<p>My stats are far below many of the averages among UC’s. I still am in disbelief.
GPA: 4.0
SAT: 1690
Yet, i rank top 2% in my class. </p>
<p>Accepted: UCLA (WOO!), UCSD, UCI, UCSB, UCD, UCR, Cal Poly Slo, CSULB.
Anything is possible folks. </p>
<p>Rejected! ACT 34, SAT 2300, SAT II 780, 760, 740, 4.5 GPA. ASB President, arts/music/service/varsity athletics -Berkeley Regents. Congrats - dazed and confused!</p>
<p>@slamdunkz2496 Yeah even the post above mine @bioengineer0501 did not get in with outstanding scores. However, that either means that we did not pass the holistic review that you obviously did, or that Berkeley will accept us instead. Even though they say that they dont communicate with each other, a very surprisingly high number, which cannot be coincidental, of qualified appicants, get rejected by UCLA, but admitted by UCB. I’m hoping the latter happens to me. hehehe</p>
<p>Agree^^^. That has been brought up before and it would be interesting to really know the scoop — that while some may get admitted to both UCB and UCLA, it seems they tend to admit the majority to one or the other and not both. I don’t know the process, but every year that pattern is noticeable. Good luck on UCB results!</p>
<p>Not to burst anyone’s bubble. But I think getting into UCLA is a better indication that there is a chance to get into Berkeley, than not getting into UCLA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Similarly, most Stanford admits are rejected by Harvard, and most Harvard admits are rejected by Stanford. Cannot be coincidental, I suppose?</p>
<p>@letjustin I’m Vietnamese and also planning to go to SEA weekend! Whoo 
</p>
<p>@SoCalDad2 - You are wrong. Most Stanford admits are not rejected by Harvard and vice versa. Don’t just make up bs to try and prove a non-existant point. @NonCustParent - Obviously, nobody wrote that there is a better chance, impossible. Even statistically, UCLA rejected like 70,000 applicants of its 86000 plus applicants. Most definitely a larger percentage of admits will come from the 16000 already admitted to UCLA. I just stated that there is an equally significant number that dont get into UCLA, but do get into UCB. </p>
<p>And I’m not “delusional”. I did get into MIT as an international student.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is your source? My source was this report (17% of Stanford admits are admitted by Harvard):</p>
<p><a href=“Mathacle's Blog: Stanford or Harvard/Yale/Princeton/MIT, or Others?”>http://mathacle.blogspot.com/2012/01/stanford-or-harvardyaleprincetonmit-or.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a non sequitur! </p>
<p>After reading most of the accepted/rejected stats, I’m very confused. A couple things I noticed:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A surprisingly high number of admits who had <em>average</em> gpa (3.4 to 3.7), average SAT score (2050 to 2200), un-stellar AP scores (lots of 3’s/4’s) (coupled with average EC’s) – all this relative to past admits who had noticeably higher stats. And before you go all “stats aren’t everything” on me, I get that - but personally I was surprised that UCLA admitted so many of these students when they (as well as Berkeley and the UC system) have a reputation for being much more stats-oriented than private colleges.</p></li>
<li><p>More URM’s and internationals than previous years. A lot more. Whatever happened to Prop 209, banning affirmative action?</p></li>
<li><p>Many students with excellent gpa’s and test scores rejected. Has UCLA gotten into the habit of rejecting and increasing number of slightly overqualified and fairly overqualified students, and accepting an increasing number of average or below average students (compared to majority of past UCLA admits), in the hopes of increasing their yield?</p></li>
<li><p>Indeed, many of the aforementioned admitted students were themselves taken completely by surprise, as they themselves only applied as a reach/dream school. </p></li>
<li><p>Has UCLA become more competitive than Berkeley?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>*<em>My observations may of course be biased and all that…etc.
*</em>Admit/Rejects reported on CC may not be representative of population of applicants.
**I’m not a bitter UCLA reject trying to insult anyone here - I was accepted but many of my friends and classmates were surprisingly rejected. Congrats to those who were also accepted.</p>
<p>If anyone else feels similarly (or strongly against) on any matter, I’d be very interested in what you have to say.</p>
<p>Edit: I actually created an account just to post this, so I’m being completely serious.</p>
<p>Decision: Rejected</p>
<p>Stats:</p>
<pre><code>College/Major Applied To: College of Engineering (Mechanical Engineering)
Fee Waiver Used: Yes
SAT IIs: 800 on Math Level 2, 740 on Chemistry
GPA: 3.85 UW/4.71 W/4.24 UC
Rank: Top 5% of 689 student class. (My school has over 3000 students)
ACT: 34 (33 English, 34 Math, 33 Reading, 34 Science)
APs: Calculus BC (5), WHAP (4), APUSH (5), Chemistry (4)
Senior Courseload: AP Literature, AP Statisitics, AP Physics C, AP Computer Science A, Microeconomics, AP Government
Other stats (Awards, etc.):
2nd Place in Pacific Coast League Wrestling Finals JV 113lb (2012)
2nd Place in Pacific Coast League Wrestling Finals JV 120lb (2013)
AP Scholar with Honor
Commended National Merit
Beckman High School’s Top Scholar Athletic Award (Given to varsity athletes with 4.65+ weighted GPA)
</code></pre>
<p>Subjective:</p>
<pre><code>ECs listed on app: Varsity Wrestling, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Senior Representative of School’s California Scholarship Federation, Freshmen Mentor Leader, Communications Officer for a purely student-run volunteering organization, and tutored math for the Tutoring Corps in my school.
Essays (subject and responses): One about how I grew up on a garlic farm in Korea and the changes that occurred when I moved to the US and the other about how I had to cut weight for wrestling (starving myself, ect.) while doing well in school
Hook (TASP, RSI, Research, etc.): First Generation College
</code></pre>
<p>Location/Person:</p>
<pre><code>State or Country: California (in-state)
School Type, Average Stats of School (if available): Large, Public, one of the better public schools in California
Ethnicity: Korean
Gender: Male
Income Bracket: Less than $30K a year
Strengths: Strong academics considering the nature of my sport
Weaknesses: Possibly not enough extra-cirriculars pertaining to engineering and science as a whole
Why you think you were accepted/wait listed/denied: My weakness stated above and probably my SAT II score of 740 for Chemistry
</code></pre>
<p>Other Factors:
General Comments/Congratulations/Venting/Commiserations,etc: I got accepted to Cal Poly SLO, USC (admission notified early for some low income scholarship), and UCSD. I got rejected by Cornell, UCLA and Rice.
Still waiting from CMU and UC Berkeley. </p>
<p>I didn’t really know where to post this, but is anyone else having trouble with the financial aid page? It might’ve been that my dad submitted the fafsa WAY later than the priority filing deadline (as in he sent it in last week… yeah), but when I log into the financial aid page I get a page that says “Sorry, there is no financial aid information available for you to view on the Awards and Notices page.” I understand that they might not have gotten my fafsa but shouldn’t there be at least something?..anything?? ㅜㅜ…</p>
<p>@SoCalDad2 - I’m not sure you know how that data was gathered. That data does not have one shred of official or verified data. Instead, people had to volunteer their information on this thread: <a href=“Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT Cross-Admits for Class of 2014 - College Search & Selection - College Confidential Forums”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/920080-harvard-yale-princeton-stanford-mit-cross-admits-for-class-of-2014.html</a>.</p>
<p>Even a greater error which you made was to assume that since 17% were admitted to both the rest 83% were rejected by either one. That is completely wrong, since most or some (a percentage not considered) did not even apply to both. So if someone only got into Stanford, it doesn’t mean they were rejected by Harvard, but also that they might have not even applied.</p>
<p>Additionally the corresponding majors make a great difference, which was once again ignored by the statistics. If you apply for engineering at both Stanford and Harvard, then obviously the standards will be much higher for Stanford Engineering and hence, will lead to the student possibly only being admitted to Harvard. So the comment that most Stanford admits are rejected by Harvard is completely wrong.</p>
<p>Finally the nail on the coffin, the website states the number of people accepted by stanford, and the cross admits in the other universities. The most significant factor is that each university has a different number of seats available. According to that website UCB accepted 608 of the 2340 students accepted by stanford. The cross admit rate might seem small, but thats because UCB itself admits a smaller number of total people. It did not admit as many students as Stanford and thus will of course have a smaller “cross” ratio. But of the people that Berkeley did admit, for example if it admitted 1000 people, then 600 people (60% ratio) were cross admits to Stanford.</p>
<p>SATuser123 – you are very sloppy with the facts. The Stanford data did not come from people volunteering on CC, but from Stanford:</p>
<p><a href=“Stanford hopes to close financial-aid deficit in four to five years, Hennessy tells Stanford faculty”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/10/08/financial-aid-deficit-may-persist-four-to-five-years-hennessy-tells-stanford-faculty/</a></p>
<p>@SoCalDad2 However, you failed to reply to the other, more significant points. Additionally, that is not official stats provided by Stanford. Stanford Daily is a newspaper by the Stanford University, however, with unofficial writers and editors (normally students themselves). So again, it is not from Stanford, but from a group of students at Stanford, and their calculated statistics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None of your points are significant: </p>
<p>I never said 83% were rejected by the other school. </p>
<p>Regarding corresponding majors – Stanford and Harvard are nearly identical in terms of available majors. </p>
<p>What is your basis for saying that the standards for Stanford engineering are higher than for Harvard engineering? </p>
<p>Your final paragraph about Berkeley has no relevance to the subject of the discussion. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you read it? Those are stats provided by Dean of Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid Richard Shaw. “Shaw turned to other universities, telling faculty 26 percent of students admitted to the Class of 2014 also were admitted to UC-Berkeley; 21 percent to UC-Los Angeles; 18 percent to Princeton; 17 percent to Harvard; 15 percent to Yale; 13 percent to UC-San Diego; 14 percent to Duke; and 13 percent to M.I.T.”</p>
<p>Umm I’m not sure you know math or statistics for that matter. For example, if Stanford accepted 2000 students, 1000 of whom where for sciences, and the other 1000 were for liberal arts. MIT accepts a far greater number of students for engineering (since it is more engineering related.) So even if it admitted all 1000 students who got into Stanford engineering, still the statistics, according to how they calculated it would be 50%, which is incredibly misleading.</p>
<p>“I never said 83% were rejected by the other school.”</p>
<p>You are an idiot since you don’t even know what you said. If you say only 17% cross admits, that means, by definition, that the rest 83% were not cross admits, in other words not accepted by both. In the statistics, they forgot to take into account the number of people of those 83% that did not even apply to both, forget about not being accepted.</p>
<p>Majors are not identical in any way when comparing two universities. They will always differ. Harvard and Stanford though might differ slightly, Stanford and MIT would differ greatly. This is yet another criteria that was omitted. Also, I did not say that Stanford Engineering is better than Harvard’s cause that would be a matter of opinion. I said that when selecting students for Engineering, Stanford is more stringent than Harvard (this can be seen by the average SAT/ACT and GPA for the universities.)</p>
<p>Finally, again if you knew basic mathematics, you would know that the seats available in a university are very significant. If, continuing the previous example, Stanford admitted 2000 students, but Berkely only has 500 seats, then even if it accepts 500 students who were ALL also accepted by Stanford, the cross admit percentage would be 25%. Which is incredibly misleading, since Berkely accepted all students who were also accepted in Stanford.</p>
<p>Hopefully you learnt some statistics from this too.</p>
<p>Haha sorry guys for the lengthy debate/argument. I’m going to leave it here. You guys can decide who is right. In my opinion the statistics from 17% are more likely to be around 60-70% when actual data with all the information is processed. Not half assed data ignoring most criteria.</p>
<p>And i’m not bitter about not getting accepted cause I did get into MIT. Congratulations to those who did get in! I’m sure you deserved a spot. But my statement still stands that a high number, that cannot be coincidental, of students are rejected by UCLA but accepted by UCB. I’m not sure I totally believe them when they say that there is no communications between UC campuses. Hahaha</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good luck at MIT!</p>
<p>@SATuser123</p>
<p>Not sure what point you are trying to make. If you are trying to say that you are happy you were rejected by UCLA, since that increases your chance at Berkeley, you are being delusional.</p>
<p>My son was accepted to UCLA
My daughter was rejected by UCLA.</p>
<p>I certainly feel my son has a higher chance of getting into Berkeley than my daughter. The acceptance to UCLA being a slight indication. You should look into conditional probability theory.</p>