<p>I guess I don't see what you're saying. Your scores are low for several of the schools that declined you, and you don't have particularly outstanding EC's or anything. The acceptances seem pretty much in line with what I'd expect given what you posted.</p>
<p>None of the results surprised me except UCLA. Are there really that many people in California above 1330/1600 on the SAT and top 10% of their class? 3.93/4.00 unweighted and 4.3/4.0 weighted?</p>
<p>What's up with that? If you don't live in California, then it's a different story because out-of-state admissions is much harder.</p>
<p>Honestly you're stats seem pretty good to me. I have the feeling, however, that you're course load was not very impressive, that's the only thing that would make sense to me. If not that than I'm not sure. So how was your course load throughout HS?</p>
<p>So, let's see. A 2004 census put the number of high school-aged students in California at 2.1 million. One 4th of those is just over 500,000. If we say that fewer than half of those (200,00) are actually seniors (as opoosed to dropping out), then the top 10 percent of those students would be 20K students. So, even if you're talking about the top <em>five</em> percent of California seniors, that's still probably 10K students. </p>
<p>So no, I don't find it unreasonable to assume that there may be close to 8K seniors per year with scores in that ballpark.</p>
<p>UCLA is the only one that might be cause for suprise. The OP is about in the middle of UCLA's SAT range and has a great GPA, but has no ECs that would make him/her stand out from the other 50,000+ applicants. I don't understand why the OP would suspect "discrimination."</p>
<p>UCLA isn't all that suprising to me either.</p>
<p>"Academic characteristics for admitted freshmen remained strong. Admitted students had an overall grade-point average — including honors and advanced placement courses — of 4.30, compared with 4.26 last year. The average composite score for the SAT reasoning test was 2,007, out of a possible 2,400, one point higher than last year. The average math score was 687, the average critical reading score was 657 and the average writing score was 662. The two highest average scores for the SAT subject tests were 728 and 675. Students took an average of 19 honors and AP courses and completed an average of 50.6 college preparatory semester courses, far above the minimum of 30 that is required."
<a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=7826%5B/url%5D">http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=7826</a></p>
<p>So...GPA is exactly average. SATs are just about average. ECs are weak...and this year is the year that UCLA transitioned over to holistic evaluation, where they count for much more.</p>
<p>Pomona, Cornell, and Stanford are extremely difficult to get into. UCLA only admits a quarter of students. In other words, no, I'm not seeing any discrimination (what would it be on the basis of?). Occidental and UCSB are great schools...enjoy wherever you go and try not to worry so much over whether or not you were slighted.</p>
<p>Cornell and Stanford seemed like reaches. Neither your scores nor your ECs were extraordinary in their pool. I'm not familiar enough with the other colleges to comment.</p>
<p>No its not suprising. Cornell and Stanford are complete out there reaches. As in impossible reaches since your Ecs aren't strong. Pomona is quite a stretch too.</p>
<p>runnells07, I'll be honest with you. I wouldn't have accepted you at any of those schools you got rejected from either. Sure, your GPA is decent - but the fact that your unweighted is 3.9 and your weighted is only 4.3 shows that you did not take that many challenging courses (or your weighted should be corresponding around 4.5-6). Your SATs are decent but not spectacular, CERTAINLY not on the level of top-flight schools. If your math and reading collectively were 1450+ then maybe it wouldn't matter because some schools don't look at the writing as a real factor.</p>
<p>Where you really fall flat is your ECs though. 2 clubs? I know that numbers don't mean anything, but what did you do in those clubs to stand out? Make a difference? Hold a position? Your sports also seem erratic at best. There's no consistency and you don't demonstrate excellence there by staying in JV until 11th grade. Add that to the fact that all your activities look disconnected (they might not be, but unless your essays told otherwise it doesn't matter), and I don't think there was discrimination at all.</p>
<p>It really only seems like what you've got going is your GPA and probably your courseload... Your SATs are below average or just about average for all the schools you got rejected from and you don't have stellar ECs or anything... Unless you're an URM I don't get how you could've had a shot at Stanford, Pomona, or Cornell.</p>
<p>Arctic let me put it this way. In my high school class the star QUARTERBACK in my grade had a 4.4 weighter. And he was as far from a nerd as you can get.</p>
<p>Also, I wasn't saying his GPA was bad - far from it. I was just saying that if your unweighted GPA is almost 4.0 (which is really good), yet your weighted is only 4.3, it is decently strong but definitely indicates less challenging courses. If his unweighted/weighted were 3.6/4.3 it would be a different story, and in my mind might be more appealing because it shows that this student actually cares and challenged himself with hard courses, as opposed to the obviously talented who doesn't work as hard.</p>
<p>The deal is, my extra curricular activities lack only because of my involvement in sports and student government. When I commit to anything I make it a point to actually be involved and not just "sign up for it." I've been in book clubs, FCA, language clubs, except all I did in those was attend meetings which, to me, doesn't constitute as having active participation. </p>
<p>As for my GPA, my senior year was the only thing bringing it down and I can defend that with the fact that I was forced to move out at the start of the year, also being why I didn't play varsity sports. I am athletically strong and if being Varsity as early as freshman year and being captain junior year (supposed to carry on to senior year) isn't enough, then apparently no one at my school has what it takes. I wrote of my circumstances in my essays, by the way.</p>
<p>I am 10th in my class of around 450 and people with even less qualifications than me who got into CalTech, Stanford, Princeton, Columbia, and UCLA. </p>
<p>The kid who got into CalTech is positively brilliant, but as for the other schools, it was undeserved. My scores and course load were higher. Everything I had was more involved than the other student, the only contributing factor I can think of is that this person milked his/her supposed "Native American heritage." This person is a friend of mine and I have known them for quite a while, no one in our group of friends knew he/she was Native American until he/she started filling out applications and talking about it.</p>
<p>Fair?
I think not.</p>
<p>I had stellar recommendations and had just as much potential as the next person at any one of these schools.</p>
<p>All of you assume I'm a guy too, why is that?</p>
<p>Isn't it a little pointless overanalyzing what and what didn't work out for you by this point? You may have missed the admission by miniscule margins, and certainly you competed with a large and varied applicant pool. No reason to beat yourself up over not being a 100% match for what your colleges were looking for this year. Neither your life nor your self-confidence need depend on this.</p>