<p>Ok, ppl are all complaining about how ucla admissions works. just b/c u are overqualified for a school does not mean ur guaranteed into the school. I know there could be bitter resentment but please, don't blame the director. So he happens to be asian. I doubt he was like ,"ok i want more asians in ucla than any other ethnicity". ....i think they wouldn't make him director anymore. And he doesn't solely read the apps if at all, so blame the readers of the apps if u may. And affirmative action isnt supposed to exist but it somewhat does. SORRY, if the ppl who are minorities could not use their ethnicity status to up themselves. Shouldn't academics be the main factor in an application? I know there are some situations that seem totally crazy and unfair but im sure that there are definitely very little compared to teh total admitted/rejected. it's those ones that find it unfair or whatever that go on to this site to post. the avg number of admitted/rejected don't go on this site. We'll see the stats next year. Don't be surprised that it all falls into place.</p>
<p>hear hear...</p>
<p>there is no such thing as being "overqualified" to UCLA (or any tier 1 school for that matter). It doesn't matter if your scores are above the average or if you single handedly cured AIDS in a remote African village, no one "deserves" a spot at a school. Be disappointed, sad, whatever - but i agree, don't go making theories about discrimination or corruption of the admissions director. That's just pathetic.</p>
<p>thats true for ucla where it is a state school and has certain standards but not true for other schools ...cough washu cough...</p>
<p>Agreed steaky and Icarus. It's truly pathetic when people try nitpicking and taking away from another person's acceptance like in the threads on the admission page.</p>
<p>sempitern555, i dont get the washU joke...</p>
<p>"Agreed steaky and Icarus. It's truly pathetic when people try nitpicking and taking away from another person's acceptance like in the threads on the admission page."</p>
<p>Hey iyancy, thanks! The only reason I never considered UCLA was that I need to get away from home - really to be fully independent.
If that was not the case, I'd have applied to UCLA only, period. </p>
<p>Some people just apply to schools for "name only" reasons: they are the same kind of people who don't hesitate to lie on their apps, or those who give prominent positions a doubtful reputation. Being accepted to UCLA is a major thing for me. With honors and Regents on top of it - it's like I really want to be there. Really feel honored to be accepted.</p>
<p>People here place so much importance on stats. Just because applicant X has a higher gpa and SAT scores than applicant Y doesn't mean that applicant X should get in. Essays and character matter, too.</p>
<p>yeah nkay thats true people here seem to think their sats and gpas are the most crucial factors. but the fact is people having a 1450+ do get rejected too and ppl havin 1200+ get accepted. im sure the schools understand jolly well how the whole sat testing mechanism works and how the scores dont matter as much as most ppl think they do. essays and how you present yourselves are CRUCIAL. thats why when i talked to an admission officer from amherst in a info session he told me amherst has the record of rejectin sby who had 1550</p>
<p>People get the wrong impression that just because UCLA is a state school, then that must mean its admissions is based on a number crunch. That is simply not true... there are way too many applicants with similar stats. People also overlook the essays because, well, how can they possibly read all the essays? Well, perhaps they really do, given that apps are divided up into several adcoms. Extracurriculars? I've mentioned this many times, UCLA seeks students who have shown a genuine and dedicated interest and uniqueness in extracurriculars. They're not a big fan for the student who pads their EC's. The result? The vast majority of UCLA students participate in extracurricular activities while in college. </p>
<p>Remember, the University of California wanted to dump the SAT's in the first place before collegeboard decided to make the new SAT. Simply complaining that a 1200 doesn't deserve the spot as much as the rejected 1450+ is just NOT LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE PICTURE.</p>
<p>well put, kfc4u</p>
<p>yeaoh kfc4u <em>applause</em></p>
<p>yes! well put kfc4u</p>
<p>thanks guys =)</p>
<p>Hey, face the freakin facts. A lot of really qualified people were denied. A lot of less qualified--but I'm sure very nice--people were accepted.</p>
<p>Also, there shouldn't be even one out-of-state admit until every qualified son or daughter of tax paying Californians are admitted.</p>
<p>It is the University of California's goal to admit qualified sons and daughters of tax-paying Californians, and the responsibility doesn't rest solely on one school. Berkeley and UCLA especially, because they're a rare breed for a university - a state school but yet a national university. Besides, out-of-staters make up only a very small fraction of the UCLA total student population. Overall, the University of California system has been admitting the top 12.5% of college-bound students from California. But like the UC's always emphasize, they can't guarantee you your first choice campus. </p>
<p>Yes, I do think a lot of really qualified people were denied and a lot of "less qualified" (but what standards? just SAT scores and GPA?) were accepted. I'm surprised by some of the results too. And I'm sure we can identify a flaw in those "less qualified" acceptances, but I'm also confident I can identify a flaw in 99% those "more qualified" rejected applications.</p>
<p>joemama what do you mean by 'qualified'? hav you read the essays of these 'less qualified' ppl? judging by merely by the stats is one huge n fatal mistakes. im sure the UCs admit students they think would enrich the school and contribution to diff aspects of the UC education and im also pretty sure the admission officers wouldnt sit there and tell each other, 'well make sure we dont admit the people with perfect scores and 4.0 GPA but take people who dont actually deserve goin to UC' i think thats very much a humiliation to ppl who've got into UCs.</p>
<p>"hav you read the essays of these 'less qualified' ppl"</p>
<p>So you mean the essays of "qualified" students are bad ?
Your thought of bringing essays and ECs in here is not adequate to explain anything.
Isn't that students with better SATs or GPA tend to write better essays, and more committed to other activities in life ? If they are highly motivated, sure that they know what to do.
Isn't that right ?</p>
<p>But, whatever, LA is not my first choice anyway. I dont want to stay here anymore. And my girl who get denied is going to Harvard anyway.
U guys have fun with LA.</p>
<p>But it really sucks to be rejected.</p>
<p>Rejection is a part of life twitb. And if your girl can get into Harvard, she shouldn't be applying to UCLA in the first place...</p>
<p>So twib, because my SAT scores and GPA were on the lower side and I was accepted, does it mean my essays would suck and I wouldn't know how to stay committed to all of my activities? I don't think so. No offense, but there are some really obvious grammar mistakes in your posts. If you're so smart and qualified, according to you, wouldn't you know how to write well?</p>