<p>wasnt it like u had to rank the UC u wanted to go to and they picked one for you? obviously the good UCs are harder to get into than easy UCs.</p>
<p>Nope, you don't rank anything.</p>
<p>I transferd from my JC in Fall 2004 with a 3.0 and got into Irvine, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz. they were equally easy. I chose Santa cruz by the way.</p>
<p>It's assumed. If the other lower-tier UCs see that you are applying to UCB/UCLA/UCSD, they will think you are using them only as a safety. Thus, in 87% of cases, the applicant will get rejected to the lower-tier UC. This is particularly dangerous if the applicant is a borderline canidate to the UC flagships as he risks getting rejected to all UCs. My advice: Either apply only to the flagships (UCLA/UCB/UCSD) or only to the second-tier (UCSB/D/I/R/M/SC).</p>
<p>This is called the 'California strain of Tufts'</p>
<p>Baragon, is there any particular reason you chose UCSC, which doesn't quite have the academic reputation of UCSB and UCI?</p>
<p>haha...if i was UCR and had the opportunity to accept a kid that was quite possibly UCLA material but got rejected, i would definitely accept them!! i'd do anything to possibly increase the stats of my university. who cares if it was their safety school as long as they're boosting the school's stats?</p>
<p>"My advice: Either apply only to the flagships (UCLA/UCB/UCSD) or only to the second-tier (UCSB/D/I/R/M/SC)."</p>
<p>Hey card, does this apply for prospective transfer students as well? And are you sure about that 87% thing?? Where did you get that 87% btw (''.)</p>
<p>Paranoia and excuses for rejection apply to all applicants, freshman and transfer alike.</p>
<p>"My advice: Either apply only to the flagships (UCLA/UCB/UCSD) or only to the second-tier (UCSB/D/I/R/M/SC)."</p>
<p>how would a mix like this look:</p>
<p>applying to cal, ucla, ucsd, uci, ucd, ucsc?</p>
<p>im_blue;</p>
<p>I chose UCSC because I liked the campus and I like the northern californian feel better then Santa barbara or Irvine. I wanted something where I felt the people were laid back and werent pretentious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's assumed. If the other lower-tier UCs see that you are applying to UCB/UCLA/UCSD, they will think you are using them only as a safety. Thus, in 87% of cases, the applicant will get rejected to the lower-tier UC. This is particularly dangerous if the applicant is a borderline canidate to the UC flagships as he risks getting rejected to all UCs. My advice: Either apply only to the flagships (UCLA/UCB/UCSD) or only to the second-tier (UCSB/D/I/R/M/SC).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know, buddy. i know many a person who was admitted into everyone, often getting aid from the lower UCs.</p>
<p>i was accepted to every UC and offered regents at UCR and UCSC, honors program at SB, and chancellors scholarship and CHP @ UCI.</p>
<p>i am sure that there is a possibility that one would get rejected from the UC schools if, for example, you applied to the top-tier schools and one low-tier school. however, i find the chance of you being rejected is quite slim if you are a borderline candidate. i applied to schools from all the tiers, and i got into every single one of them. </p>
<p>so, i think that comment about the 87% of the applicants getting rejected might be a bit misleading. are you referring to undergrads or transfers?</p>
<p>My son applied to 5 UCs and got into all of them. UCI offered the Regents Scholarship and UCD offered all expenses paid the first year. UCB, UCLA and UCSD offered approx the same amount in need-based financial aid</p>
<p>Most people seem to apply to 5-6 UCs (hoping to get into a top tier UC and using the lower tier UCs as "safeties").</p>
<p>"My advice: Either apply only to the flagships (UCLA/UCB/UCSD) or only to the second-tier (UCSB/D/I/R/M/SC)."</p>
<p>Errrr...Flagship only ='s Cal.</p>
<p>Second tier is UCLA and UCSD.</p>
<p>i guess "flagship" is cal, but the top-tier consists of cal, ucla, ucsd.</p>
<p>Yeah. Some people talk about the UC's as if they have two flagships, Cal-Berkeley and UCLA, but more people seem to use the term more strictly meaning only Berkeley would count, and I've never heard UCSD considered one yet.</p>
<p>The other UC schools DO NOT KNOW what schools you are applying to!!! AGAIN, they DO NOT KNOW what schools you are applying to besides theirs. For all they know you've only applied to their school. All that 'California strain of Tufts' is completely UNTRUE!!!</p>
<p>Cardinal:</p>
<p>My D applied to most of the UCs (not UCR or UCM) as a Freshman and was accepted to all. The advantage for some to applying to some of the less competitive UCs is that they might be able to get Regents scholarships to some of those schools whereas they might not get it for the top ones. For some people, this can make or break the decision of where to go. For the less competetive schools, it gives them an edge in attracting top students that can make up for not being the top school. </p>
<p>My other D was accepted at the tops and others as well so in our case at least, the less competetive ones didn't seem to be concerned that the top ones were applied to as well.</p>
<p>the 87% is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. Out of like 20 people i know applying to high as well as low UCs, they have all been accepted to the lower UCs.</p>
<p>Oh and the UC system was DESIGNED to give an education to californian individuals who are academically qualified. They arent gonna reject you cause it may hurt their yield rate.</p>