<p>It is NOT random. To even be considered by UCLA means you have done something right. People who say it is random are just trying to make themselves feel better. Because if it is random, then they don't have to assume any of the responsibility of not making it.</p>
<p>It is true, that there are many qualified students that cannot be accepted, but I assure those selected are not taken based on some type of chance.</p>
<p>So, if you got in, enjoy yourself and don't let nay-sayers keep you down. Relish your success and make the most of it despite what your "friends" say. Always show humility, but take pride in that your hard work has paid off.</p>
<p>I got accepted as well, and I have "worse stats" than a lot of you guys on here. I know there are people at my school who are bitter about being rejected, but I also know that my true friends are happy for me. I feel kind of bad when I realize people who I admire and respect gets rejected, and sometimes it may seems like I'm bragging or gloating when I simply say I got accepted. But whatever. I'm still happy about it, and I know things will work out for those people I've mentioned in the end.</p>
<p>exactly! it's good to be humble, but no need to feel ashamed! everybody who got in, deserved to get in. this does not mean that those who didn't, didn't deserve to. 48,000 people applied, many well deserving, but the school only has so many spots.</p>
<p>It's not random for the most part. There are certain things that stand out in an app more than others. The vast majority of applicants are all the same, so obviously some of them are going to get in, and a lot aren't. The fact that one gets in and the other doesn't mean the admissions officers pulled names out of a hat, just that there weren't enough spots. Then there are those that manage to stand out and produce an app that has an overall feel to it the attracts adcoms. They might have bad stats, but if they were able to convey their strengths and overshadow their weaknesses, they got in. People who got in with low stats should not be dismayed, they should be happy because they are the smartest applicants, they were able to stand out and make the adcoms say, "wow."</p>
<p>I got in with a 1260 on the SATs and 680,670,670 SAT IIs. My GPA was good, but the point is...is that my friend who was extremely qualified, high GPA (4.1) high SAT (1460) all the extra curriculars (UCLA research, Caltech research, masonic youth) and she was rejected. MY other friend who was rejected had the same stats with the same GPA and was accepted to both MIT and Cornell. I dont understand. I feel good that I got in, but I feel horrible that they didnt. Thanks to all who reply. </p>
<p>i doubt it... i think most ucla rejects would not be able to get into cornell or MIT... of course there's always a few exceptions that could or do</p>
<p>UCLA admissions is not random. However, the first 10,000 or so of the applicant pool that gets offered admissions is ///statistically identical to the second 10,000.///</p>
<p>No, it's not all stats, though stats surely help. It may not help but it's good to remember that admissions officers everywhere admit classes, not students. A subtle distinction.</p>
<p>There are applicants who get denied by UCLA but who get admitted to Harvard. Go figure.</p>
<p>I also hear that the campuses would rather accept a student with a high GPA and a low SAT score over a low GPa and high SAT score. </p>
<p>Anyways, I worked my butt off to get into Caltech (UCLA was my 2nd choice) and obviously I was rejected (SAT scores are way way way way way way way way below average for Caltech). But, I was very happy to get acceptance to UCLA. So maybe some of that work carried over, and my essays were pretty good. But, just to make things clear, I am not an athlete, I am not underpriveleged, I have no alumni in my family, and I have no political clout. I'm still dumbfounded that certain people were rejected that were way more qualified that I was. Thanks to al who reply.</p>
<p>Keep in mind, admissions officers ideally would like a campus that is evenly balanced from top to bottom in all aspects. Like the saying goes, "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians" doesn't work for the type of atmosphere the UC wants to create. They don't just take the 10,000 people with the best stats and let them in, it would create a heavy imbalance. That's just my $.02</p>
<p>lol GLM225, i have never heard of that. i dont think UCLA is accepting ppl based on an alpha-beta-gamma type of order (I'm referring to the social structure in Brave New World, which is by the way, a great book!).</p>
<p>and joemama, u sound bitter or jealous for whatever reason. </p>
<p>steaky, it says on the acceptance letter (online or the one they sent you) that the applicant pool was 48,000.</p>
<p>not bitter for myself, didn't apply to UCLA. But have a lot of VERY qualified friends with great ECs and special talents who didn't get in...and then I see that some people with inferior scores were admitted. </p>
<p>I have concluded that these are the 15% that UCLA knows will drop out/flunk out, making room for kids from community college. UCLA wins because on the one hand they look like they're kind and considerate to low achievers with some kind of hook, but also then have the room to accept high achievers out of the community college system. </p>
<p>So, in the end, there is method to the apparent madness.</p>
<p>there's absolutely no way that UCLA is going to accept someone that they know will end up droping/flunking out. that's just absurd. I guess since my stats are a bit on the low end, I'm not going to graduate? No, your theory is incredibly wrong. You don't know how determined I am. UCLA definitely doesn't accept low achievers. I tried my hardest in high school to get good grades but there were a lot of other things I had to deal with. You don't know the whole story behind the accepted "low achiever." Believe it or not, GPA and SAT scores aren't everything!!!</p>