<p>it seems that in the top tier of the UC system (ucla, cal, ucsd), all of the "hardworking" kids go to Berkeley, all of the "smart" kids go to UCLA, and all of the "smart but lazy" kids go to UCSD. Of course there are exceptions, but from what i've seen this year, college admissions was totally weird. I'm going to Stanford btw so I'm not being biased or anything. Some of my friends, who are fricken smart but just lazy only got into ucsd. and some people i know have me wondering how the hell they got into berkeley. it seems that all of the hard working kids (therefore having higher GPA) go to Berkeley, and all the smart kids (good SAT and GPA) go to UCLA because there are lots of people at Berkeley who, quite frankly, don't belong there. and then all the smart but lazy students go to UCSD, which is why it's ranking has been going up so quickly. great theory right?</p>
<p>Not true. You'll find all kinds of students no matter what UC you go to, whether it be slackers, hard-workers, or somewhere in between.</p>
<p>sorry, but your theory is just plain ignorant. UCSD has one of the top biomed eng programs in the country, and is very attractive to many kids who might turn down Cal or UCLA for that reason. At our HS, the acceptees to Cal and UCLA was mostly the same, except a few less accepted to Cal.</p>
<p>yah dood, all three are so big that you get every kind of person, hardworking, lazy, crossdressing, the whole gambit, there's no "typical" student @ any big UC.</p>
<p>ucsd has actually fallen from the rankings lol...and so has ucla.</p>
<p>Berkeley usually attracts a very unique crowd
For some reason, ucla attracts all the good looking people, mainly because of the location.
And ucsd? im not sure :confused:</p>
<p>You're forgetting about all the not-so-sharp but hardworking people that fill almost all three schools. Remember kids, following directions doesn't make you any smarter than a microwave.</p>
<p>I don't really agree with your opinion, but its great to hear that others have the notion that there are hardworking people and smart people. Most of the people who I talk to seem to think they mean the same thing, which is false.</p>
<p>mojojojo,</p>
<p>UCLA hasn't really "fallen." It's basically just stayed where it's been for the past decade or so. That's not really "falling." That, and UCSD has actually moved up a fair amount in the past decade or so.</p>
<p>One year does not indicate a trend.</p>
<p>ni2405's logic and presentation of his argument is proof that unintelligent students attend the finest institutions despite their lack of intelligence.</p>
<p>I'd say Berkeley and UCLA students are similar in terms of the SAT/ACT although Berkeley probably has more "unique" students with particular interests and passions</p>
<p>1 year always starts a trend UCLAri :) esp when USC just increased their endowment this year :) Good bye ucla, keep falling!! muahaha</p>
<p>I think you'd need a bigger sample than just a few people from your school to provide support for your theory.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...there are lots of people at Berkeley who, quite frankly, don't belong there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are alot of students at every school that don't "belong" there. If you can find a school in which every student belongs, please do let us know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
great theory right?
[/quote]
flawless, bullet-proof, stupendous.</p>
<p>What are your thoughts on the Kennedy assassination?</p>
<p>Mojojojo,</p>
<p>UCLA and USC both increased their endowment.</p>
<p>But endowment isn't everything. Furthermore, while one year starts a trend, the ability to predict trends is generally quite weak.</p>
<p>"it seems that all of the hard working kids (therefore having higher GPA) go to Berkeley"</p>
<p>I fall into the "smart, but lazy" category and I'm going to Cal.</p>
<p>and LOL @ Ducky Dodger.</p>
<p>While we all see this as a huge overgeneralization, I think there's a bit of truth to this theory.</p>
<p>^^^are you serious?</p>
<p>you call this a "theory"?</p>
<p>it doesn't seem "truthful" because many people were accepted to BOTH Berkeley and UCLA yet chose one over the other for some reason.</p>
<p>ok communist smurf obviously i wasn't being serious when i wrote this. sorry if i didn't take the time to organize my "theory." Don't be so quick to judge people as unintelligent when you don't even know them. I was browsing CC, and i noticed that a lot of people were voicing their thoughts that college admissions were really random this year. that got me thinking, and when i think about my school and the college acceptances and rejections, i realized that what they were saying was true. I just decided to write this up to see if other people shared my notion. obviously its not like i'm stating that this is the actual truth, merely stating a trend i noticed. And please don't judge on my "intelligent" based on something I wrote in an internet forum. </p>
<p>ab_med, why can't this be called a theory? it's my idea about college admissions, so it can be classified as a theory. and yes, it is a over generalization because not every student will be like each other. I know lots of people that chose UCLA over Cal, or vice versa. I'm just saying that i've noticed that the people that get accepted to those schools have some similarities.</p>
<p>ni24045 - It is NOT a theory. A theory is generally something that has been widely accepted by many in the field. A hypothesis is a sort of speculation or proposition that can be proved or disproved. </p>
<p>What REALLY bugs me with generalizations is that the word "generalization" seems to fly over people's heads. They bring up individual examples, "I'm not X; my friend is not X! You're so stupid and wrong! I know a lot of people that aren't X, so you must be wrong!" </p>
<p>I don't think the OP's generalization is true, but at least realize that it doesn't mean squat for a generalization if you're an exception. It's inherent for a generalization to have exceptions. Of course, we cannot prove or disprove the OP's hypothesis because we don't have access to any reasonable amount of people that accepted the top three UCs.</p>