Cal Admission rate for international applicants much lower than UCLA
According to the UC Admissions Office stats, last year UCLA admitted 32% of international applicants whereas Cal admitted 12% even though the overall admission rate and number of international applicants were almost identical. In fact over the three years of 10, 11 and 12 UCLA was always in the 30s while Cal was in the 20s then suddenly cut to 12% last year.
Does this show that UCLA is less selective towards international applicants than Cal, that I as an international applicant will have a higher chance of being accepted to UCLA than Cal when applying to both? Seems like a pretty interesting contrast between the policies of the two campuses.
I think when the first wave of budget cuts happened it was like 500m. between 90-100m (20%) of that funding directly went to UCLA. While Cal isn't in an amazing position right now either, I think the budget cuts hurt UCLA significantly more. So that might explain it.
UCLA is also the most competitive UC campus for Calfiornia students (admitting less than 18%) and will probably be the first campus this year in the United States to break 100,000 applicants.
During my time (1999-2000), the admit rate was something like 6% for international students. There were years when Berkeley's admit rate for international students was 4.7% only. I was admitted at 4 Ivies (including Columbia) and Cambridge in the UK, but wasn't even a wait-list at Berkeley. (Back then, Berkeley didn't have a wait-list.)
Berkeley admits less than UCLA does because Berkeley's yield rate (for international students) has always been higher too. I think that's the reason why.
Are there any good sources for cross admit enrollment between UCLA and Berkeley? The only one i know of is Parchmount, which i'm skeptical of.
Last year, UCLA was overenrolled because its yield was higher than it had traditionally been, resulting in it getting a wait-list for the first time in its history.
But that yield being higher was because Berkeley admitted less students. As a result, instead of deciding whether to matriculate to UCLA and Berkeley, many were just admitted to UCLA, and decided to matriculate there.
Quote:
Cox also pointed to the fact that many students choose between UCLA and UC Berkeley when making their college decision. While overlap between the two schools has been fairly stable over the years, it was lower last year, Cox said.
Because they did not have to choose between the two schools, a higher number of students chose to come to UCLA in comparison to previous years, Cox said.
This, as a result, affected UCLA's admission decisions for fall 2012.
Quote:
Facing over-enrollment from last year, when 440 more freshmen than expected enrolled at UCLA, the campus was forced to reduce its admission of California residents for fall 2012 by nearly 1,800 students to reach its enrollment target of approximately 4,000 California resident freshmen.
RML. That's interesting to know. My daughter was also admitted to Cambridge and Berkeley. May I ask what was your subject study when you applied to Cambridge and Berkeley?
I want to make a note regarding admission to Cambridge vs Berkeley:
Cambridge always has a higher admission rate, making it look like it's less selective. It's true; they do take in a higher percentage of applicants. But this is solely because you are restricted to applying to five programs of study in the UK. (Not even five schools; five programs), unlike here, where, if you have the money, you can apply to as many schools as you want.
I have also heard that Berkeley rejects students that are "too good" for it, because they want to increase their yield rate – that might be another reason.
^Berkeley rejecting students because they are too good for it is simply not true. Firstly because it's not very likely this happens at any school in general, and secondly because it is even less likely to happen at a top school. I think this is an urban myth that is repeated over and over again.
To my knowledge, applications to Cambridge have to be supported by the teachers or the counselors of the high school that one is attending. I don't think the admission rate is good indicator for selectivity between Cambridge and other top U.S. universities .
meakame: Cambridge's admit rate for international applicants has always been around 10%. In some years, it's lower than 10%. The 15%-17% admit rate for Cambridge includes local applicants. But, by and large, both Oxford and Cambridge are quite selective for international students. And, I wasn't implying that Cambridge is easier to get into than Berkeley. I was trying to say that Berkeley isn't as easy to get into as what some (arrogant) students are trying to say. Berkeley's admissions are very unpredictable. Hundreds of students with superb stats (perfect SAT score, etc.) were being rejected every year. Last years' stats alone would tell you that Berkeley rejected thousands of students with SATs ranging from 2300 to 2400. That should tell you something. And, I bet that some of those students are now at the Ivies, Stanford, MIT or Caltech.
To my knowledge, applications to Cambridge have to be supported by the teachers or the counselors of the high school that one is attending. I don't think the admission rate is good indicator for selectivity between Cambridge and other top U.S. universities.
That is true. Because in the UK, you cannot apply to more than 5 universities. You also CANNOT apply to Cambridge and Oxford at the same time. I could imagine the admit rate would drop significantly when the students can apply to both unis simultaneously. One of the advantages of limiting the number of unis that a student can apply to is that the enrollment yield rate of the unis would tend to be higher. At Harvard, the enrollment yield rate is something like 79%, and amongst the top schools, it's one of the highest in the whole US. Cambridge's yield rate has always been around 95%. Very few students turn down Cambridge's offer.
Sometimes, Cambridge offer was turned down because of subject studied. If one is unsure of spending 3 years to study one subject that may not have promising career prospect, one may turn down Cambridge.
Last years' stats alone would tell you that Berkeley rejected thousands of students with SATs ranging from 2300 to 2400. That should tell you something. And, I bet that some of those students are now at the Ivies, Stanford, MIT or Caltech.
It probably tells you that Berkeley rejects applicants it knows will matriculate to the better universities they'll get admitted to. Even against Stanford, Berkeley only has a 2% enrollment against students accepted there. If you'll be accepted into HYPSM, there's no point in Berkeley accepting you. It's a wasted admit.
