I think I have to somewhat disagree with @GMTplus7 on this one, at least partially. I do agree that the stats are apparently not included in the numbers reported in the Common Data Set, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the people that run that (and the Dept. of Ed.) haven’t closed that loophole. But I have never heard of a school that had a contingent of spring admits that was nearly as large as their fall class, so to that extent @ucbalumnus is right that the impact on the stats would probably be small anyway. Maybe there are a few schools that have larger numbers of spring admits than others, but not that I am aware of.
I really disagree that the profs have a clue as to who the spring admits are, or care. Especially at the larger schools. What, you think they have an asterisk next to their name on the class roster? I don’t think so, and I think profs have a whole lot more to worry about. Calling them 2nd tier is just unnecessary, no matter how “clinically” it was meant. There may be a number of reasons besides borderline stats that a student is deferred to spring.
Bottom line, @Jbanks152, I think the issue of being a spring admit is nearly zero, especially at a very large school such as UCB.