<p>UCSD based their admissions on this scoring rubric by awarding applications a certain # of points for a certain # of task. </p>
<p>I got into Davis and San Diego but rejected by Santa Barbara and UCLA.</p>
<p>I was surprised. </p>
<p>How could ppl checked their own UCSD point scale if they got admitted?</p>
<p>I want to know how many points I made it over the cutoff of 7,000. Just curious…</p>
<p>LA is supposed to be harder to get into, numbers-wise, than SD.</p>
<p>SB, on the other hand, is supposed to be easier. But a lot of my friends who got into "better" UC's were rejected from SB this year, so who knows?</p>
<p>UCLA reviewed your application and assigned a ranking in the context of the other students from your high school based on your course work and activities. You are competing against your classmates for a spot at UCLA. </p>
<p>UCSD assigned initial points to your application based on academic factors (i.e. WGPA, SAT I, SAT II, courses beyond minimum a-g requirements, ELC, etc.) and selected the top 5400. Those not selected will go back into a pool and will be assigned additional points based on non-academic factors (i.e. special talents, community service, leadership, etc.). The top 11,000 applicants from this second pool will be admitted.</p>
<p>For UCLA you are competing against your classmates and for UCSD you are competing against the general high school population -- better odd.</p>
<p>-_- Oh man, no wonder I didn't get into UCLA...</p>
<p>Is UCSD really that cold and impersonal? </p>
<p>Does admission come down to a computer program that tabulates points and spits out a list of acceptees?</p>
<p>Is there no human interaction, no human compassion at UCSD?</p>
<p>BTW, I think if you contact admissions and ask, they will provide you with information about your score, but other than that, probably does not make it available to applicants.</p>
<p>well when you've got a bazillion applications, it's rather hard to really take a look at each individual application. Note that the idea of an institution of higher learning is to teach above all else. When it comes right down to it, given the amount of resources available, an academic record is the best way of measuring an applicant's potential. After all, you really don't have to go to college to go do community service. </p>
<p>There was also a fascinating New Yorker article a few months ago about how colleges started the "character counts" philosophy. The reason: the Ivies wanted to cut down on the number of Jews in their admit pool which was up until then decided almost entirely based upon merit.</p>
<p>Perhaps this article might shed some new light on UCSD's comprehensive review point system: <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20051218-9999-1m18ucsd.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20051218-9999-1m18ucsd.html</a></p>
<p>At the bottom of this page:</p>
<p>is the point system that they use.</p>
<p>xorwat, ucla and ucb get more applications and they read each one carfeully</p>
<p>the point system is utter bs</p>
<p>people lie on the application or put completely random stuff ie captin and founder of the counterstrike team and the UCSD readers will be o good...leadership an extra 300 points...comon man give me a break</p>
<p>What you're basically implying is that UCSD readers are inferior to the one's at Berkeley and UCLA, which is most likely incorrect. Read the article; it explains that you're not going to get points for any leadership position.</p>
<p>"Then the readers start parsing the eight-page application. Some readers said they spend as little as two minutes on an application, and as long as 45 minutes. Much of it depends on the reader, and how much material students fill in.</p>
<p>Readers work through seven categories and assign a defined number of points for each category. Those categories are low-income status, first-generation college student, participation in educational preparatory programs, community service, leadership, special talents and awards, and special circumstances.</p>
<p>The reader's job is largely mechanical. They search for information on the application and then fill in the appropriate point value on a scoring sheet. "</p>
<p>"After much fine-tuning, for example, UCSD has determined that being editor in chief of the newspaper is worth 300 leadership points, while being president of a club and senior class treasurer is worth only 150 points. Coping with the death of a parent or sibling can garner a student 500 points."</p>
<p>"Step IV Personal Characteristics and Achievement Factors<br>
Demonstrated Leadership 300
Special Talents/Achievements/Awards 300
Community and Volunteer Service 300
Participation in Academic Development Preparation Programs 300
Special Circumstances/Personal Challenges 500"</p>
<p>huh</p>
<p>And the thing about UCSD is that their decisions are more consistent. To get into UCLA or Berkeley, you basically just need the support of two readers. So basically, if you get two readers who develop some sentiment with the type of person you portray yourself, you'll get in. On the other hand, if you get two readers who isn't really impressed, you'll be rejected. UCLA and Berkeley are much more subjective in their decisions, which is why you see so many inconsistencies.</p>
<p>Alright, what the hell is your point? It implies that you're not going to get points for any position.</p>
<p>safewayrules, don't be bitter just because you got rejected. You got into UCLA. Be happy about that. Stop whining about UCSD, and let those who got accepted here enjoy it.</p>
<p>they're right; what it comes down to is that the way things are set up, the point system is more likely to weed out the moron which is they way things ought to be.</p>
<p>"*people lie on the application or put completely random stuff ie captin and founder of the counterstrike team and the UCSD readers will be o good...leadership an extra 300 points...comon man give me a break *"
-posed by some1 else....</p>
<p>The admission officers are not *stupid *....they have 116 readers
Okay who has a better shot in getting into UCSD</p>
<p>A 4.4 gpa student who "lied that they are Vice President of the Counter-strike club" or a 3.0 gpa student who "lied that they are Vice President of the Counter-strike club" Either way the person with the high academics gets in. </p>
<p>Simple math.....if you calculate the rubics..... the total points for UCSD is 11,900 points. GPA, SAT scores, and # of units completed makes up 9,000 points. Think about it. </p>
<p>9,000 POINTS ON A 11,900 POINTS SCALE.... 9,000 points geared towards academic. That means if a student has a 4.0-4.4 gpa with no activities will easily get that 9,000 points from the total of 11,900 points without trying. People that have no activities, leadership position, and just spends their time concentrating on getting a high gpa (4.0-4.4gpa) is NOT a well-balanced applicant. It is easy to get straight A's if you don't have to sacrifice time in sports, band practice, debate, and music concerts, etc or anything involving school. </p>
<p>Consider the fact that UCSD admission process has 112 readers while UCLA is either black and white with 2 readers..... UCLA UCB admission process differs from UCSD admission process in that it awards a SMALL portion of the points towards students who take these activities, and such others and hold leadership positions. </p>
<p>I don't think you can say that UCSD point system is utter bs because they establish the system for a pretty darn good reason. The people that establish the point system are challendors with high-accredited PhDs in education. Either way the applicant with a 4.7 gpa and etc extra activities, etc will have a better chance than the applicant with a 4.4 gpa or 3.8 gpa, 3.5 gpa, 3.1 gpa with the activities, essays, etc if you think about 9,000 points vs 2,000 points.</p>
<p>and why do the people do these things that aren't school?
oh that's right ... to beef up their college resume
otherwise they would be at home being members of their own personal counterstrike or other self luxury club</p>
<p>i got 11100 for total possible points? How did u get 11900? and what was the cutoff this year?</p>
<p>How did you guys calculate these eligiblity scores?</p>
<p>"and why do the people do these things that aren't school?
oh that's right ... to beef up their college resume
otherwise they would be at home being members of their own personal counterstrike or other self luxury club"</p>
<p>That is absolutly NOT true. My D wrote about two things she has done, one a sport, the other student govt. She loves both and is passionately involved. She would be miserable if she were sitting at home. She was admitted to UCSD w/ a gpa under 4.0. Why? The readers got a clear picture of the person she is through her well written and well defined essays. They knew her after they finished looking over her application. She was admitted over other students with higher gpa's. She was never lazy, and always took classes that challenged/interested her. Don't insult the intelligence of the admissions folks at these UC's; they know what they are looking for, and how to find it in the applications.</p>