UC Berkley

<p>does anyone happen to have the statistics for other UC transfer to Berkeley in general or Haas?</p>

<p>should be on ucop admissions site (somewhere on the drop down menu that had links to the online app)... </p>

<p>It looks very similar to (just general transfer not Haas) the CCC admit rates, GPA etc.</p>

<p>44% of 29% admitted as Chemical Engineering majors... sounds comforting until I start imagining the statistics of most of these people that apply.</p>

<p>Eliza, you don't get it. The divisions that are important in terms of admissions are not by majors in the case of social sciences. It's the division overall. They have a general number who will be accepted within that division--you are evaluated based on the stats of others who applied to majors within that division. A statistic for each major would be useless.</p>

<p>Gabe, I think you're missing (part of) Eliza's point. He/she is saying that major choice must play some part in admissions - beyond what we've all read on Berkeley's web site and elsewhere. I would have to agree; however, I don't believe that it's anything entirely significant. You're right; the division is the most important factor, but the further you get away from that and GPA and prereqs, etc., the more Berkeley does whatever the hell they want. If there are two applicants with similar merits, and one is a poli sci major and the other is the only applicant for some obscure major, I'm confident that the obscure major would get in. Again, I'm not saying it's a huge deal; it's probably something that would get factored in around location and socioeconomic status. </p>

<p>My point is, when it comes down to it, we don't know what goes on in there. I think people on here should give a little more credit to speculation and not just preach berkeley.edu every time someone says something.</p>

<p>I propose the COMPLETE OPPOSITE, murmuirc, from my experience on this board. The speculation is a BAD, BAD, BAD idea. That is how we have come to ridiculous, entirely disproven, harmful ideas like the "UCLA or BERKELEY, but NOT BOTH" conspiracy.</p>

<p>It's not just "berkeley.edu," it's also admissions counselors who are happy to answer questions.</p>

<p>You have to understand the division process. Each division makes up its own pool; you aren't compared with others who apply JUST for your major, but for all the majors within your division. The divisions make sense because for social sciences, for instance, each major is competitive. In the humanities division, each major is less competitive--there is a decent matchup. </p>

<p>Eliza was assuming far too much based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how Berkeley has divisons.</p>

<p>The one-or-the-other thing is an example of a speculation without merit, but I don't see how that's such a horrible thing. It's not harmful.</p>

<p>I understand the division process. I agree that you are compared with others in the division and not others in your major. However, my point was that somewhere along the line, your major might be one of the considerations while being compared to others in the division. Again, just speculation. Neither you nor I know the answer for sure, and, certainly, no one is being harmed.</p>

<p>All I'm saying is that speculations are just that: speculations. Treated as such, I don't see what the big deal is. Surely, you acknowledge that we don't know everything.</p>

<p>I value the fact, mrmuirc, that you identified it as a "might." I agree on that. </p>

<p>And I definitely agree with speculation being ok when it is treated as such. The problem is when speculation starts being confused with fact.</p>

<p>Many on the board have difficulty discerning between the two; that isn't the case with you. </p>

<p>The harm comes when people associate rumors and speculation with fact and come to harmful conclusions about the admissions process (harmful in the sense that it can send someone in misleading directions that can hurt their chances, etc.)</p>