<p>I’m going to UCSD and i’m totally happy with it.</p>
<p>However, some of my friends had some pretty bad/weird results with Berkeley/UCLA</p>
<p>For example I have a friend who got an early letter from UCLA, accepted as a regents scholar, etc. etc…</p>
<p>And then was REJECTED by Berkeley!!</p>
<p>Considering that they are very similar in selectivity, how is it that only 10% of people admitted to either get admitted by both?</p>
<p>Maybe Berkeley and UCLA share applicant lists and together decide who will be admitted to each school.</p>
<p>Where did you get that 10% statistic? Berkeley and UCLA admissions are quite predictable, but my impression this year was that they shared applicant lists and together decide who will be admitted like imaparasite said.</p>
<p>i think its random in the sense that once your app is out of your hands you no longer have control.</p>
<p>you don’t know if you app fell out of the pile, is stuck in some machine, was accedentally deleted, or was taking home to read by someone and left.</p>
<p>If you read Frances Bacon, the four idols, you cannot subscribe to any notions of belief, only those certain things you have direct control over you can know for sure</p>
<p>Berkeley and UCLA admissions are quite predictable</p>
<p>I think not this year;our D’s counselor reported a slew of “inverse” acceptances, appearing like an outreach to the economically disadvantaged.</p>
<p>Same with our local high school. It used to be admitted students grades and SAT scores are more predictable. This year, it’s complete reverse . I’m not refer to URM either. For example, one white kid that my daughter knows, got accepted to UCLA with not so good GPA and SAT, a basic slacker with a passion for religion. Spent most of his senior year goof off and has a very easy senior year.
So who knows with 55,000 applications, I would assume those people in admission office make mistakes. Especially with holistic admissions, it’s hard to point out where the mistake happens.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, with 101,000 applicants between them, they totally had time to do that</p>
<p><strong>Rolls eyes</strong></p>
<p>vc08: pooling the applications for UCLA and UCB wouldn’t take longer than processing them separately. Only one step would be added, determining which students would be right for each school.</p>
<p>Though this system doesn’t guarantee top students their #1 choice, it is ultimately helpful because it furthers the University of California mission - to provide a quality, economic education to as many Cali residents as possible. When each student is only accepted to one of UCB/UCLA, more total students are offered at least one spot.</p>
<p>Plus, logically this system increases the yield rate at each school. Higher yield rate -> less waitlist acceptances -> less man hours wasted deciding who to accept off the waitlist. See, the time issue works itself out.</p>
<p>Edit…
To test the hypothesis, we should check 1) the yield rate for this year and see if it is higher than last’s, and 2) % of applications accepted off the waitlist this year compared to last.</p>
<p>haha i think its completely random! I got rejected by ucla and in at stanford. ***?! oh well, im not complaining…</p>
<p>^
that is pretty interesting. although i wish the same had happened to me…</p>
<p>Imaparasite, they do not check if a student is applying to both schools.</p>
<p>I was admitted to UCLA and Berkeley. Sometimes, admissions is not completely random. I was waitlisted by Brown and Stanford.</p>
<p>Vossron, you are most likely correct: “I think not this year;our D’s counselor reported a slew of “inverse” acceptances, appearing like an outreach to the economically disadvantaged.”</p>
<p>A person in my senior class, who scored 1600-1700 on the SATs and ranked 30, was accepted by UCLA. He was Hispanic, but I do not think affirmative action had anything to do with it. Depending on the essay, I think financial need and a student’s surroundings play a portion of the admissions process.</p>
<p>My parents make a middle class income (75,000+), so my academics most likely led to my acceptances. My essays were ok, but they weren’t that good.</p>
<p>^ Interesting. They should, though! 
</p>
<p>Nhsharvard, does Berkeley or UCLA publish anything online stating whether they pool apps?</p>
<p>It is not unusual for similar competitive schools to have such stats.</p>
<p>After all, UCLA and Berkeley are quite different, and with holistic factors considered, it’d go something like: students who might fit in at both get into both, students who are “match” (instead of “likely”) for those get into one or the other depending on what admissions at each college feels holistically.</p>
<p>So, the admissions may be semi-random, as there is always a high degree of randomness when it comes to holistic evaluations of borderline people.</p>
<p>peach:</p>
<p>Being “multiracial” is a big plus factor at private colleges, but not at a UC.</p>
<p>that’s very true. hopefully my admission to stanford was based on more than the fact that i am multiracial. however, in terms of this thread, it still doesn’t make sense because I was accepted to UC Berkeley (who doesn’t care about ethnicity in the slightest either.)</p>
<p>Uh. None of the UCs share their lists. They do see what other schools you’ve applied to though.</p>
<p>Those Regents Scholarships are more random than the admissions. There were people who never thought they could’ve even get into UCLA who got a Regents scholarship. </p>
<p>Being a URM and mentioning in your essay does help you get into UCLA/Berkeley. They are allowed to use comprehensive review… </p>
<p>UCLA did not have a 10% nor a 8.5% acceptance rate. It only had seats for 8.5% of its applicants. I believe it had a 17% acceptance rate this year.</p>