<p>If I was rejected from UCSD, does that mean I pretty much have no chance to get into UCB?</p>
<p>I'm personally not very fond of the UCSD admissions process because they use the point system. However, UCB is uses the hostilic admissions process, so they see each person as a whole person, rather than a number of points to add up. Good luck!</p>
<p>something doesnt sit smoothly with UCSD admissions, there were many people in the SD admissions thread that were way qualified for SD and didnt get in. it just doesnt make sense...</p>
<p>Yeah, the point system seems like a joke. Some bitterness is rolled into this since I didn't get into UCSD when I thought I would, but I'm crossing my fingers and toes that the holistic review process for UCLA & UCB is kinder to me. =)</p>
<p>Whats the difference between the point system and the holistic review?</p>
<p>Point system gives quantified values for each of your activities/accomplishments.</p>
<p>Holistic review isn't so much the same as it is different from what they used to do. Before, UCLA would have individual admissions officers review each part of your admissions. With holistic review, one admissions officer will review the application in it's entirety. </p>
<p>I don't see so much of a difference in how applications are considered more that the point system allows for less flexibility in admissions than holistic review. The point system gives everything a number, and uses a formula to calculate admittance. Holistic review....well, you might come across a happy admissions officer, or something about your application might resonate with the admissions officers, which might be the final determining factor in your decision.</p>
<p>Most of the people who were accepted in the thread had fairly solid to high gpa's and decent SATS. However, many of the qualified yet rejected applicants had high SATs and not particularly amazing GPA's. I am inclined to think that this is due to the fact that SD caps points on standardized tests to 3200 points combined for 2 SAT2's and the SAT1.</p>
<p>Hang in there.....
S1 and two friends, all with very similar profiles. All 3 applied to UCSD, UCLA, and CAL for Fall 2004. </p>
<p>Friend #1 was accepted to UCSD, and rejected by CAL and UCLA
Friend #2 was accepted to UCLA, and rejected by UCSD and CAL
S1 was accepted to CAL and rejected by UCSD and UCLA</p>
<p>avoidingwork, that's very interesting
it gives me hope ^^</p>
<p>personally, i believe that the UCSD admissions process is greatly flawed. </p>
<p>dont get me wrong, its a great school, but they award large amounts of points for stupid things that people could just lie about, etc. </p>
<p>i think you still have a very good chance of getting into LA esp since their admissions process is much fairer</p>
<p>dont worry u still have a chance</p>
<p>I don't think UCSD uses point system....That is because I am an out of state applicant who got in. I had barely any EC's, both my GPA and SAT scores were below the school's average, and I still got in while other people with better stats were rejected. If anything, your major is a large factor in your chances of admission.</p>
<p>nolife, its a fact that UCSD uses point system. They dont use the point system when people are borderline and then they look at essays</p>
<p>yea. I just read an article about them using a point system on the other thread. haha, sorry for being ignorant. my bad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
something doesnt sit smoothly with UCSD admissions, there were many people in the SD admissions thread that were way qualified for SD and didnt get in. it just doesnt make sense..
[/quote]
if everyone who met the score averages got in, there would be no need for an application process. you could just click a button to send your test scores/GPA in.</p>
<p>it's normal (and not a bad thing) for schools to reject some people who are "qualified" by test scores, etc... I mean, my scores are theoretically "in range" for harvard, but I would be shocked if I got in - and most people who apply to harvard with good scores, even scores well above harvard's averages, don't expect to get in. why is different expected from the UC's? (okay, I didn't apply, but you get the point.)</p>
<p>Peppers: Not true on the one reader theory... at Cal anyway. It's actually 2 readers and BOTH must agree completely on the applicant or it goes to a 3rd reviewer. There's a thread on the Cal forum that has the 78 page report recently completed by the Sociology Dept on the Admissions process... I don't recommend any of you stressed out applicants read it right now though.... you may not sleep until after the 29th! :)</p>
<p>@avoidingwork: I am like weird case that you mentioned before.I was rejected by UCLA and UCSD but was accepted at Cal!</p>
<p>Quite a bit of my friends were accepted at UCSD and a few to UCLA. I wasn’t surprised to be rejected by UCLA because of the competitiveness, but UCSD upset me because i was completely on par with their average stats and more qualified than some of the students i knew were accepted. </p>
<p>I think the reason i was rejected at UCSD was because i had a missing ELC number. I was actually ranked top 2% at my school and had an SAT of 2010. Im not sure how the UC GPA works, but i had only 2 B’s in high school and all A’s in 4 AP classes with 4 more my senior year. I am also taking a college class offered at my high school. </p>
<p>But the important thing is: Berkeley seems to like the more rounded student as opposed to UCSD and UCLA. So there is hope yet. 
</p>
<p>p.s. i hope no one takes offense at the title of my thread. UCSD is an amazing school but the system does seem flawed.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>This thread is over 4 years old…</p></li>
<li><p>The system is only “flawed” because you were rejected.</p></li>
<li><p>Congratulations on Cal.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>whoops. sorry i didn’t notice the date on the thread. And i guess the word “flawed” isn’t the right word to use. It was a description that i saw used earlier in the thread and i just kind of picked it up. I did not in any way mean to insult your school if it seemed that way. </p>
<p>However, no system is truly perfect (Cal included). It’s not just me that thinks that the system is… i guess weird? Not because i did not get in, but because im not sure what UCSD is looking for in a student. I think it is more academics and that is why my lack of an ELC number could have been a huge factor to my rejection as they still do the points system. </p>
<p>Yet i will end my response with this: UCSD is a prestigious school to get into. Yet i am lost as to what they want in an applicant.</p>
<p>UC San Diego went partially holistic this year. What that likely means is that there was a points system, but if you didn’t quite make the cutoff they reviewed you holistically. I do not think you would have made it with the points system, and unfortunately, nothing about your application wowed them enough to push you over the edge. </p>
<p>I have a 4.09 UC GPA, 31 ACT (translates to a 2010 SAT), and no ELC. I believe it’s my leadership, volunteering, and essays that got me accepted. As UC San Diego becomes even more competitive (someone on the UCSD forum said it was 33% this year; not sure how reliable that is), it’s going to become more common to see people accepted to UCLA/Cal but not UCSD. It’s not that you were unqualified for UCSD or that UCSD made a mistake, it’s just that the three campuses are looking for such different applicants/achievements that it seems to produce unpredictable results sometimes. </p>
<p>I hope this helps. Congratulation and good luck at Berkeley!</p>