<p>You have your sample. I have my school's sample. Some people go to UCLA because they like it, but a majority go because they didn't get into Berkeley.</p>
<p>Realize, when looking at the yield, that they are competing for a different group of students, though. Berkeley's prospective pool is usually also considering private schools. UCLA's pool doesn't have as many who are doing so.</p>
<p>At least that was the way I saw it. I applied to UCLA as a safety school, and UC Berkeley as an acceptable but low priority school (before I began to really like Berkeley).</p>
<p>Trust me, Regents and Chancellor's is nice at either school--but it doesn't make that much of a difference if you are proactive. It provides nothing that non-Regents can't get (besides guaranteed housing, but considering other options, it isn't exactly huge). If you like Cal, I think you made the right choice.</p>
<p>Therefore, your argument that UCLA is easier to get into because it has more applications is flawed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I claimed that we should keep applicant numbers and yield rates in mind, and that about 7k more apply to UCLA than Berkeley, and that the acceptance rate for UCLA would go up a lot if they had the same number of apps as Berkeley. Did I claim it was easier to get into UCLA because it has more applications? I dont think so. And lets look at some examples. UCLA has more applications than Harvard, yet its easier to get into UCLA than Harvard. Arizona State has tens of thousands more applications than Pomona College, but its harder to get into Pomona. If one were to argue one school is easier to get into than another simply because it has more applicants, that would be wrong. </p>
<p>I have two questions about your post, though. 1) Does either school really have a set number of spots? I think they work out general equations and predictions, but I dont think its very definite. 2) Your equations just show the number of accepted applicants who enroll divided by the total number of applicants in 2004 (where are the statistics for those who applied for 2005 for comparison or more recent information, or are those these?), and nothing more- what else did you intend to show with them?</p>
<p>Well, if you randomly remove 7k of the UCLA applicants population, I would suspect that it would result in some changes. While it wouldn't make it necessarily easier to be admitted if all else stayed the same, it would most likely be the case, as some of the best students would be removed, and adjustments would result for various enrollment purposes (perhaps more, perhaps fewer would have to be accepted to equalize the current yield and number of admits) and the average student body statistics would likely change (probably being lower).</p>
<p>Yes but UCLA also enrolls more students, so what you're saying is possible, but like you said the reverse is also possible. Assuming that UCLA's admit statistics would be worse than Cal's due to less applications is speculation.</p>
<p>Indeed, speculation. What I meant by "(perhaps more, perhaps fewer would have to be accepted to equalize the current yield and number of admits)" is that while it is likely that more students would have to be accepted to compete with other schools, perhaps fewer would, as students who otherwise would not get into schools such as UCLA would, and would thus likely enroll to UCLA (meaning higher yield). Do you really think that if 7k of UCLA's applicant pool were randomly removed over the past year, the admit stats would have been the same?</p>