9/8     My understanding is that UC schools used to accept half of their
        students based on SAT I + SAT II + GPA*1000 (max score: 8000). I can't
        find anything on the web confirming this, as it seems like now
        admissions are more comprehensive:
:
        http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/general_info/uc_reviews/freshman_app.html

        A friend of mine claims that his school would only accept 0-1 students
        to Berkeley (and UCLA) no matter what the caliber is, and I'm
        claiming BS (as that would be reverse affirmative action). Anyone know
        anything about either of our claims? #14 at the URL above could
        be seen as support for his claim:
                 Location of the student's secondary school and residence.
        \_ He's full of shit. For proof see how many students from large
           high schools go to UCLA or UCB. It's not 0-1.
           \_ The friend is probably saying his sk00l blows, out in the boonies
              but I agree that if his SATs are high (hard) and his GPA is high
              (easy being in the boonies), then there is no quota per se.
              I believe it's true that a high GPA at let's say Lowell HS
              is better than a high GPA at Podunk HS, but I don't know the
              conversion, and maybe I'm totally wrong.
              \_ Yes, this is what he was saying. She got into UCLA and UCB but
                 decided to go have fun at UCSB. She wasn't the validictorian
                 but the four students who were were really pissed that he
                 applied and "wasted" the slots. She doesn't know their SAT II
                 scores but knows that they had 4.0+ GPA's and 1400+ SAT's
                 which should have been good enough for UCLA top 50%. 1998.
                 \_ I didn't think you could "waste" a slot--I was under the
                    impression that your HS played a role in UC admissions,
                    but only in consideration of individual applications, not
                    as part of a "quota-per-high school" system.  If you are
                    accepted to Cal and don't go, wouldn't the next-best
                    person from whichever high school just take your place?
                    Sounds odd to me.  But then again, maybe her 4 friends
                    aren't all that bright either.  -John
                 \_ If she went to UCSB instead of UCLA to have fun, then
                    she's not that bright afterall. UCSB is fun but UCLA is
                    funner.
                 \_ I see in today's UCLA admissions FAQ:
                    "It should be noted, however, that because UCLA does not
                    use a mathematical formula when evaluating applicants,
                    there is no fixed numerical weight attached to either GPA
                    or test scores."
                    So I can see how human beings, being lazy, would just pick
                    the few top slots out from Podunk HS, allocate more to
                    Lowell HS, and not really pay much attention to waiting
                    lists.  Shrug, it wasn't malicious of the UCB/UCLA girl,
                    and I bet you could find a lot of people with 1400+
                    post-recentered SAT scores.
                    \_ Of course there's no formula.  It's much easier to
                       game the system when there's no objective standard.
        \_ This is how I was admitted in 1991.  They published the minimum
           score every year, and when I applied I was above the minimum and
           didn't have to worry about getting in.
        \_ See this usenet post circa 1992: http://csua.org/u/dbd
           IIRC the GPA was capped at 4.0.
           \_ I was admitted in '92 with a 4.5 GPA. -1337
              (easy being in the boonies), then there is no quota per high
              school
           \_ GPA was capped at 4.0 in 1996. They had the 8000 ranking, I
              remember to have a 98% chance for Berkeley you needed like 7000
              and for EECS it was like 7400.