<p>I understand your point about how UCLA has many reasons to admit well rounded students but the main point of going to college is to get an education and decisions should be based on student’s performance in academics. The majority of great minds in history have been well educated in top universities and they eventually go on to bring dramatic change in the progression of the human civilization. I’ve seen students in the same major have 400 point SAT difference yet the higher student got rejected over the lower. What proof does the college really have that the lower student will eventually outperform the student with the higher score? Most college rankings are based on academic performance and the more intelligent students they admit, the higher the prestige the college will receive. I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m just saying that by accepting students with lower test scores than those with higher ones may hurt the school overall.</p>
<p>green123098: I understand what you’re trying to say. Whether or not others disagree with you, nothing to cause argument about. It’s your opinion so don’t worry</p>
<p>theleakers: Thanks, I appreciate your comment :)</p>
<p>Remember, it’s not just about scores.
There are plenty of naturally smart people who don’t study and can get a 2340, but don’t have any extracurriculars.
On the other hand, there are people who try their hardest and merely get a 2000 or something, but have plenty of E.C.'s that show their leadership and more. </p>
<p>Of course, there are most likely people who work hard to get their scores and have plenty of E.C.'s, but again, UCLA can’t see through that piece of paper. UCLA doesn’t know US, only our achievements and our essays - not how hard we’ve worked, not whether we’re in love with UCLA, only what is printed in black ink.</p>
<p>@sunfulgirl: I agree with you, just some people seemed to be starting stuff up and I wanted to say that we did not mean to hurt anybody with what we say</p>
