<p>Out of state, it is very hard to get in UCLA and Berkeley. Thus for a out of stater, their chances of getting into USC is way better than the other two (UCLA has 5% and Berkeley has 9% out of state students, while USC has 40%). On the other hand, I believe that it is easier to get in to both UCB and UCLA than USC instate with USC being a private school and does not care about state residency nearly as much as the other two.</p>
<p>actually they may be cheaper, but the “help” you get from the financial aid office can differ greatly…I will pay less going to USC than UCLA/Berkeley.</p>
<p>USC isn’t that selective. SAT isn’t everything. I have a feeling they don’t look a whole lot at EC’s or essays, since they’re just trying to boost their image. Basically, they’re just admitting MORE rich SAT prepped kids. And nothing they do will change the fact that Berkeley and LA are better, more well-known schools. Berkeley especially.</p>
<p>most of those stats are way outdated
ucb-under 4.0 gpa? no way
last year on the berk website it was a 4.24 and a 1340 or 1350
this year it will probably rise
princeton review and collegeboard stats are completely wrong
even the uc pamphlet that was sent to me stated that cal had an avg gpa of 4.2</p>
<p>ya dont trust princetonreview and collegeboard… go straight to the source! cmon collegeboard said cal poly pomona has a 17% acceptance rate (when it really is 58%) hahahha</p>
<p>look at post #4, or for those too lazy~
</p>
<p>End result of selectivity is acceptance rate. Selectiveness is reflected by the acceptance rate. Like I said, you proved yourself wrong-but good job ignoring that.</p>
<p>BTW nice comeback-‘no you’re the stupid one’</p>
<p>I don’t think the acceptance rate matters that much because they all have a different applicant pool to choose from. The UCs have mostly only CA applicants, and USC has plenty of applicants from the whole nation and they can admit whoever they want because they’re a private school. Also, some really dumb people apply to UCLA and UCB because all they have to do is click on some extra boxes on the same application.</p>
<p>“End result of selectivity is acceptance rate. Selectiveness is reflected by the acceptance rate. Like I said, you proved yourself wrong-but good job ignoring that.” – shinseki12</p>
<p>No it’s not. The University of Chicago often has an admission rate that hovers around 52%. Does that mean they’re twice as easy to get into than UCLA? Not at all. The admissions statistics for admitted classes to U of Chicago absolutely smother those of UCLA.</p>
<p>What’s at play here is a number of lurking variables. U of C is seen as an elite school (which turns applicants away) with no social life (which turns applicants away). UCLA, as elite as it is, is within reach for more people, is in California, has a social life, and is much easier to apply to thanks to the UC’s common app. Furthermore, UCLA is cheap. Therefore, UCLA receives much more applicants and can thereby have a lower admission rate. But does that mean they’re more selective? Heck no. Does that mean they’re more selective? No. For instance, take UCLA’s averages. If a student with a 1289 and 4.12 applied to U of C, they’d stand no chance – despite Chicago’s high rate.</p>
<p>Selectivity is based on a number of standards.</p>
<p>Well, I guess selectiveness( I keep wanting to type selectivity, but that’s a different story) can be defined in a number of ways-within a possible applicant pool, its actual applicant pool, or standards.
I don’t know exceedingly much about the topic so yeah.<br>
However, as may have been seen when UCLA’s admissions came out, people who you’d think would get in easily with high SAT’s, gpa’s, and whatnot have been turned down(not that it’s a majority), thus causing much UCLA hating several weeks ago thus maybe driving scores down. Admissions are odd, that’s all I have to say.</p>
<p>I am ashamed of you College Confidentialers, all you guys have gone through the SAT’s, and some of you have gotten high SAT Scores, yet you guys are comparing USC, UCLA, and UCB acceptance rates when they aren’t equal.</p>
<p>What you guys fail to realize is that USC(29-30K) receives less applicants than either UCB(36-37K) and UCLA(44-45K).</p>
<p>If USC received 44-45K applicants as does UCLA and still only offered 9000 applicants admissions, USC admit rate would be around 20 percent which is lower than UCLA’s by 3-4 percent.</p>
<p>no usc is not more selective than cal or la and that’s final. well definitely not for int’ls.</p>
<p>My friend got into USC with a 1210 SAT after being rejected by UCLA, UCB and UCSD.
Nuff said. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Berkeley is more selective than UCLA, if you look at the actual scores and GPA of admits.</p>
<p>My friend got into USC with a 1210 SAT after being rejected by UCLA, UCB and UCSD.
Nuff said. </p>
<p>I find it interesting and amusing when people give anecdotal evidence to support their argument such as the one above. </p>
<p>Two can play this game. I know many people from school who got into both UCLA and UC Berkeley with sub-par 1000 scores on their SATs, but got flat out rejected from USC. Does this fact mean that USC is more selective based on this information no. In addition, many people on this board are aware of the fact that the UCs including Berkeley and UCLA admitted thousands of students with less than 1000 on their SATs for the past few years. </p>
<p>I guess going by your logic, USC is much more selective than Berkeley and UCLA. I dont know any prestigious university admitting students with than 1000 on their SATs. UCLA and Berkeley must be one of the worst schools in the nation.</p>
<p>but UCLA and Berkeley also reject thousands of students with scores above 1400. USC would accept those students just to increase their rating. UCLA doesn’t admit “thousands” of students with SAT scores below 1000. It’s more like 900-1000. not that it makes it any better.</p>
<p>haha its not even that many, newpswahine (‘thousands’ is simply a massive overstatement, uscken) - and the students that are admited with subpar numbers always make up for it in some other way.</p>
<p>USC isn’t really all that selective - they really can’t be, because their applicant pool simply isn’t as good as UCLA’s or UCB’s. (which are two separate schools, not one school as uscken seems to think ;))</p>
<p>OK so i got rejected from USC and with the letter they sent they included scores and random info about the group that was admitted…here it is straight from USC:</p>
<p>applicants: 31,500
places available for fall: 2,800
offered admission to: 25%
average gpa: “nearly 4.0”(thats what it said)
average test score: 1395</p>
<p>There is it is…I’m not worried because i have guranteed transfer after 2 semesters so i’ll be going there fall '06! So…fight on!</p>
<p>uh it doesn’t matter which school is more selective…get the point, the point is to get a good experience and that depends on YOU. Arguing about selectivity never gets anyone anywhere, and a person attending Harvard can be less qualified than someone attending a regular university. There are different cliques wherever you go. The smarts, the socials, etc. I think that arguing about selectivity is just to boost one’s ego into thinking that “yeah I made it here, and i’m better than you attitude.” It’s cool to talk about selectivity because I think it’s interesting, but just don’t indulge yourself in a little war between which schools are more selective. They’re all great for various reasons. No one school is better than the other because we just don’t know. By the way, I made it to all three schools, and I could imagine myself having a great time at any of them (= it’s just based on you to make the experience!</p>
<p>My friend got into USC with a 1210 SAT after being rejected by UCLA, UCB and UCSD.
Nuff said. </p>
<p>So if some kid with a 1600 gets accepted into MIT for his math contests skills and get rejected from NYU Tisch does that mean NYU is more selective than MIT?</p>
<p>Well said guesswho81587</p>