<p>Someone I just found out got into Berkeley but not into Stanford. Then the other kid I know got into Stanford but was rejected at Berkeley. The kid who got rejected at Stanford but was accepted at Berkeley has decent stats but not impressive -- 2130 SATs, 3.94 GPA, debate team, student council president, etc...</p>
<p>However, the kid who got rejected at Berkeley but was accepted at Stanford has sterling academic records -- 2,370 SATs, 3.91 GPA (Valedictorian), nationally ranked tennis player, etc... </p>
<p>The kid who got into Berkeley also got into Cornell, Brown, UPenn, Duke, Rice, UT-Austin and Texas A&M. Was only denied at MIT and Stanford. (He went to Berkeley.) The kid who got into Stanford was also accepted at Princeton, Duke, Dartmouth, UPenn, Cornell and Northwestern, U of Rochester and a couple more LACs that aren't very prestigious. Was only denied at Berkeley, Harvard, Chicago and Pomona. (He went to Stanford.)</p>
<p>once you reach the highest tier schools, the admissions process is a complete crapshoot unless you come from old money and/or have an all-american family name like “kennedy”.</p>
<p>When the schools decide you are. It’s not all about stats and other quantifiables. There is an unavoidable element of subjectivity in college admissions. Bottom line, most students will never know precisely why they were accepted by one school and rejected by another.</p>
<p>Do we really have to go through this again?</p>
<p>Pinning down the stats for an “elite” student is just a stepping stone away from determining an “elite” school. (After all, what’s an elite school without elite students?)</p>
<p>Oh well… at least if you’re going to use Berkeley as the bottom floor for elite students I’ll have the satisfaction of knowing I’m an elite student. Of course, it doesn’t mean much coming from some guy on the internet. -.-</p>
<p>
That college admissions is all a “crapshoot” is largely a sour grapes mentality for those who don’t have the stats to be admitted into good schools. “Well I’m not incompetent, he just got lucky!”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say admissions standards are a crapshoot all the way till the top 10 and this is just because most of the universities cap their SAT-GPA standards so that there are far more SAT-GPA qualified students than they can accept. Some serious top 10 schools that don’t play these games, such as Caltech, are still not really crapshoots.</p>
<p>Berkeley clearly accepts the most SAT-GPA qualified students that it can. It is not a crapshoot. Stanford, however, is a classic example of a crapshoot.</p>
<p>I have no earthly idea where you are going with this, so I’ll answer just to witness the trainwreck.
Obviously the one who’s strictly better, with a higher SAT and class rank (absent information that the other goes to a much more competitive school).</p>
<p>As Berkeley is much easier to get into than Stanford, the question is strange.</p>
<p>I also don’t believe college admissions is a crapshoot. At the vast majority of colleges it’s very straight forward, you have the stats, you get in. At the handful that accept less than 15%, everyone just needs to accept most qualified students can’t get in and who does will largely depend on hooks, demographics and a great story.</p>
<p>I know a few CA residents with above average stats (2200+, 3.9+) who got rejected at UCB. In all those cases, they applied to UCB as if it was their safey. This attitude must have come across clearly in their app and hence the rejections.</p>
<p>Almost perfect SAT scores, say, 2300+
GPA 4.0
Very rigorous high school curriculum
very good ECs(does almost everything possible, but concentrates in one particular field)</p>
<p>TBH, there’s no question the Stanford kid is more elite. </p>
<p>When you argue which school is better, at least Berkeley can hide behind its departmental rankings. When you use clear cut admissions standards, there’s no question Berkeley is not an elite school. </p>
<p>Berkeley’s student body is not an aspect it excels in. This is honestly one of the situations you’d be better off comparing Berkeley to UCLA or USC. Comparing yourself to Stanford is just setting yourself up for embarrassment, especially when the yield rate for a student admitted to both Stanford and Berkeley but choose the latter is dismal.</p>
<p>I have long perceived Stanford as the superior school for undergraduate education. It is obviously more selective than Berkeley too. But the admissions at both schools (Stanford and Berkeley) are quite strange to me to that point that stats don’t tell which one is a Stanford material and which one is not. </p>
<p>Both students are from Texas, but from different very competitive high schools. </p>
<p>Again, here are the data of both kids:</p>
<p>Kid A (or otherwise known as, Berkeley kid)
2130 SATs
3.94 GPA
debate team
student council president
very competitive high school </p>
<h1>3 of 357 graduating class</h1>
<p>ACCEPTED: Cornell, Brown, UPenn, Duke, Rice, UT-Austin and Texas A&M
DENIED: Stanford and MIT</p>
<p>Kid B (Stanford kid)
2,370 SATs
3.91 GPA </p>
<h1>1 of a class of 255</h1>
<p>very competitive high school
nationally ranked tennis player
ACCEPTED: Princeton, Duke, Dartmouth, UPenn, Cornell, Northwestern, U of Rochester, Dallas Baptist University and Southwestern University
DENIED: Berkeley, Harvard, Chicago and Pomona</p>