<p>According to UCB website acceptances rates are as follows
4 and above GPA - 43.3%
CR 700 - 800 47.3%
MA 700 - 800 38.7%
WR 700 - 800 46.9%</p>
<p>So if someone has > 700 in all SAT1 and UC GPA above 4.0 then practically the chances to get into UCB should be almost > 75%.</p>
<p>Is there any doubt about this?</p>
<p>Students who have high GPAs tend to have high SAT scores too. They are separate cases so you can’t add them.</p>
<p>If an in-state student has a 25% chance of getting into UCB and they had > 700 in all SAT1 and a UC GPA above 4.0, would that make their chance 100%?</p>
<p>You’re probably talking a 50% chance.–agreeing w/ castel, you can’t add them… but, it is much better odds than at MIT or Caltech…). A good application and strong recs will help, but I’m convince that there’s no “sure thing” for any student trying to get into one of the top competitive schools in today’s world. Best wishes to arpkid.</p>
<p>Assuming the student took a challenging courseload, is in-state, and is applying to L&S, the odds should be quite high.</p>
<p>No, that’s not how statistics works. For example, let’s say in a bag of slips of paper, 20% are blue, 50% are red, and 30% are yellow. Furthermore, 50% have polka dots and 50% don’t. What’s the probability of picking out a blue slip? 20%. What’s the probability of picking out a polka dot slip? 50%. What’s the probability of picking out a probability of picking out a polka dot blue slip? We don’t know. It’s not 50%+20%=70%, because for all we know, the polka dots could be only on red and yellow slips, and so there’s a 0% probability that you could pull out a polka dot blue slip.</p>
<p>Same deal here. Even if you could somehow combine the above statistics to come up with a “master” statistic, it still wouldn’t give you much insight into what your chances are. Why? Because more than GPA and SAT are taken into account in admissions. Since admissions are not random events, you can’t say that a 50% acceptance rate for people with a GPA of 4.3 or higher (this is completely made up) means that your chances of acceptance are 50%. If Berkeley randomly chose 50% of the students with a GPA of 4.3 or higher, then sure–but we all know that isn’t how students are chosen. They’re chosen based on many factors, most of which cannot be quantified. This is the same logic behind the ELC acceptance rates.</p>
<p>So, you saw this coming: from what you’ve said, a 2250+ on the SAT with 4.0+ UC GPA could mean that Berkeley is a match. But what about the other factors? If the student has no ECs or awards, writes weak essays, hasn’t taken the most rigorous course load available, and so on, then I’d say that Berkeley is a reach, even with 2250+ and 4.0+. If the above factors are strong, then it’s probably a match (unless the student is OOS, and then it’s even more uncertain).</p>
<p>"If Berkeley randomly chose 50% of the students with a GPA of 4.3 or higher, then sure–but we all know that isn’t how students are chosen. "
True, that is why if you have more of the stats your probability should increase.
As per UCB website following are the parameters taken into account:
Parameter - Probability
GPA > 4.0 - 43%
CR > 700 - 47% + (15)
MA > 700 - 38% + (10)
WR > 700 - 46% + (15)
A-G courses (50+) - 26% + (5)
15+ Honos. Courses - 33% + (5)</p>
<p>So what is the chance that a student with all of the above get rejected by UCB even without any EC and poor essay. The probability should be less than 7%.</p>
<p>Um, the reason WHY kids “with all of the above” get rejected is because of no ECs and poor essays…</p>
<p>Also, probability doesn’t mean anything with college admissions… all you’re doing is setting yourself up for a greater fall if you get rejected.</p>
<p>Castel, then how do you select safeties? Every college will have some unknown % as it will never reach 100%. Irony is even UC Merced is 98% for GPA > 4.0 and the admission for 2008 is still open.</p>
<p>I thought the rule for selecting a safety is if your chances for acceptance at a University exceed 60%.</p>
<p>Students still get rejected from safeties. There are numerous cases where students get rejected from UC Irvine/Davis, but accepted to UCLA and Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Should, yes, but you can’t assume that they will.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, no, you can’t make that conclusion. The person with the stats you listed (given good essays/ECs/awards), I’d say, has a ~30% chance of getting rejected, because it would be a match.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. 60% means you’re nearly as likely to be rejected as you are to be accepted. That’s not safe at all.</p>
<p>70% is generally defined as a match (as per College Board, college counselors, etc.). 80% is a safe match, and 90%+ is a safety. Anything below 50% is a reach (when the odds are against you), 50% is a slight reach, and 60% is a high match.</p>
<p>Let us consider the year 2008. For year 2008 there were 20,649 applicants with GPA > 4.0. Not all of these applicant score high on SATs.
There were 14,958 with SAT Math > 700. Considering california is Asian heavy 80% of these also have GPA > 4.0 that leave number of applicant having both 11,966.
There were 8,490 with SAT CR > 700. So lets consider that 50% 0f all these have GPA > 4.0 and SAT Math > 700. Consider Asian heavy California has diffculty scoring > 700 on SAT CR. That leaves only 4,245 with all 3 common.
Now if 80% of these also have SAT WR > 700 that will make number of such appllicants only 3,396.
Now if you try to reduce this number by Course rigor, NMSF, etc. that will reduce the number to ~ 3,000.
Now UCB intake is around 11,000 which make these 3,000 as show in to College of L&S less they have no negative remarks in the rec.</p>
<p>The point is it is impossible for UCB to holistically go thru 50,000 aplications. So they only look for negative comments for certain group of students like the above 3000. So if there is no negative these 3,000 students should be in.</p>
<p>
Your math is based on the wrong assumption that these events are statistically indepnedent. </p>
<p>There is also a fallacy in interpreting the numbers. 43.3% with gpa>4 is a fact and not a probability. It means that if you walk around Cal campus and grab a large bunch of freshmen randomly, about 43% of them will have gpa>4.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did you get that? That’s completely arbitrary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you’re committing the fallacy I described above. You cannot automatically link two traits. I agree that there’s probably a correlation, but to what degree that correlation exists, we don’t know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Repeat above. Considering that you’re building this model on Asian stereotypes, I’m going to say it’s very heavily flawed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You just knocked off another 400 very arbitrarily.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This shows that you know nothing of Berkeley’s admissions. Berkeley does not accept letters of recommendation. If you send them in, it will throw them away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it is. Harvard has 27,000 applicants that it goes through in less than three months. Berkeley has ~50,000 and it starts in early December. On top of that, top privates like Harvard have to go through tons of documents: two teacher recommendations, counselor recommendation, school report, CSS profile, Common App, supplement, FAFSA, transcript, score reports, etc. I think Stanford said it has to process roughly 300,000 documents. Berkeley has to process 1/3 of that: the application and the score reports. The fact that it starts a month earlier, that it doesn’t accept recommendations or school reports, that it doesn’t look at the CSS profile, that grades are self-reported and not sent in, and so on, all mean that Berkeley can focus more on the applications.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkeley has said many times before that it doesn’t look for reasons to reject you, but for reasons to accept you. How do they go through so many applications? Because it’s obvious, when doing a read-through, whether an applicant is weak. They can eliminate them pretty fast; this is how admissions works at Harvard, Stanford, etc. Beyond that, they scrutinize the rest of the students and decide who gets in.</p>
<p>Those 3,000 students aren’t in that easily. As stated, they will look at their ECs, their essays, their work experience, their personal qualities and talents and so on. 3,000 students is nearly 1/3 of the total # acceptances; you’re saying that they’re “clear admits”? No. I believe I read that the “clear admits” make up <10% of the total admit pool. So that’s obviously wrong.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, ArpMom2009, you simply can’t quantify Berkeley’s admissions this easily. Just because it wears its admissions statistics on its sleeve doesn’t mean that its admissions are formulaic. Even if that were so, your methodology is extremely flawed. Any statistician would tell you that. I know you probably have a son or daughter or whoever who wants to get into Berkeley and you want him/her to be confident of his/her chances, but it just doesn’t work that way.</p>
<p>With your incorrect math, your chances of getting into Cal is almost zero… jk :D</p>
<p>Really, the things don’t just add like that. From the looks of it, the measurements are made independently of each other. Your chances might be higher if you meet all the categories, but you don’t have that information.</p>
<p>Based on just the info, your chances are at least 47.8% - the highest of all the categories by itself. However, that’s not considering any negative factors - eg. writing that 'Furd is your dream school on your essay.</p>
<p>47.8% isn’t even your chances. As I said before: Since admissions are not random events, you can’t say that a 50% acceptance rate for people with a GPA of 4.3 or higher (this is completely made up) means that your chances of acceptance are 50%. If Berkeley randomly chose 50% of the students with a GPA of 4.3 or higher, then sure–but we all know that isn’t how students are chosen. They’re chosen based on many factors, most of which cannot be quantified. This is the same logic behind the ELC acceptance rates.</p>
<p>I’m sure it is not eassy to second guess the admission strategy at UCB. But to refute that a person with a rigorous curriculumn and UC GPA > 4.0 and > 750 on each section of SAT1 will get rejected without any negative quality is difficult to swallow also.
There have been documented cases of 2400 on SAT1 and GPA 4.0 (UW) getting rejected from Harvard but not from UCB.
So there is some uncertainity with the process at UCs but is not a complete crap shot as in the case of HYPMS.
There is difference between capable and comparable 20,000 applications recieved by HYPMS and a set of 50,000 applications recieved by UCB. The set of 50,000 are not same.
It can be said that HYPMS can pick up multiple classes of accepted student and still comprise the same strong matriculated class of freshmen(women).
But the same can be said about UCB 10,000 acceptances. UCB cannot select another 10,000 from the same pool of 50,000 application to assemble the same equivalent strong class of matriculants.</p>
<p>So the two system are not same and comparable. UCB addmissions to some extent are governed by number. So there is some % of the 10,000 acceptances that will remain same if UCB tries to pick another 10,000 from the same 50,000 pool.</p>
<p>Is it 2000 or 3000 I’m not sure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well of course it is. Without any negative quality? That student would get into HYPS too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve heard of them getting rejected from UCB. There hasn’t been any “documented” cases for either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you say 20k? Harvard received nearly 30,000; Stanford over 25,000; Yale about 23,000; Princeton about 22,000.</p>
<p>And of course they aren’t the same. Nobody claimed they were. I was talking more about the workload of evaluating applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We don’t know–I’ve explained why multiple times, and I don’t know how else to explain it to you.</p>
<p>^^^:Well of course it is. Without any negative quality? That student would get into HYPS too."</p>
<p>That is where I think we differ. You need more than “Without any negative quality” to get into HYPMS. There are many equivalent “2000” applicant at HYPMS and these can pick and choose any one such and still maintain the similar stength of the student body.</p>
<p>But UCB doesn’t have the choice of such equivalent “10,000” set of applicants to choose a class from.</p>
<p>So both are not equivalent.
That is why with all the above quality and without any negative comment on the resume an applicant chances at HYPMS is still a crap shot but is very certain to get into UCB.</p>
<p>The UCB admissions process for the top tier of students is pretty mechanical. If you have the grades and rigor and test scores (in that order of importance), you are extremely likely to be admitted. The other factors come more into play with more “borderline” cases.</p>
<p>^^ “extremely likely” is still relative; I don’t think it’d be 93% chance for those students.</p>