<p>UCLA and CAL do share a substantial amount of cross admits. I do not believe the any of the UC's share who they are admitting. I was admitted to all 6 of the UC's I applied to inlcuding UCLA and CAL. I know an equal amount of people that got into UCLA and not CAL and the opposite or got into both.
Must be nice to be able to "debate" something like this in class during AP testing month. What type of high school are you in?</p>
<p>If you skim this post you will see that many people who got accepted into both UCs choose UCLA over Cal. (different people have different preferences for college)</p>
<p>Cal is not the top choice. If Cal were the top choice it would have a significantly higher yield rate than UCLA. </p>
<p>If you read this post you will see that UCLA and Cal are equally hard to get into. If you want to be picky, UCLA actually has higher numbers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
because almost everyone who applies to ucla probably applies to cal as well, so based on "intelligence" except for athletic recruits every one who got into cal should get into ucla. but they dont and the reason has to be channeling.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>UCLA got 7k more applicants last year. Your conclusion isnt correct.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i was skeptical at first as i am sure you guys might be too. but this proof changed my min. first off the application is same and while you might think that it is sent to only the campuses you selected, uc's can forward the apps if they please. a friend applied to cal, ucla, ucsd, and uci top four uc's but got rejected except uci gave him winter admission.</p>
<p>in addition he recieved admission packages from ucr and ucm without even applying the letters mentioned that their sister uc forwared the application.</p>
<p>also in my class i am ranked 7, 4.1 weighted, very good ec's sat of 1710 i got into ucla, rejected by cal.
my friend is the valedictorian, 4.6 weighted, good ecs, sat 1710 got into cal rejected by ucla.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>UCs do channel downward, but not upward. Heres the deal, everyone should pay attention here- the admissions processes are different. Yeah, the reason some people get into Berkeley and not UCLA and other times UCLA and not Berkeley. Berkeley has two readers, a main reader and a secondary reader. They concentrate more on a holistic package. UCLA has three readers, each with different sections. They assign point values to these sections, and the highest x percentage is accepted. I was told by my sources, a former Berkeley admissions officer supplemented by a former dean, that UCLA appears to put more emphasis on test scores, while Berkeley seems to concentrate more on grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since most acceptees to a cal or ucla get into one or the other, it only makes sense that the two would compare notes and make sure they enrolled the appropriate number of students...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, most acceptees at Berkeley or UCLA get into at least one of them. ;) What the two do is what all the UCs do- at the end of each application cycle, as in every year, they develop stats about everything about their students, so that they can see average SAT scores in each section, average number of AP courses, ect, for each campus</p>
<p>
[quote]
and you also have to take in consideration that some departments (cal's engineering, la's film) are harder to get into than other schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Film doesnt accept anyone until the third year of college or so. Berkeley engineering is from the start, generally.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cal is not the top choice. If Cal were the top choice it would have a significantly higher yield rate than UCLA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, UCLA seems to be a generally higher choice for students, or else they wouldnt have 7k more applicants, but hey, if you had UCLA have the same number of applicants as Berkeley last year, then we could see how yield rates change.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you read this post you will see that UCLA and Cal are equally hard to get into. If you want to be picky, UCLA actually has higher numbers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Equally hard to get into? Perhaps. Again, different processes. Also, change then umber of applicants and watch the number of yield and admit change dramatically.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Equally hard to get into? Perhaps. Again, different processes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Drab it doesn't matter whether you think Cal's student body is better than UCLA's. The debate is "Ucla- Because Not Everyone Gets Into Cal." We're talking about how hard it is to get accepted into UCLA and Cal, not the people who attend there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone can argue that UCI>UCLA or UCSD>CAL...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that why UCLA's yield rate was 39% and UCSD's yield rate was only 21% last year?</p>
<p>That quotation seems quite relevant to the topic that you mention. I also don't remember talking about how Berkeley's student body is better than UCLA's in my post. I merely responded to what was posted before me, talk to those who brought up the "wrong thing."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is that why UCLA's yield rate was 39% and UCSD's yield rate was only 21% last year?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So schools with low yield rates are bad? How about U of Chicago?</p>
<p>It's starting to heat up in here based on what I'm readin'.</p>
<p>how the hell did u get in with 1710?</p>
<p>different people get into different UCs for different reasons.....
and its not only based on SAT socres or GPAs
my SAT score was around a 1650 and i had a 4.0 for my 10th and 11th year (so do a hell lot of other people)
my personal statement was pulled off in 2 hours right before i submitted my application on the last day
what they really look for is diversity, a unique background....
i got into UCLA and CAL
but this is what i think...it doesnt matter which school you get into, what really matters is how hard you're willing to work in college</p>
<p>and this whole debate about UCLA>CAL or CAL>UCLA is just value judgement....</p>
<p>"'I was told by my sources, a former Berkeley admissions officer supplemented by a former dean, that UCLA appears to put more emphasis on test scores, while Berkeley seems to concentrate more on grades." </p>
<p>Drab</p>
<p>if this was true i would have gotten into cal and not ucla because my sats were way too low at 1710, but my grades were comparatively high, 4.18 7 b's and about 30 a's so far.</p>
<p>Sure, that's correct, although there's no reason why many cases would differ from an overall rule, and there are probalby other factors at play <em>shrug</em></p>
<p>
[quote]
So schools with low yield rates are bad?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, but aren't you the person who emphasizes cross admit rates?</p>
<p>Among the UCs, the yield rates tend to (not always, there are many exceptions) show where the better students attend.</p>
<p>The UCs are a group of schools similar to the Ivy's (when it comes to yield rate, not academics). Actually, the UCs may be even more compact together. People who apply to Ivy's do not consider mostly Ivy's. They may apply to Princeton, Duke, Cornell and Georgetown for example. However a lot of people in California tend to apply to the UCs and go to what they consider the "better UC," or UC with most money or (Stanford, elite private school, or private school with money). </p>
<p>For example, Cornell has a significantly lower yield rate than Harvard. Cornell is certainly not a bad school, but it shows that it is not "overall" better than Harvard.</p>
<p>here changbj88
low sats don't mean anything, i had a lot of other strong stuff, check out this link with my stats:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=181964%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=181964</a></p>
<p>I don't think that I emphasize them in general, although I think they are important in different ways. I acknowledge they have at least some importance, one being popularity - sort of like application numbers. The higher the rate, the more popular, at least amongst amitted students. It's voting with your attendance, in a way like applying is voting or indicating with interest.</p>
<p>I don't know if we can say the most popular is the best. Perhaps there is some correlation, but your argument seems to imply that this is the case. Harvard has one of the highest yield rates, and is therefore one of if not the best educations? I don't think that makes sense, or at the very least, the conclusion isn't justified by the evidence in my opinion. It does indicate perceived value or quality, probably.</p>
<p>Cornellians not getting into Harvard? Here you go.</p>
<p>I agree with you DRab. I was using yield rates instead of US News rankings (they would be much easier) because amiradaprincess seemed to be emphasizing perceived value.</p>
<p>This thread really should end. Who has a class debate about UCLA vs Cal during AP testing? Amiradaprincess is just bitter she got rejected from UCLA.</p>
<p>UCLA: Because amiradaprincess was rejected and had to settle for UCI. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Your assessment works for me, DRab. I'm one of those that had better test scores and worser grades than the average.</p>
<p>I agree with Flopsy. I think this whole thread has nothing to do with a "debate" in a high school class. It has to do with amiradaprincess getting rejected from UCLA (and not being over it yet) and having to settle for UCI. I wish I knew how to roll my eyes sarcastically!</p>
<p>With AP scores like these....</p>
<p>
[quote]
1- AP EURO
2- AP ENVIRONMENTAL
3- AP US</p>
<p>no for real! those are the scores ^
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Shouldn't you be studying instead of having your "class debate"</p>
<p>UCLA because chicks at Cal look like horses</p>
<p>Damn... u guys are stalkers... if UCLA if full of cyberstalkers... then i'm glad I got rejected...</p>
<p>"had to settle for Irvine" ... my ass... I got accepted at SD and even better schools biotch... I had plenty of options... BUT I DON'T GO FOR NUMBERS LIKE ALL OF Y'ALL... turning this into an attack cuz you are pathetic... </p>
<p>Anyway... believe it or not (AND I REALLY don't give a ***** which you go with)... this IS for a class discussion.... i'm sorry that not all schools spend their time reading straight from textbooks and ignore the stuff that matters to the students.... </p>
<p>If you guys represented the student body at LA... the school would not be anywhere close to what it is... thank GOD my friends who go there are NOTHING like you...</p>
<p>Last but not least, LA is a GOOD SCHOOL!!! We all know that... getting rejected there stings... but i'm sure some of you guys had it worse when you got rejected by Stanford, CAL, Yale, Princeton and Harvard... I got over it and used my experiences to come up with a pretty good idea... what did you do when the IVYs said no... did u cry... were you the one's that posted threads about suicidal thoughts... I hope not...</p>