Waitlisted at CAS, do I have a chance?

Colleges & Universities New York University
21

<p>“it’s slipping but you’re deluded if you think ucla or nyu is better or more selective”</p>

<p>Deluded? Besides relying on a US News ranking which is clearly due to its grad school rep, exactly how familiar are you with Berkeley or even NYU for that matter? I know people who attended both schools, and sat in on classes at both schools (for NYU this should be obvious). </p>

<p>These are facts, not my thinking, take away from it what you want:</p>

<p>a) NYU has a higher average SAT score, even though Berkeley is a more numbers focused school (UC has a numerical formula, while many NYU schools require auditions and interviews). Of course, for the average out of stater, Berkeley is clearly harder to get into since slots for non-CA residents are VERY limited, but I’m talking about overall selectivity. 25% of Berkeley’s student body scores BELOW a 1190 on the SAT, a 1200 SAT doesn’t even assure one GSP to NYU, let alone of the academic schools. Also, this completely ignores the DROVES of transfers from CA’s community collages which obviously bring down Berkeley’s student body quality. </p>

<p>Furthermore, the U of Chicago example makes no sense from an analogical standpoint, since that school has a self selective applicant pool unlike Berkeley, and its average SAT scores SHOWS it (its higher than both NYU and Berkeley). </p>

<p>b) UCLA has a lower acceptance rate than UCB, but its average SAT score is slightly lower due to Berk’s powerhouse engineering school (however, the poster here is pre-med, not engineering). </p>

<p>c) Both NYU and UCLA enroll MORE national merit scholars than does Berkeley, even though the class sizes are roughly similar (I believe NYU might be slightly smaller than UCLA and UCB). Its clear which school top students are more apt to prefer, especially if money is not an issue.</p>

22

<p>"to the OP: saying this as a member of the nyu class of '09, go to berkeley.</p>

<p>unless you REALLY want to be in nyc."</p>

<p>whoa there. a few things: as a stern alum, I can guarantee that around the nation, stern is at least on par with Berkeley, and vastly superior to Berkeley on the east coast. </p>

<p>On the east coast, Berkeley is known for being a school for hippies that is in a serious decline (especially the law and business school) and the backup to Stanford. Let’s not delude ourselves. Yes it has a great reputation from decades ago, but this is based on faculty NOT ug student body, which is more on the level of USC or Colgate than MIT or any Ivy league for that matter (Stern has an SAT almost 200 pts above Berkeley’s–this is huge)-let’s keep things honest.</p>

23

<p>quakerman stern’s average SAT score is irrelevant unless we’re comparing it to ucb’s business school. for the overall college SAT averages are about the same.</p>

<p>and the guy isn’t applying to stern…he wants to do biology. </p>

<p>he doesn’t even live on the east coast; he’s a CA resident and berkeley would be much cheaper. even if he gets into nyu off the waitlist i’d be really suprised if they offer him any money.</p>

<p>us news and most world rankings put ucb on the level of ivies and other top unis.</p>

<p>nyu cas IS a backup school for ivies; it was for me and it was for most of my friends currently there.</p>

<p>if the OP had applied (and been accepted to) stern and haas and money weren’t an issue, i’d say “yeah, go to stern”…but that isn’t the situation. berkeley should be an easy choice for him.</p>

<p>jwblue: maybe because nyu is big on SAT scores? for example, i was accepted (with a university day invite(!)) to CAS despite a 3.0uw gpa, no AP’s, no really great EC’s, ny resident, and being an all-around fairly lazy guy.</p>

<p>however, i did have a 1500+ SAT I and a 760 average on my SAT II’s.</p>

<p>two of my friends, both of whom had higher gpa’s and legacies, and one an african-american, were rejected. their SAT scores were both slightly below 1300.</p>

<p>berkeley is much more focused on GPA…average matriculant unweighted high school gpa is a 3.8 (weighted it’s a 4.2) and 98% of the students were in the top 10% of their high school class. for nyu it’s 3.6 and only 2/3 students were in the top 10% of their high school class (princetonreview). </p>

<p>you’re also forgetting that the UC doesn’t weigh the SAT I heavily and is much more concerned with SAT II’s and since we can’t see NYU’s SAT II score ranges it’s unfair to use standardized test scores as a criteria for comparison. ucb’s and ucla’s SAT II score ranges are about equal but ucb’s are slightly higher.</p>

<p>what we can see, however, is acceptance rates: berkeley’s acceptance rate for instate is 26% and out-of-state is 21% (<a href=“http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp)%5B/url%5D”>http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp)</a>. nyu’s acceptance rate was 28% overall.</p>

<p>also i would like to see your source for the enrollment of national merit scholars. maybe those schools just offer more money to students who are national merit?</p>

24

<p>my friend got rejected from CAs with a 1500, mid 700 SATII’s, legacy, tons of music awards… because he had a 3.2 uw… so saying nyu isnt concerned with gpa and only sat is bullcrap</p>

25

<p>i offer your friend my condolences. last year nyu rejected someone with a ninety-something average and a 1600.</p>

<p>maybe nyu admissions is totally random! or maybe isolated anecdotes prove absolutely nothing!</p>

<p>the numbers show that a whole third of nyu students weren’t even in the top 10% of their high school class and yet nyu’s average SAT’s are pretty high. what does this tell you?</p>

26

<p>general studies program kinda skews the figures…</p>

27

<p>I’d rather go to a place with high SAT than Berkeley where half the students cannot crack a 1200 or analyze basic math and demonstrate a basic verbal ability</p>

28

<p>haha exactly, i got a 1300 at the beginning of 9th grade, i dont understand how people can go throughout high school and then not do good on the SAT’s which is 8th grade math.</p>

29

<p>Also well known fact is the reason why UC students have such high gpas is that they go to crappy public schools in CA (and I mean crappy) where anyone with a semblance of a brain can get over a 4.0. I wish i had stats on the % who come from private vs public schools.</p>

<p>But then whenever you mention that Berkeley students are more on par academically with a place like Tulane or USC and clearly not MIT/Ivies, they point to peer assements and usnews faculty ratings, as if they (18yr olds) actually had something to do with that.
Thats the best part.</p>

30

<p>half the students can’t crack a 1200? maybe you need to work on your math and reading ability…</p>

<p>maybe that 25% all got an 1200 (the bottom 25% is 1210 according to ucb’s website)? we don’t know. nyu’s bottom 25% scored below a 1220. the difference between 1220 and 1210 is just one question. that sounds like a silly distinction to make, at least to me.</p>

<p>and berkeley students CAN do advanced math and write well, as evidenced by berkeley’s high SAT II ranges. the ranges for the SAT II’s are 1220-1500. nyu doesn’t even require SAT II’s.</p>

<p>i got into freaking tulane; you need to be examined if you think i could get into ucb as well.</p>

<p>if anyone wants i can post statistics from stuvesant’s (best public HS in NYC) admission to uc-berkeley. the standards are pretty damn rigorous.</p>

<p>mattistotle: nice grammar bucko. i don’t see how someone can make it to 12th grade and not know the difference between “good” and “well”. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>edit, here: <a href=“http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp[/url]”>http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>the range on the writing is 620-760. the range on the math is 600-740. i just added them together. sorry for not including a source in my earlier post.</p>

31

<p>the range is 1220-1500 when satII’s are only a 200-800 scale?</p>

<p>someones making up facts, lol</p>

32

<p>note the lack of non-residents applying…</p>

33

<p>because ucb (or just about any other UC) hates out-of-state applicants and it is incredibly difficult to get in if you’re not from CA…</p>

<p>also, how does that foot taste?</p>

34

<p>many schools are hard to get into, but have more than 5k out of state applications.</p>

35

<p>ok but the UC system doesn’t WANT out-of-state applicants. ucla is only 5% out-of-state; ucb is ~7%. most of the UC schools are no more than 5%, though. </p>

<p>other top public schools such as UVA, W&M, and umich are all around 30%. i know that the virginia schools cap their out-of-state enrollment at 1/3; not sure about umich.</p>

<p>if the UC system had a similar cap then there would be more out-of-state applicants.</p>

<p>uvm and udelaware are both around ~60% out-of-state. so i guess by your logic they’re better schools than uva?</p>

36

<p>I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have gotten into Berkeley if it were not for the fact that I live in California…</p>

<p>I been thinking heavily about my decision and talkin to friends that I have in both universities, and I’m leaning towards Berkeley for the prestige and challenge…
I don’t want to feel like a wimp for not going to the harder school. Even if I may be able to edge out a higher GPA at UCSD, I know I really want this in life so I should challenge myself and not take any shortcuts…</p>

<p>I’m forgetting about NYU, I have trouble just contacting their admissions counselor, because I’m in the west and they’re in the east, they are only open 5-7 am for me…other than that, I am in school, so it isn’t really an option…And even though I really like NYU, Northern California is my home so I do feel comfortable here…And I can still acheive my independence, which is rather important to me, at Berkeley…</p>

<p>Again, thanks for the responses…it’s appreciated</p>

37

<p>Things you have to understand:</p>

<p>When you apply for jobs, especially in financial services, recruiters care about YOU. They don’t care if Berkeley had renowned engineering, physics, etc faculty if YOU aren’t a major there and if you are applying for a job in ibanking. </p>

<p>They usually set SAT ranges of 1400+ to get an interview, so if you are below that they don’t care if Berkeley faculty is on par with Ivies. Also recruiters know SAT ranges of schools, they aren’t stupid. Someone with a 1500+ from a school with a lower peeer assessment rating will get the job over you, because it is about YOU and you don’t get entitlement or a free ride because of what faculty and others have done.</p>

<p>This is a misconception among high school students. Don’t get caught up in USNEWS assessments, etc.</p>

38

<p>USNEWS is the biggest piece of crap out there… ever</p>

39

<p>Doesn’t it carry some weight that I attended UC Berkeley over, let’s say, a lower end CSU?</p>

<p>For general purposes, isn’t it somewhat impressive when you hear that someone attended an Ivy…doesn’t it play a role?</p>

40

<p>I was quoting the acceptance rate for the 2003-2004 academic year not the 2004-2005 academic year so my statement was not false. Even so, the acceptance rate that you have cited is well above that of UCB’s over the same time period. </p>

<p>Secondly, you stated “Caltech IS INDEED more selective than MIT.” For the Class of 2008, MIT had an acceptance rate of 16% whilst Caltech’s was 17.3%, virtually no difference and definitely not conclusive enough for you to stress the “INDEED.” Additionally, US News’ “Selectivity Rating” which takes High School Class Standing into account deems MIT to be more selective than Caltech. Similarly, Princeton Review’s selectivity formula placed MIT as the most selective school in the nation. Lastly, Caltech’s own publications state that they lost the majority of their Axline Scholars and President Scholars to MIT saying “Our yield was 20% and we lost most of these students to MIT, Harvard, and Stanford.” for Axline Scholars and “Of the 25 scholarships offered, we had a 36% yield with MIT and Stanford pulling away the greatest number of these students.” for President Scholars. MIT’s yield was 61% for that class and Caltech’s 42%, this despite Caltech giving merit scholarships and very generous financial aid packages. </p>

<p>How can you still claim, so confidently, that Caltech is more selective than MIT and that it has a superior student body?</p>

<p>On the same note, the statistics you provided for UCLA and UCB do not indicate that UCLA is more selective. Its acceptance rate is only 1% lower and SAT percentiles slightly higher, but if you compare the GPA’s, High School Rankings and SAT II scores of the applicant pools of both school’s, then UCB is slightly ahead (shown through US News’ and Princeton Reviews’ Selectivity Ratings).</p>

<p>crabluva<3crabs is also completely right when he says that NYU is far more stats orientated than UCB, especially on the SAT I. This is shown by your particular keenness to cite NYU’s SAT I percentiles in virtually every discussion and use them to prove NYU’s ascendancy in irrelevant criteria. Average SAT I scores show very little and, in any case, the difference between those of UCB and NYU are inconclusive. I am glad that the OP has come to his senses and decided to drop NYU from his choice of colleges. Good decision.</p>