<p>I know UCLA can be really random at it (I've heard of people with 1800's getting in and people with 2000+ getting rejected), so I'd just like to know what YOURS were, so I can gauge what I should shoot for.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>2250 10char</p>
<p>best in 1 sitting: 1840 (I think… it’s been awhile.)</p>
<p>(In fact, several of my other friends from my high school got about the same score as I did and got in. But then again, they had GPAs that would give you heart attacks.)</p>
<p>My advice: just do your best and apply. People with waaay worse have gotten in.</p>
<p>(Honestly, I think UCLA has to accept average people like me so the above average have something they think they can beat. Hahahaha.)</p>
<p>2050/31 (got into CSE)</p>
<p>SAT 2210, ACT 32. Computer Science.</p>
<p>sat 1810
act 25 composite-highest was a 28 in english
needless to say i dont test well… my gpa was a 4.36 though and lots of ec’s/cs hrs
in LS college</p>
<p>can someone explain what being a bad test taker means? ive never been able to understand.</p>
<p>i suppose in my case, i overnalyze things that should or shouldnt be subjective, i panic when i am unsure of an answer having to do with logic and freeze up on time- overall its my own fault for not using test prep books and taking practice acts and sats.
- my struggles mostly lie in MC, because i have done very well on my writing portion of sat and aplac ap lit test along with frqs in other classes</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A person can be a good test taker and not necessarily understand the material in the class and still get an A. You can be a good test taker by understanding the professor and knowing what types of questions he’s generally going to ask (based on previous exams, bruinwalk, previous students).</p>
<p>Good test takers know how to get partial credit even if they don’t understand how to solve the problem. </p>
<p>Good test takers can cram.</p>
<p>Good test takers have a better chance at answering a multiple choice question by analyzing the probabilities and trends (this is true in certain cases where professors want to balance out the answers. example: if true, give a proof. if false, give a counter example. there would probably be at least 1 true and 1 false answer)</p>
<p>Bad test takers, on the other hand, may understand all the material in the class and still fail the exams. Bad test takers also get distracted or discouraged really easily.</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>1900/33/3.9/CS </p>
<p>I’m a “bad” test taker, in case you are curious.</p>
<p>2330</p>
<p>I would say I’m a good test taker (especially multiple choice), but I do think the difference is overblown and sometimes used as too much of an excuse. The material on the SAT is simple enough that getting discouraged shouldn’t be that much of a problem.</p>
<p>1990</p>
<p>I’d have to say my gpa and extracurricular activities are what did it for me</p>
<p>Another “bad test taker” here.</p>
<p>Every test situation… I go insane noticing all the pencil drumming, foot tapping, and peeking/cheating.</p>
<p>I lack that “zone” when a test is in front of me :/</p>
<p>pskate: Me too! I remember this one time when there was this autistic guy sitting in front of me tapping his pencil and feet the whole time! Drove me insane…</p>
<p>…sorry to say, but that sucks for you guys. you shouldnt let dumb ***** like that make you lose your focus.</p>
<p><– 1990, to give you hope i know 2 people that got in (only one of the two go here) that got below a 1650, they had good ecs though</p>
<p>2200.
I know someone who got 1760 and still got into Berkeley/UCLA.</p>
<p>According to my school’s Naviance Scattergram, someone got in with ~2.3 (W) and ~1220 (/2400).</p>
<p>I thought this was a glitch at first, but I think it might have been an athlete.</p>
<p>@ zzzboy lol that old guy in calc 2</p>
<p>“I JUST FROZE! I DIDNT KNOW WHAT TO DO!”</p>
<p>2200 - computer science</p>