPA caps it at that). I'd also argue that a very large portion of the freshman class were in the top few percent of their graduating class -- the admit rate for ELC students (top 4%) was less than 60%, so I suppose it'd be even harder for top 5-10%.</p>
<p>I'd also argue that many of those who bring the SAT averages down are URMs. Ever since the banning of AA, Berkeley has been more willing to 'lower the bar' for certain URMs -- even a past UC chancellor noted that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
admissions for out state are still undoubtedly harder, but not in any way like Harvard or Princeton.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Usually, no, they aren't as difficult. But in some cases, yes, they are -- as in, students get into HYPS but not Berkeley/UCLA. Why? Because there are so many damn Californians applying, there simply isn't enough room for OOSers, so they have to be very, very selective. Generally, though, I'd say OOS for Berkeley/UCLA is very much like an Ivy.</p>