<p>There is an Asian girl at my school with a 4.0 unweighted GPA and 2400 SAT I, and she was rejected from UCLA. She has one of the highest weighted GPAs in our class (which is at a competitive public school that sends MANY kids to UCLA), and she's taken nearly every AP available. She has 800/800/780 SAT IIs, and 5s on several AP tests. She's a great writer. She's fairly involved in a variety of extracurriculars, and she's received quite a few awards, high math contest scores, etc.</p>
<p>seeing as how crazy UCLA admissions were this year, the admissions committee could have assumed that she would be going to a much higher level school, and just applied to UCLA as a safety.</p>
<p>but in reality, with all of our theories that we can come up with, we will never know the real answer</p>
<p>well my friend who is #4 in the class got rejected too. Even though she got 1300/1600, her score doesn't reflect her ability because she's not good at test taking. She's involved in so much extracurriculars. But hey, if they reject they reject.</p>
<p>I've had questions about UCLA admissions also...</p>
<p>My friend with a 1790 SAT gets in, yet people with well above average UCLA SAT scores don't.</p>
<p>There have been many theories regarding some of these instances, but this kind of thing happening isn't usual. Its so unusual that we talk about it here.</p>
<p>I have no explanations. We can't see the applications, so we have no way of comparing the complete picture that applicants present.</p>
<p>PROPAGANDA!!! Look at when the OP joined CC, a few days ago. This is their first thread and first post. That is already very out of place. Its all lies. Don't believe anything you read on this website, unless you see it yourself, or from another trusted website/news organization. The OP faked this just to get people to hate UCLA because HE/SHE probably got rejected. That's the motive. </p>
<p>I could post that some kid with a 2400 SAT got rejected from Cal State San Bernadino and have this huge outrage about it. The fact is, a lot of people lie here on CC. Yes, some tops students did get rejected, but considering that UCLA accepts 91% of its top student applicants, which means (2100+ SAT and 4.2+ GPA), it is highely unlikely. Yes, this data is backed by statistical fact. Check it yourself. </p>
<p>Honestly, I think some kids are just mad at UCLA because THEY got rejected, and now they are making up stories to make everyone hate UCLA. And obviously, it is working. Propaganda, its all fake, trust me.</p>
<p>MetFan, I do in fact have another account on CC. However I am positive that a lot of people at my school also go on CC, and if they read this thread, they would know I went to their school. (The story of this girl is spreading like wildfire in our class.) I created this account to protect my anonymity.</p>
<p>chickenboi, I didn't think UCLA practiced Tufts Syndrome. And I assure you, this girl is not capable of writing a terrible essay!</p>
<p>@sparkles543, why do you care if they find out that you put the story on CC? We will never know the girl's name or anything like that. So you are being anonymous because you were gonna tell other people how crazy this rejection was? Still sounds fake to me. Considering that only about ~300 students got rejected from UCLA with scores and grades like hers, the validity of your statement is being called into question.</p>
<p>UCLA does have somewhat unpredictable admissions....more so than one might expect from a large public. Based on nothing but your post, though, my thoughts are:</p>
<p>(1) How are you so intimately acquainted with this girl's stats? There's no reason in the world that you should know not only SAT and unweighted GPA, but also all SAT2, AP, and math contest scores of "an Asian girl at [your] school" (in other words, not yourself or a very close friend)! So if she's the type to go spreading all this info around, and that attitude came through in her essays or recs, I probably wouldn't have jumped to accept her, either...</p>
<p>(2) If she's as amazing as you say, she should have other options. She should raise her eyebrows a bit, recognize that she's a great student who was rejected from a great school, as many other great students are, and move on with the process.</p>
<p>(3) If her heart was absolutely set on UCLA, she should talk with her GC to try and ensure that no mistakes were made. She can also look into the UC appeals process, which I don't know much about. And she should still move on with the process...</p>
<p>Good luck to this girl. Meanwhile, y'know...it happens. And in this particular case, it's not your problem. All that anyone can do here is speculate.</p>
<p>ETA: Metfan...so? If any such high-stat students were rejected, which I'm sure some were, then the OP's question--"Any explanations?!"--is still a fair one, whether or not it's based on an actual case. Of course there are explanations for every rejection, but whether the OP is telling the truth or not won't change the fact that <em>we</em> don't have them.</p>
<p>One year the valedictorian of my kid's school was rejected from UCLA while tons of kids far below him in rank got in. Kids below him in rank also got into HYPS. There did seem to be an explanation. He did not have the ECs that would make him as strong an applicant. UCLA seems to care a great deal about ECs and the whole "rounded applicant". They want to see more than just the GPA and transcript and scores.</p>
<p>metfan2289 makes a good point with possible trolling, but the fact remains that when you look at the complex table comparing GPA and SAT, the population of people with 4.2+ WGPAs and 700-800 SATs on each section still had a 7% rejection rate. Obviously, the rates would be very different for one with perfect statistics, but this shows that rejection is still possible at all levels of educational and standardized testing prowess. She may have simply been uninteresting to the adcoms, or had her application processed on a bad day (or with mistaken information even), etc. There is no such thing as a sure-fire admission when it comes to top colleges, public or private.</p>
<p>The OP was probably LYING. The odds of getting rejected with those stats are rare. Unless the person had little to no ECs. The type of people who comes online and talks about someone else's failure is so lame. Worry about yourself, not someone else. Where they got accepted and rejected is none of your business. There is a level of privacy that people want and a level of self-respect that the OP should have. Probably an angry applicant who got rejected by UCLA because his stats didn't qualify him for acceptance.</p>
<p>@enderkin, yes I agree, that 7% rejection exists, but it seems like on CC, everyone in that 7% bracket who got rejected is coming out of the woodwork to tell their sob story. So many other colleges reject people, why is UCLA the one that gets the (OMG 2400 rejected) reaction. I think people tend to forget that UCLA is a great school. Yes it is not HYPSM, but it is up there. Top5 in Cali, and top 30 in the nation by almost any rank. So, people getting rejected from a great school should not be in an outrage like we see here. It is more likely that most of these people are lying because their 3.8 Weighted GPA and their 2100 SAT score didnt get them in. (Considering that 2100 is above average in UCLA terms).</p>
<p>I didn't read the original post as a sob story, nor did I read outrage. I simply read confusion, surprise, and a request for possible explanations, which, as I said before, seems fair (if perhaps fruitless...) regardless of whether or not the cited case is a real one. Yes, UCLA is a great school, but as a large public, it's easy to forget that there are non-numerical factors to admission. </p>
<p>If you're convinced that a poster is lying, then don't bother wasting your time on a response, or say your piece and move along. It's that simple. No need to dwell, or to pretend that this is the only recent "I didn't get in to a school I thought I would..." themed thread around here. It's just that time of year. If someone is lying, any accusatory response is still a response, which is obviously what the poster is looking for. And if she's telling the truth, then there's no need to go adding insult to injury. Just my $0.02.</p>