Admissions Theory

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Los Angeles
1

<p>After reading about these posts, I cannot help but say something about UCLA's admissions process.</p>

<p>Section I: This is my own personal opinion, so please do not see it as hostility, arrogance, or anything of the sort. It relates to my theory section as well.</p>

<p>I want to address the issue of "slackers" getting into UCLA. Personally, I find this to be an extremely valid premise to the "UCLA's admissions sucks" argument. Although the posts in these forums may be exaggerated by the feelings of rage and denial, I do agree that they are, in the most part, true. However, there ARE also people that may not be very outspoken about their extracurriculars and volunteer activities, which from an outsider's perspective will make them seem like they do nothing when in reality they actually do accomplish a lot.</p>

<p>Therefore, I want to make it clear that I empathize deeply with the hard-working students with fabulous statistics that were rejected. And before all of you start flaming me for being an enraged reject, I would like to point out that I was accepted to UCLA, so don't even try that $*^#. I agree that some deserving people got left out and that some underachievers were admitted. Its as simple as that. Everyone makes mistakes and, likewise, every institution makes mistakes as well. </p>

<p>Section II: Theory</p>

<p>Referencing my statements in the previous section, I think it is very clear that UCLA is trying to differentiate itself from UC Berkeley and Caltech. The two previously mentioned schools are very academically biased when looking at their applicants. Consequently, they are known as research institutions, technological schools, and "nerd" cathedrals. I think UCLA is striving to become Southern California's version of Stanford, a place in that take applicants with personalities and overall images that seem strong. It may also be trying to take over USC's role (or increase its lead over USC) as the top "well-rounded" school in the southwestern United States.</p>

<p>However, this process cannot possibly be smooth. Being a public school under the UC system, it is still obligated to accept a big group of students with high academic statistics. However, in order to balance this out, UCLA leaving some of the high end students out and deviating towards students that the admissions committee thinks have strong personalities. This can be shown in their essays, extracurriculars, or even volunteer/work experience.</p>

<p>Conclusion: Again, my personal opinion</p>

<p>UCLA is becoming a public version of Stanford. However, it is hindered by the many restrictions of being a public school. In addition, its reputation is not to the point where it can be as "holistic" or "truly selective" as top ivies. Therefore, it makes many mistakes and does INDEED take under-qualified applicants over qualified ones in order to further its purpose (whether this may or may not truly be a mistake).</p>

2

<p>Balance is good. :)</p>

3

<p>i remember stanford wanting to have a well-rounded student body by accepting well-lopsided people. or some quote like that. basically, people who aren't individually expert in everything, but who have one or two specific passions or skills or life experiences. collect enough of those, and you have a very unique student body.</p>

<p>whether that's what a public university like UCLA ought to do, or in fact is even doing, is subjective.</p>

4

<p>What is better, jack of all trades, master or none, or master of one? You decide. Most of the "slackers" that I know here are actually much smarter than the hardworkers, therefore they are capable of slacking and still do pretty well overall. It is sad, but some of the hardest workers I know do so VERY inefficiently. They take DAYS to do what I see others do in several ours, and pull off the same grades and what not. Don't study hard, study smart.</p>

5

<p>...UCLA adopted holistic admissions because Berkeley did, as far as i know. the schools that are as academics-focused as you think are the UCs that use the point-system...as in not Cal or LA. so no, LA is not differentiating itself from Cal and Caltech, it's following in Cal's footsteps. i dunno anything about Caltech.</p>

6

<p>


Do you honestly think so? Read</a> this.Sound familiar? See above.

Lets not be silly. It's a huge school. 55K applicants. Leaving high-end students towards "strong personalities" - well, there are so many of them. Somewhat arbitrary process when you're separating similar qualified students, especially when considering the soft factors as separating one student from another. I don't think it's so much as mimicking Stanford - more like, the idea of well-rounded students (or well-lopsided students)... this has nothing to do with separating itself from specifically Berkeley or CalTech or nerd schools. CalTech is completely meritocratic though. . .</p>

<p>Wouldn't call it a theory - stating "premises" (without actually making any - just opinions) doesn't provide any strong base to whatever you're saying. OK it's unfair. . . -_-;</p>

7

<p>Mme-lin, my theory is based on my opinion. It is not a paradox to have an opinionated theory/a theory based on personal speculation. In addition, the evidence that I use is the vast amount of posts complaining about unqualified acceptances, which you may or may not choose to believe. </p>

<p>I will explain your points one by one.</p>

<p>To your point about HYP, I do admit there are some quirky admissions that take place in those universities. Like I said, every institution makes mistakes. However, if you compare the sheer magnitude of quirky admissions, there is no way HYP should be in the same conversation as UCLA. It is absolutely ridiculous when a person who gets a 1300/2400 SAT and 3.3 GPA and has no EC's gets into UCLA and a 2200 SAT and 4.2 GPA gets rejected. Furthermore, given the available circumstances. this is not exactly an outlier either. There have been MANY reported cases of this situation. This is indeed a problem and it seems to be happening far more frequently and at a more severe degree than the ivy admissions. You can choose to ignore what countless other posts (enraged exaggerations or not) have ranted about or you can continue to provide your own defense to the issue. </p>

<p>Next, the term research institution is based off of the university's reputation as an institution that values research and scientific discovery over other areas such as liberal arts and sports. The term "nerd cathedral" is a metaphorical reinforcer because the faculty and students at these schools are so devoted to scientific research that they almost reach a religious fervor.</p>

<p>Next, I specifically said that UCLA may or may not be behind USC. Seeing that you are a UCLA alumni, I would like to say sorry if I offended you by simply comparing UCLA to USC.</p>

<p>The Stanford issue is not a restrictive "copy every single aspect of Stanford" type of concept. I said it is trying to become a version of Stanford, which means an embodied whole of science, mathematics, liberal arts, research, entertainment, sports, etc. The reason I chose Stanford as a comparative example is because it has a reputation of being one of the best all-around schools in the world. If you don't agree with my choice of comparison, please feel free to enlighten me. </p>

<p>The strong personality issue, in its actual context, is NOT strong personality in real definition. I said that they accept people who the ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE thinks have strong personalities. This is satirical, if you reference my previous rant/opinion/whatever you would like to degrade it to be and call it. I specifically state that due to UCLA's attempt at trying to become a great overall school (not that it isn't already one), it makes many mistakes in admissions.</p>

<p>You obviously have a lot of UCLA pride, so once again I would like to apologize if anything I have said has offended you.</p>

<p>EDIT: I see that you have edited/deleted parts of your post, so please disregard anything here that doesn't apply to the above post.</p>

8

<p>This is why I'm proud that HSSEAS maintains seperate admissions criteria. Their admissions committee actually weighs the high school GPA and math/science SAT I/II scores heavily, instead of admitting self-proclaimed "well-rounded go-getters" with <4.0 GPAs, <1900 SAT I scores and shallow extra-curriculars but boasting essays smacking of "I learned from my mistakes". The average SAT I scores of HSSEAS admits has already surpassed 2100, while the average SAT I scores of CL&S admits has been steadily regressing and will fall below 2000 by next year. I wouldn't be surprised if UCSD, with its strict points-based admissions system, eclipses UCLA to become the new "academic powerhouse" in Southern California. :rolleyes:</p>

9

<p>By the way, I just want to reinforce the fact that this is NOT a hostile attack on UCLA in any way...I think it is an awesome school with a great environment. I just have a problem with some of the admissions issues I am hearing about and decided to speak out about it.</p>

10

<p>Are u basing ur "theory" on the stats people put up on these threads. If that's the case u really need to rethink this. We are merely a small community of students where in UCLA is a huge institution. Each year UCLA actually raises the bar, statistically wise. We will see how these years admits compare to last years when the statistics come out.</p>

<p>If u are not basing ur views on these then good job. I think UCLA is trying to take a more "hollistic" approach, not just good grades but people with different ethnic backgrounds, etc..</p>

<p>I was admitted to UCLA with a 1750 SAT but I have a great GPA, and am #3 in my class, also I am Mexican.</p>

<p>So is thats the case with UCLA then I am glad they are doing it.</p>

11

<p>Cal and UCLA like diversified ECs and the OUGA at both have every right to demand them. They don't like more of the same kind of people. They want the population to be more vibrant. They don't want students who studied their asses off for the SATs. They want people who did decent on it and who did tons of other things. Remember Cal and LA don't like CollegeBoard that much. The UC did once threaten to make the SAT1 optional.</p>