<p>Generally speaking, the primary reason that we must turn away so many qualified students is simply that of competition. UCLA received more than 55,000 freshman applications for a class of just over 4,700 new freshmen. We had to deny more than 42,900 applicants. Among these 42,900 were some of the brightest and highest achieving high school seniors in the state. Almost all of them were UC eligible. Most students denied by UCLA are eligible to gain admission to at least one of the other UC campuses. We strongly encourage you to focus on the options you have.</p>
<p>The average admitted applicant to UCLA for Fall 2009 had a weighted GPA (a GPA that includes all extra grade points for honors or AP coursework) of 4.36, an unweighted GPA (no extra points) of 3.86, an SAT Reasoning Test score of 2003, SAT Subject scores (we use highest scores from any two of five subject areas) of 730 and 675, 20 semesters of honors/AP course work completed between 10th and 12th grades, and 51 semesters of college prep course work overall.</p>
<p>I saw something similar on the UCLA website a while back and was surprised to see they uncap the weighted GPA in analysis. That was a relief to us, as DS took a super rigorous curriculum and ended up with a weighted GPA higher than the mean (4.5) and unweighted lower (3.7). It left him with a iffy UC GPA of 4.05. He did get accepted, BTW.</p>
<p>Cal premed vs UCLA premed = Cal, slightly higher Med school admission</p>
<p>Cal physical sciences vs UCLA physical sciences = I supposed you mean Physics, Chemistry, and Geology, if so it is Cal</p>
<p>Cal languages vs UCLA languages = Cal, our language programs are higher ranked</p>
<p>Cal business/econ vs UCLA bus/econ = Cal</p>
<p>--one that you forgot--
Cal biology vs UCLA biology = I believe it is generally Cal, most of the exceptions I know are in exclusively medical fields and since Berkeley does not have a medical school the amount of professors who do strictly just medical research is limited.</p>
<p>I take back my statement about UCLA being more selective than Cal, when I said that, I was saying it based on the ratio of how many people apply/get in.</p>
<p>RML - Berkeley is "harder" if by that you mean mere stats like GPA and test scores. By that token, Caltech is the hardest school to get into around basically. And yet, getting into Caltech doesn't at all imply getting into Harvard or Princeton. </p>
<p>Different schools are selective in different ways, and to one person, one kind of selective is tougher than another kind of selective. </p>
<p>If you want to define "selective" your way, in terms of percentage of admittance + average GPA + scores, then yes, there is nothing for me to dispute. Even if it is more likely for a random person to get rejected from Berkeley, when I counsel someone on his/her chances, I don't treat him/her as a random person -- I judge based on the specific profile. </p>
<p>For instance, if someone were applying just undeclared, unsure of major, and had almost no subjective merits, but pretty good grades and scores, I would say this someone's chances at Cal rank better than those at LA. I think our points are both clear, and perhaps that's all to be said.</p>
<p>If one has stats at Caltech 25%ile, not automatic shutout at HYP
If one has stats at HYP 25%ile, automatic shutout at Caltech.<br>
So it really depends on where one stands.</p>
<p>On the other hand, acceptance rate for ANY GPA + SAT tiers at Cal is lower than UCLA. So a general statement can be made that Cal is harder to get into. Your Caltech argument is not sufficient.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Cal premed vs UCLA premed = Cal, slightly higher Med school admission
-one that you forgot--
Cal biology vs UCLA biology = I believe it is generally Cal, most of the exceptions I know are in exclusively medical fields and since Berkeley does not have a medical school the amount of professors who do strictly just medical research is limited.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>O.M.G. You are obsessive compulsive. Thank God you aren't at UCLA, I think you'd might possibly ruin our reputation of being a laid-back, chill student body.</p>
<p>i got rejected from cal and got into LA
UW: 3.95 W: 4.32 with an ACT:32.</p>
<p>I had a ****load of ec's too. I did every sport possible and every club in or out of school AND i worked avg 5 hours a week at a clinic. Hell, i even campaigned for Ron paul during the republican primaries for over 20 hours. STILL got rejected from Cal.</p>
<p>So now your saying an outstanding application like that gets rejected from Cal? I'm 17 and i already have a political activist background, what Cal's known for. Yet, they still reject me.</p>
<p>Based on this alone, im 75% sure that LA and Cal somehow communicate to reject and accept certain applicants.</p>
<p>If the senior members want to enlighten me and make me think otherwise, now is your chance</p>
<p>actually, I got into Cal and I started a Young Democrats branch at my school... however, I also interned for a few months with a Republican congressman. I'm a spy, see? lol. actually, I just had an ideology change over the course of the year.</p>
<p>Got into cal but rejected from UCLA. I'm really surprised that I got into Cal because although my GPA is high (4.4), and my test scores are ok (SAT I: 2080, SAT II: 790/730), I didn't have much else going for me. I only had 20 hours of community service and about 4 extracurriculars (not a leader in any, won no awards). My senior schedule is weak (1 AP and 1 honors) and I've only taken a total of 3 AP classes.</p>