<p>Does anyone else here think that the UCSD point system is stupid? </p>
<p>Maybe im just being biased because I was rejected, but i think i am WAY qualified for UCSD. I certainly have better stats than some of the people that were accepted.</p>
<p>i also know that every year, UCSD rejects thousands of extremely qualified individuals. </p>
<p>I have also been surfing around on CC and would like to bring this article to your attention. (thanks to whoever posted it- sorry i cant credit you properly, i dont know where i got it)</p>
<p>personally, i believe awarding points for illnesses, poverty etc, is unfair. maybe i wouldnt be saying this if i were on the other side, but still. It seems a bit ludicrous to offer a lower scoring student admittance just because he/ or she is improvrished, and reject highly qualified students just because they dont get extra points, merely because they are wealthy.</p>
<p>im so aggravated right now! i know someone that got accepted with a 1600 SAT, and low GPA, fair ECs. no way did they get picked over people with 2000+ SATs, much better EC's and excellent GPAs!!!</p>
<p>and does anyone know how appeals work? do you guys know anyone that has appealed and actually got in? and what did they write in their letters to get the decision reversed? </p>
<p>as much as i hate the ucsd points system, i cant help but still want to go there. but meh- graduate school is what really counts.</p>
<p>maybe you should call them first and ask them to tell you what areas specifically you lost points on... that would give some direction on what issues to address in your letter.</p>
<p>I think this is point system is exactly how my friend got in. He came from Korea 4 years ago, did not take English or history his freshman year, never took a foreign language class, never joined any clubs or did any community service, has never taken an honors of AP class until senior year (only 2), his parents do not work because of their visa but they have 70k brought from korea. So he can pull the whole impoverished thing with the income of $0, talk about his immigration and getting use to this country, and what's worse of all is his cockiness about how he will get into LA and Berkeley because of his "situation." His GPA is 3.8 weighted, and his SATs are good because he took expensive courses, which colleges would probably not think is possible for someone with an income of $0.</p>
<p>so yeah, thats just me ranting about how unfair the point system is despite the fact that he is my friend after all =)</p>
<p>I think it's ok to get a little push for poverty, etc.. but it seems like UCSD gives too much of a push. A person can get 300 for povery, 300 for being first-generation college student, and 500 for special personal circumstances. I feel that is a bit much.</p>
<p>Also, I don't understand how some obviously overqualified people are getting rejected. With their test scores and GPAs alone, they basically meet the so-called point cut-off. How could they get rejected? I mean is it like, "Oh, this person made the cut-off, but we're just not going to admit them,"?</p>
<p>I'm wondering if UCSD is being 100 percent honest about the point-system.</p>
<p>Is it a meritocracy that should reward the smartest students with acceptances? If yes: why do universities aim to accept the smartest students?</p>
<p>Or is it an institution that aims to help the world by improving social mobility and equality? If no: why do universities give out financial aid?</p>
<p>Did you guys ever stop to think that maybe they accept people with problems simply because of the fact that they over came them. If they can score decently on the SAT and get good grades with a messed up life just imagine what they could do with a normal life that so many of us are blessed to have. I can understand that people are bitter because they did not get into a certain college, but there is no reason to point the finger at other people just because they got in.</p>
<p>im with you on that Jhead. Imagine being extremely poor and still having the drive and determination to take the SATs and study despite constantly worrying about real life matters like food and bills. They've probably gone through more than you can imagine and they really do deserve to go to a great university. Also, im pretty sure its not solely based on the point system - or else everyone could figure out if theyre out or in before admissions even come out - and that obviously is not the case.</p>
<p>So, here's the deal with overqualified rejections. UCSD wants students that they would consider a "match." So, if UCSD finds an overqualified applicant they will typically assume that the student applied to Berkeley and UCLA, which is a better match for them, and the applicant will get rejected. They do not want to disqualify "UCSD match" applicants and offer admission to students that will more than likely sign an "intent to register" somewhere else. UCSD has a goal or percentage of how many students will actually register from the admit applicant pool. If they accept to many students that are overqualified they will not reach the goal because students will go to UCLA and Berkeley and UCSD will not fill their quota. So, if there is an overqualified applicant that gets denied there might be a higher percentage that student will win an appeal because UCSD will see that the student really intended to go to UCSD all along.</p>
<p>okay well im sorry that i wasnt born impoverished. if UCSD is giving points for poverty etc, that is certainly discriminating against us who have the drive as well but just have the money too. </p>
<p>this discrimination is certainly unacceptable. just because we were blessed with a good life doesnt mean some from lower socio-economic status with lower stats should get it. </p>
<p>and about the 'match' students. some of them definitely arent matches and are way underqualified. they are stupified when they get in, and have low grades, low sats, fair ecs. i really dont see many other colleges that have much dissent as UCSD. many complain about UCSD's point system, and it isnt only me.</p>
<p>and pattiecake the only reason people cannot figure it out is because, if you read that article, and google some more, many have witnessed UCSD sort of biased grading. they dont award points because of stupid mistakes that a holistic system would resolve. they award TOO MANY points for certain things. It is basically impossible to set point values for accomplishments. i dont know how UCSD even can justify whether an editor in chief is worth more points than some other certain accomplishments. </p>
<p>and as you can, through reading other posts, there are many students that feel the same way i do, even if they got accepted. they too, realize that UCSD is being a bit unfair and have a flawed points system</p>
<p>well they might be a reach-match if those that you say are "underqualified" cause that probably means UCSD is the best college they got into and they will definitely register. lets face it. college is mean and unfair. what are you gonna do? if you're really hurt and UCSD is your #1 school try appealing.</p>
<p>Does anyone here think ( there's a thread in the ucla forum too), that I/ we can still get into LA after being rejected here...albeit IMO unfairly</p>
<p>plus, the point system is HIGHLY flawed. i mean.. the points are given out so arbritrarily. case in point: i read somewhere that holding a leadership position as say editor of school newspaper garners you 300 points, whereas being a club president AND holding an ASB officer position equates to only 150 points.
and there are a ton of other cases where the points are seemingly randomly given out for the most random things.. you just gotta have the right combination, i guess...
(fyi, I was a rejectee too :( )</p>
<p>I doubt they use the point system wholly. I got in out of state with only an 1870. I didn't have special circumstances and poverty and the jist. I didn't even get the chance to have ELC because I'm out of state. They probably use partially a holistic approach also because I think it was my science research that tipped me into the yes pile.</p>
<p>the points system, as dawn has stated, is highly flawed. besides, if it was as fair as some of you guys think, wouldnt 'tougher schools' such as CAL, LA and the Ivies be using it too? </p>
<p>dont you think its kinda strange that UCSD is the only one using this system and is receiving the most complaints. sure some people complain about LA decisions, etc, but certainly not as much. and you certainly dont see many highly qualified individuals being rejected</p>
<p>also i think its really unfair how they give like... full points to presidents or vps of clubs when a cabinet member could be doing just as much. i dont know about you guys, but i practically kill myself trying to manage my clubs. each of my clubs have well over 100 people, and cabinet has just as many responsibilities as president.</p>
<p>im assuming that this was my 'weakness'. i swear im gonna kill someone if SD tells me that i got zero points in leadership; in all my clubs, im either officer or cabinet- im just not vp or pres. they barely give points (if any) for being anything other than pres and vp, and that is so stupid. </p>
<p>i probably missed the cutoff by around 100 points (which is ludicrious, seeing as how just my stats were good enough to go over the cut off). and im guessing my missing points were from leadership eventhough i have shown tons of leadership throughout highschool.</p>
<p>I know this is going to hurt...but, I think you guys probablly wouldn't think that this system is so unfair if you guys had gotten in...</p>
<p>its actually a really good way to make what is usually a subjective analysis into an objective one, so you can't get screwed if your reader is in a bad mood or is feeling especially harsh.</p>