<p>Is it me or has my joy of acceptance been crushed. I worked hard these last four years and I has above avg stats for UCLA. But not everybody from my school knows that and now ppl who are getting in are getting labeled. People are like yea, "it's random". I feel terrible. I'm so happy I got in and then I found out somebody else I thought was totally in got REJECTED. It makes me feel like I'd rather not get in because now everybody thinks I didn't deserve it. People who think it's unfair that they didn't get in are making people who got in feel bad. At least me.</p>
<p>Stats:
4.25 UC GPA
1350 SATS
700/720/640 SAT II
lots of e.c.
good essays.</p>
<p>you sound very similar to me. 4.28, 1360, 710/680/660. very solid extra cirricular activities, and i'm guessing my essays helped me out a lot. i think ucla accepted a lot of well-rounded students who showed dedication to specific activities, rather than the 1500 sat students with a million extra cirriculars that they touched on maybe once or twice.</p>
<p>Lalala 10 :you sounded like " Oh yes, the professors are getting smarter, they know to distinguish between who are smart(rejected), and who are less smart, but rather dedicated ".
The truth is that the stupid guy in my AP GOV, who cheated all the times gets accepted.At least he showes his dedication to working to earn and spend money, and cheating in classes.
Guess they are still not smart enough, huh ?</p>
<p>gosh, people need to stop being bitter. nitpicking everyone who got in is stupid. life is unfair. if you want an explanation, call them. if you think you deserve it, appeal. other than that, gosh let it go. let the people who got in be happy instead of consumed in everyone elses' bitterness.</p>
<p>I have lower stats than you, steaky. But my class rank is pretty good, and my ec's are few but long-term. My school's valedictorian wasn't accepted. But to make him feel better, and continue a fun little joke, we told him the adcoms found out he'd said Hatians were from Hatia. :)Don't feel bad because someone with better stats didn't get in, feel bad they didn't do as good a job at representing themselves as you did.</p>
<p>steaky your stats are similar to mine and i also got accepted... don't feel bad about getting in. ucla accepted you because they want you to be an active student at their school, not a bookworm</p>
<p>Steaky: You got into UCLA. Graduating is a different matter. You'll graduate from UCLA should you choose to decide to go there; those who manipulated the system and got in; that's a different story. You can't escape certain things in college.</p>
<p>steaky, people don't look at the entire picture. comparing GPA and SAT (your stats) simply can't determine if someone qualifies for admission into ucla. from the brief bio that you provided, you match the typical ucla admit and you rightfully deserve your spot in the class. as for your friends, perhaps they looked like matches too, but maybe there was a certain deficiency in their app, or maybe they just SEEMED like matches but really aren't. we don't know. but someone else's rejection is beside the point. the point is, you got in and you deserve it.</p>
<p>Welcome to the real world - it's not fair.
The truth is, there are always some kids who are equally, or even more, qualified than those who are accepted who don't get in. That happens at all colleges- not just UCLA. There is a certain randomness about it because the schools are building a community and they want some of each kind of student - not only the highest achievers.
Just be grateful that you had something they were looking for - it could have just as easily been them and not you. Don't be smug, but certainly don't feel you don't deserve it. The problem is, most of the kids that get rejected DO deserve to be in, but there's just not enough space.
"People who think it's unfair that they didn't get in are making people who got in feel bad. At least me.
They're trying to make you feel bad for THEM - just sweetly agree how unfair it all is, and you'll see them mellow out and feel better, and in turn be nicer to you.</p>
<p>"That happens at all colleges- not just UCLA."</p>
<p>yeah. top colleges too... its "random" but not as noticeable because people don't expect it. but seriously, a lot of qualified and even overqualified applicants are rejected from top privates too. i also think because UC's accept a lot more applicants, everything is amplified, and it seems like the accept more "statistically underqualified" applicants relative to the rest of the class, when i do think that the percentage of "statistically underqualified" applicants relative to the rest of the class is the same across all top colleges.</p>
<p>There's a big difference between the top UCs and the top privates.</p>
<p>At top privates, you either..
1)Get super high stats. That's a 25% chance of getting accepted.
2)Become a superstar. That's a 50% chance.
3)Your parents donate $100,000 to the school. Viola! You're in!</p>
<p>At the top UC's
1)Get super high Stats. That's a 95% chance.
2)Become a superstar. That's a 70% chance.
3)Your parents donate $100,000 to the school. Too bad! They dont care. You get rejected.</p>
<p>That's why the UC's are so poor and get so much less money from its alum than a school that graduates 5 times fewer students.</p>
<p>KR_mud, no, that isn't what i meant at all. i just meant it seems like students who are not the 1500 earners, but who have shown dedication in certain extra cirricular activities and earn somewhat lesser sat scores have been admitted.</p>
<p>just like how littleol'me said that there were few extra cirricular, but long term. that's how i am. i have a few extra cirriculars, and that's all. but i've done them for many, many years.</p>
<p>i didn't mean dedication in cheating in any way.</p>
<p>"That's why the UC's are so poor and get so much less money from its alum than a school that graduates 5 times fewer students."</p>
<p>public schools in general, not just UC's, tend to be more impersonal, and hence, many students do not feel compelled to donate back to the school. private schools on the other hand, give a lot of attention to each student, so they feel more connected with the school. even some very small private schools get more alum donations than a lot of bigger publics. </p>
<p>there is also a higher concentration of rich alums from private schools who started off rich in the first place, and thus, continue to have the money to donate. even at these small "unheard" of privates, they still receive donations from rich alumni who might not have necessarily amassed their fortunes from their diploma. </p>
<p>finally, there is a misconception that the state governments provide a lot of funding to public schools and that they don't need money because they are already funded. that's not the case for every public. and because they don't have the private money to back them up, when their state funding runs low, they end up going through issues like budget cuts.</p>