<p>But was this supplemental only for instate?</p>
<p>who knows. it might be since the UC's have more obligation to CA residents and has a reason to try to save their apps</p>
<p>holistic appraoch is a bunch of bs, they seriously dont have enough time to do that for 50k applicants especially in two months.</p>
<p>Holistic admissions DEFINITELY helped me get in this year.</p>
<p>I'm OOS with a 2160 and 3.6 unweighted UC GPA. Though my extracurriculars were good, that something happened in Jr year probably pushed me over the edge.</p>
<p>well Polite even before holistic admissions, it had 3 differnet ppl observing different aspects of your application. instead of having 3 ppl just look at different things, they just dissect it together which takes more time but when u have 50 k+ in applicants, you need more specific reasons to accept ppl because there will be way to many "accepts" if they just assign points. </p>
<p>I think my logic of having too many accepts is confirmed in they had to send out a supplement app for the first time. They needed more info from "borderline" ppl to have a reason to keep them competitive or have a reason to cut them</p>
<p>Two months? You think they only take two months? Your UC app is due at the end of November! That's about four months.</p>
<p>The admissions officers take the applications to work on over winter break. Then they switch with non-UC graders/vice versa. The final decision comes around this month, or at least this is how my counselors (who are non-UC graders for UCSD and Berkeley) seem to explain it as, which is how some people are explaining the fact that Irvine releases tiny batches of decisions every Thursday/Friday.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thanks for the links. I really don't understand "holistic" admissions but from reading the articles, it appears to me that they are putting more weight on "life challenges" (i.e. socioeconomic status, family and education levels).</p>
<p>Does that mean a student with high test scores/GPA from a rural school that doesn't send many kids to 4 year colleges is at an advantage?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The "holistic" admission policy is one of the loopholes that UCLA is attempting to use to get around the California Prop 209 ban on affirmative action. </p>
<p>If you want to emphasize that point about your high school, you should definitely mention it in the essay since they may or may not know(probably not unless its some well recognized California neighborhood of either really underperforming or really overperforming area).</p>
<p>yes two months, because if you notice they accept january test scores if self-reported, thus they don't start reviewing apps till early/mid-january.</p>
<p>flong, supplements have been passed out many times before.</p>
<p>really? ive never heard that . ive only heard of CAL supplements. but then again, i dont know much about LA :/</p>
<p>Holisitc approach definitely helped me out, I believe. I don't know how I got the Regents invite with my lower grades and test scores, but definitely my background and ECs did it for me, thanks to this holistic approach.</p>
<p>virtuoso, mind listing your stats ? :)</p>
<p>do u think holistic will hinder an asian applicant's chances in getting in?
bah i sure hope not</p>
<p>By hinder do you mean will it significantly alter the proportion of Asians at UCLA? Probably not. By hinder if you mean reducing the proportion by ~100 students in favor of disadvantaged and UR minorities, possibly. </p>
<p>I think we're all fed that myth that Asians are going to get hit by AA in various incarnations: it's seriously unlikely. Sure there are stories about isolated cases, but we never see them become a major factor. If you study hard in high school, and it clearly shows, then you will be rewarded...</p>
<p>i see i see. you are wise</p>
<p>I think "Holistic Admissions" is another way of saying "we're actually going to read the essay sections and if they say something interesting, we're going to weight them heavily."</p>
<p>It's a good thing if you ask me. Say you have two students: One who is very good at posting great numbers but has weak ambitions for what they want to do in college. The other has mediocre numbers, but a clear demonstrable talent and a clear ambition.</p>
<p>If competing for the same spot, which of the two should be admitted? It's a toss up. Under the old system, the good numbers kid would win every time. Under the new system, both are given consideration. Perhaps the kid with mediocre numbers has focused their energy outside of school on an activity that demonstrates great intellectual promise (internships, research, etc). Under holistic admissions, that might actually count for something. Under the old system, good luck. </p>
<p>The UC's policy for admission reads as follows, I think holistic admissions are a step towards successfully delivering on this goal.</p>
<p>B. That the University shall seek out and enroll, on each of its campuses, a student body that demonstrates high academic achievement or exceptional personal talent, and that encompasses the broad diversity of backgrounds characteristic of California.</p>
<p>Today's LA Times covered holistic admissions:</p>
<p>numbers really don't say much.. I know so many kids who are just brilliant slackers with 2300+ SAT scores and 4.0's in high school. </p>
<p>yeah they are smart.. but how much does smartness matter in the real world?</p>
<p>I also know so many students who are hard workers.. took numerous SAT classes, just can't get a score higher than 2000.</p>
<p>I think it's important to weigh a kid's contributions outside of class significantly. I'm glad they're taking a more holistic approach than they used to.</p>
<p>^completely agree</p>