BackToTheOldHouse wrote: ExpectLess wrote: fish52 wrote: cardinals1989 wrote:
Amusing moment of the day-Berkeley FB group is discussing SLS.
Tons of cross-admits. These are pretty much the only two schools that have legitimate holistic admissions processes (Boalt a bit more so than Stanford). Also, rivalries tend to be pretty consuming haha
Unusual does not mean holistic, and it gets old to hear people defend Berkeley as such. They reject plenty of people with stellar numbers and great softs (people who get into Stanford, Yale, etc.). They're just very URM heavy and very California heavy in admissions. That's not holistic, it's just different criteria.
And to suggest that every other school is not holistic? And then to quantify the holistic-ness by saying that Boalt is "a bit more" holistic than Stanford? Pretty silly post.
URM heavy? I thought Berkeley didn't even see the race/ethnicity of its applicants upon review of application for admittance (when I sent my app, that section automatically blanked out). They use a socio-economic questionnaire instead, which one might argue is more holistic
As for the California heavy thing, do you have data to support this? I'm not trying to argue, I'm merely interested in this information.
Nope, all anecdotal, although they do have an unusually large percentage of the class as California residents. This may simply be due to self-selection, but check out LSN and the acceptance trend of California residents might surprise you. I definitely was too narrow in saying URM heavy--what I should have said was favorable toward those who, as revealed through their PS or SEC questionnaire, overcame significant hardship or were part of an underrepresented group generally.
This was just my opinion about how Berkeley's process seems. My point was, however, that Berkeley has different criteria than other schools, and to simply call it holistic because it's different is to misuse the word.