<p>still I think its none of the OP's business if one who has low grades get in. College's have different reasons for accepting people</p>
<p>Take Columbia for example:: I highly believe they will take someone who will be more likely to thrive through their core curriculum than a person that won't, even if their GPA is a notch lower than the other</p>
<p>i dont get why that was addressed to me.........</p>
<p>You know this is one of the reasons why most of us on CC advice you do things you love, not things that get you into a top college.</p>
<p>Unless you have been able to view the other appllicants' completed applications and transcripts, you will not know who "worked harder" or is the better fit for a particuar school. Every kid has a story and they aren't all public. Grades don't tell everything and the UC's (UCLA & Cal) have a holistic review that takes the whole person into consideration. Be grateful you got in. What a great education you will receive and how nice that everyone won't be the same. Best of luck. Sorry you feel cheated. In college, follow your interests and take it easy.</p>
<p>virtuoso_735: I believe you said in another thread that the area you're from is "bad," and that that could be the reason people from there have gotten into Berkeley, which looks for adversity.</p>
<p>sensible:</p>
<p>"there were a LOT of disparities... WIDE disparities that just really did not make sense to everyone."</p>
<p>What is "a lot"? In your school? 'Cause in general, there aren't that many disparities. The average UW GPA is a 3.9. The average SAT score is ~2050 (non-superscoring, mind you). There have been plenty of people who are really great and who don't get into Berkeley. Why? We don't really know, but we can guess that they didn't portray themselves well enough in the application (from ECs to essays to honors/awards), probably. But as for those whom you deem mediocre, we really don't know what got them in. We haven't seen their applications, as bessie pointed out, so we don't know what their ECs are, what their grades are, etc. I know I have some friends whose resumes I thought would be rather average, and then after seeing them, I realized there were tons of things they'd done/achieved that I hadn't been aware of. So we really can't say.</p>
<p>I also sense that you feel you could've worked less and gotten in anyway. I sure hope that isn't the case. If you think their getting in undermines your work ethic, then I'd recommend that you reconsider whether they deserved it or not. And you'd need to see the whole picture--the ECs, the transcript, the essays--to make a founded judgment.</p>
<p>And with English like</p>
<p>"Y did they take so many ppl this year?!"
"i'm not "bragging", but there is a HUGE contrast."
"I have people at my school not even in the top 10% going to UCLA and Cal."
"I can't explain my hurt, dissapointment, and frustration."
"This is unbelievably disappointing and furstratingW"
"and we're still going to the smae school."
"Is it like that at your school too??"
"If I knew that 20-30 students with that low gpas were going to get in to the same school"
"why did I have to work so hard."</p>
<p>I don't see how you consider yourself so superior to your peers.</p>
<p>Umm, those others are right in line with the average admit to UCLA and a bit below average for Berkeley. Yes, you're right, with your stats you would have been competitive at many, many, many schools, if not all. If you're not so happy, why didn't you apply to some privates?</p>
<p>Why is everyone getting on his case and automatically assuming he's better than them? I think he simply overestimated UCLA is all.</p>
<p>first of all, the one friend you mentioned is an ATHLETE. Cal's athletic avg. GPA is honestly probably like a 3.3 or so coming out of high school, so in that regard your friend will probably end up being valedictorian of the football team. That's not meant to be a knock against Cal at all (believe me, I have a high regard for their athletics), but it's simply the case with nearly every D-1 school these days. As far as the people who don't do well in AP classes, etc., perhaps they have a family situation you don't know about that was explained in the application. You'd be surprised how hard some people have to fight to excel. Suck it up and deal with it. Count your blessings, you got in to your dream school, and I promise you thousands of other people did not. But they aren't complaining about it on here.</p>
<p>You realize it'll all be easier for you to stand out above them all at college too now, right?</p>
<p>So authentic: what the hell are you talking about!? Cal tech is #4
Cal refers to UB, you know the Cal Bears. It is #21</p>
<p>cal refers to UB (#21) not cal tech (#4)</p>
<p>1MX I thought you meant Caltech the college when you say its not that prestigious.</p>
<p>hmmm I was wondering why you would say caltech is not that prestigious anyway but....alright</p>
<p>Actually, Cal is very selective. They only admitted 23% this year, with 2-3,000 more applicants. And, it is as prestigious as people think. I know someone who got into Harvard with an 1800 and 3.7 GPA. Does that make it any less prestigious? No, because that would be generalizing. 25% of the student body at Cal had above a 2200 SAT score, which tells me that they don't accept too many kids with low SATs. Plus, her one friend was an ATHLETE, which makes a huge difference in D-1 sports.</p>
<p>UCB is very prestigious and pretty selective. It's just not as selective as it is prestigious because as a public school, they are sort of bound to "do it by the numbers" and "give preference to in-staters" a lot more than privates are.</p>
<p>I agree. Also, they are a lot bigger than, say, Princeton, so therefore they admit a higher percent. They still manage to admit quality applicants though, the same ones who get into HYPS. Just a different type of school, that's all.</p>
<p>OP look at it this way: If you think you're so superior than others, then why didn't you get a regents scholar? Obviously there are even better people than you who got into cal, so theres no need to complain about how you didnt have to work so hard.</p>
<p>AznN3rd, I also was thinking about that, back when I posted, but didn't say it. That's the whole point: the truly superior admits get offered Regents. However, I think the OP admitted that the greater resentment is about the effort (or achievement) put in during h.s., vs. the other acceptees mentioned.</p>
<p>However, (OP), University is way harder than h.s., particular @Berkeley, where there is not a lot of hand-holding. So if you're thinking you can exhale now, you should be thinking about revving up. This is another way of saying: you should be glad you had the "boot camp," so to speak, of h.s.effort prior to a demanding U like Berkeley. </p>
<p>Lots of hs.students report after freshman year in college that their h.s. was "harder" than the college they're attending. So far, I don't see people saying that about Berkeley. The faculty expects a level of intellectual adulthood, planning, discipline that is not expected at even the most rarefied high schools I've ever heard of. It will be a different stage of your life, for which later you may be glad that you worked "too hard" in h.school. JMO.</p>
<p>I'm not saying UCB isn't prestigious; I'm saying that the original poster is way out of line to call some1 with a 4.1 and a 2000 not a competitive applicant.</p>
<p>I'm just saying that the OP is not as superior as she thinks. If the OP was great then the OP probably wouldn't be going to UB considering that there is no arguing that HYP is a more prestigious school and with their financial aid packages; they are VERY affordable for what you're getting. At least the OP could be going to CALTECH...the OP simply doesn't understand that they are more dimensions to an applicant than grades and scores...that's what I find so frustrating. I have no doubt the OP got rejected from a couple of top 10 schools with the 'best grades/scores wins' mindset and is just plain resentful</p>