i’ve been hearing that for people who took summer classes at berkeley, they cannot test this theory unfortunately
this whole “proof” thing is a big issue and is why i’m a strong proponent of the “withdraw” page source code. that’s been proved beyond a reasonable doubt in the past. it also has only one method to check, while calnet has a bunch of different links and paths people can go through to find different results.
yeah so that gets me wondering why some get forbidden through one pathway/link while they also get not authorized through a different pathway/link - like, how do we know which is accurate? i’m pretty sure everyone has “not authorized” for the non-typical pathway/link people have been using, but then how do we know the typical pathway/link is likely accurate or holds any potential merit?
1 Like
we just gotta wait until more people report changes, or if the “withdraw” source code starts to change for people.
speaking of which, those of you that have “forbidden,” can you go check the withdraw page and see if you have “false, true, true?” if someone has it, then the method can be at least somewhat reliable. however, if someone with “forbidden” doesn’t have it – that means this method can’t be regarded as foolproof yet.
too scared lmao - I’m not touching the withdrawal button even if it is a two step process.
just click on the page, it just shows details about withdrawal and doesn’t cause any sort of action itself.
1 Like
It’s more than two step. You have to click Withdraw, click the checkmark, type Confirm, and then click Submit. It’s near impossible to accidentally withdraw
sorry, not happening friendo
to be fair, it’s a 3 step process
Have there been other cases where portal astrology in other instances seemed to be really definitive but then it ended up being entirely wrong/not correlated?
i don’t think so because from what i’ve heard according to the past two years, both astrologies were accurate for both admissions cycles
but this astrology isn’t “really definitive” yet. we’re gonna have to wait a while. the “withdraw” source code has been proved to be foolproof in the past beyond any doubt. this one isn’t as secure, it seems
oh shoot trying not to lose hope yet as a “not-authorized”
don’t. some people have reported theirs changing but, again, we don’t know!
if you could obtain proof from those who say theirs have changed, or from early admits who have not authorized, then it would completely disprove this astrology. i’ve been trying to ask for proof from those who claim one of these two, but i have yet to have received any
yeah for what its worth for my friends we have
Forbidden:
UCLA accept, UCSD accept, UCSB waitlist
UCLA accept, UCI accept, UCSD, accept, UCD accept
UCSD accept, UCSB accept, UCI waitlist, UCLA reject
Not authorized:
UCI accept, UCSD waitlist, UCLA reject
UCLA and UCI reject, UCSD waitlist
1 Like
but again this could be confirmation bias idk
NoName previously mentioned that they knew 2 international early admits with “unauthorized”? but i think they may have doubledowned on it
i asked them to provide proof twice but they ignored me both times, and i recall others asking for proof as well and they completely ignored them and continued to engage in conversation regarding other things
i’ve seen a few mentions like this too. early admits would probably have been the first to get a “forbidden” message, so it again calls into question the whole rollout of decisions