<p>I've heard that UCB and UCLA compare students so that they don't accept the same students, but I've known people who have been accepted to both. I think this is just another admissions rumor floating around.</p>
<p>^^^ There are not enough hours in the day for them to start comparing notes. Look they all take the top ELCs, then for the remaining 25 to 30 % of seats they take the best, with generally GPA being the single best determinant of entry.</p>
<p>Everyone I know going to UCLA from my high school also got into Berkeley (including me). Curiously, many going to Cal were rejected by UCLA, despite UCLA's slightly lesser selectivity. Anyway, my point is that many people get into both. But the schools do not share admissions officers, do not have identical application reviewing processes, and clearly do not have the time, personnel, or rationale to compare notes with the other campus before making decisions.</p>
<p>Something like that happened at my school too. There were students who have high GPA and high SAT but got rejected from Berkeley but got into UCLA while others who have way lower GPA+SAT got into Berkeley but not UCLA. There's got to be a secret santa somewhere, maybe a white Christmas...</p>
<p>i think its definitely possible and it would make sense...to keep admission rates lower,
cal/ucla probably only admits students to both school if they are the really smart and talented students, then for the lower tier ones, they trade off</p>
<p>Man I've heard the "You either get into Berkeley or UCLA" rumor a LOT... nice to see quite a few people got into both.. still hope then :)</p>
<p>I got into both 2 years ago, and honestly, I had zero non-academic strengths. FWIW, they even both gave me the Regents' Scholarship, so it's definitely possible. I don't know what their criteria are nowadays, though. Maybe I got lucky!</p>
<p>I don't think that they orchestrate anything like that. Most people get into one or the other. 70 percent of those that get into both go to Berkeley.</p>
<p>I would think it matters on what you're looking at because if you like the envirionment or the major. Every school has their specialty.</p>
<p>That's interesting. Last year, my son applied to UCLA as a biology major and was admitted. He applied to UC Berkeley as a Music Major and was admitted. Wonder if it would have been harder to get into Berkeley as a bio major. It would have been harder as a music major for UCLA. They have a music school so you have to audition, etc but not at Berkeley - just submitted a CD. Don't think they trade off students but it might depend on your major as to whether or not you are admitted. One kid we know got into Berkeley but not UCLA. I hear that happens a lot getting into one school but not the other.</p>
<p>It seems as if kids who get to UCLA dont get into UCB, and those who get into UCB dont get into LA. Is this true? Seemed like it from graduating seniors last year..</p>
<p>Did you miss all the replies about people getting into both in this thread?</p>
<p>wow, yeah sorry bout that.</p>
<p>The UC admissions make no sense whatsoever. My best friend got into Stanford early action but got rejected from UCLA. ***??</p>
<p>Because the admissions staff at different schools all must use the exact same formulas for determining who gets in and don't emphasize different parts of the application.</p>
<p>Or you can just attribute it to Tufts Syndrome :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Thats only true if you believe that cows throw farm parties at night and don't invite the horses.</p>
<p>People apply to schools where they feel most comfortable and will be able to thrive given their personal beliefs and scholastic endeavors. Science and engineers apply to UCLA because of the world-class program and talents they attract from around the globe. Physicists, chemists, astronomers, from around the world clamor to work at UCLA, and research with the best. </p>
<p>Berekely, conversely, is known for its liberal stance on human affairs. They thrive on social reform and pushing the envelope at every turn. The people who go here would suffocate in a regimented science course, where engineers would not prosper in such a loose and open forum.</p>
<p>I heard the same rumor from a college counselor lady who charged a butt-load of money (so i thought she had credibility). She told me I should only apply to the one I REALLY wanted to go to. I applied to both and got into both. So I don’t think its true. Don’t believe the myth.</p>
<p>Wow, that’s awful. Maybe you should find a way to let potential customers she doesn’t know smurf.</p>
<p>I was invited when the coaches of both schools were deciding on my application because I was in between in terms of strength in both science and nonscience areas. The Berkeley coach wanted me at their school and the UCLA coach was tired because they just went through 90,000 applications before mine so he was ready to give me up for 5 other people which the Berkeley coach was more than willing to do because I’m so spectacular and all. I really like Westwood better though so I said if UCLA would not take me, then I would not attend either school. In the end, Berkeley agreed to trade me for 10 other previously accepted UCLA applicants so their offers of admissions were transferred to Berkeley even though they saw that they previously got into UCLA (their online letters of admission for UCLA turned into rejections).</p>
<p>In all seriousness, is this yearly recurring myth just something people who are rejected tell themselves to boost their self-esteem?</p>
<p>Just think about it for a second - Cal and UCLA are both public schools. That means they are accountable to regents and ultimately people of the state. Do you think the public would these universities trading students for the sole purpose of helping their institutions’ images? The first whiff of it would launch an investigation by media outlets and lawmakers alike. Those responsible would find themselves out of a job fairly quickly.</p>
<p>So, in summery, it is a myth.</p>