<p>btw thanks for the support dawn, thats much more than i can say about others on this board.</p>
<p>I looked at the point system and don't see why it's flawed. 7700 out of a possible 11100 are solely based on academics, and that's not even considering summer academic programs like EAOP/Puente/COSMOS/etc., academic talents like science fair awards, ELC, or 40+ a-g courses, which put the total weight of academics over 8800 points. I have not included leadership positions in this total.</p>
<p>If you look at the maximum number of points that one can get for being disadvantaged, it's 1400, and those are not easy points to earn. "Working to contribute to family income AND a minimum of 20 hours per week during a school year: 250 pts." Personally, I have never formally worked during the school year, but I can imagine how 20 hours a week would take a lot of time, especially when you consider that it takes extra time to commute. Yet, all that hard work is worth only 250 points.</p>
<p>Maybe they have changed the system slightly so that borderline candidates were re-evaluated without regards to the point system (which, in my opinion, doesn't look too much different than the "holistic" approaches other schools take.)</p>
<p>gogogo, you've already mentioned a few hundred times how much the unfair UCSD admissions process has screwed you over. i realize it's frustrating, but could you handle it with some dignity and just let it go instead of bagging on those who are "lucky" enough to be poor thx.</p>
<p>in fact if it's such an unfair process, why don't you take a gap year, take advantage of the points system and go get cancer? i'm sure that'll score you a bunch of points and get you into ucsd oh wait doesn't seem too appealing does it what</p>
<p>okay kirkland, maybe ill just go that . </p>
<p>seriously can you guys. im not attacking any of you. merely stating my opinion, and reiterating the opinions of others. no need for attack here. you cannot ignore the fact that many people (including those that got in) see this point system as flawed</p>
<p>gogogo theres no use arguing about it now is there or complaining or whining about it. If you really think u deserve to get in appeal it. i apologize for that comment but it thought u were attacking me. Just go appeal u can't change what has happened.</p>
<p>i wasnt intentionally trying to put anyone down, and i do see it from the other side. i do understand that living in poverty, having overcome an illness, etc, should be recognized. however, i believe that its become such a deciding factor in the admissions process that many people actually go out of their way and lie through it. </p>
<p>and my best friend goes to ucsd and says that many of the students there dont deserve to be there. in fact her roommate, who is doing aerospace engineering only got into sd because she is an independent. she ran away from home, etc. i understand that that would be a traumatic experience. however, at this moment, her gpa is around a 2.0. supposedly there are many other instances where these extra points have gotten undeserving people in. </p>
<p>i understand that is not always the case. yes, i understand that there are many people that are incredibly deserving. dont get me wrong. </p>
<p>im sorry if i offended anyone and would appreciate it if this debate continued without sending personal attacks to each other.</p>
<p>and sonicboom sorry if i misinterpreted your comment as well, but hey! maybe ill just go to LA, which in my opinion does not compare to UCSD's location, etc. :( you are so lucky, and i dont mean to put you guys down just because i didnt get in. but you have to understand, i was so confident i would get in. in fact, out of all my friends, i had the higher stats and ecs, and everyone under me got in. worst feeling in the world i tell you .</p>
<p>oh well have fun at SD :(</p>
<p>sorry for my rude tone there, i didn't really mean for that to be an attack. i'm just trying to make a point that being impoverished or overcoming an illness isn't exactly something that one can just write off as a "hook" that got some lucky numskull into college. these are life-threatening circumstances that really should be recognized, and many of the kids living in such harsh circumstances could be counting on going to college to get them out of their crappy living situations.</p>
<p>Those of us fortunate enough to have normal lives have plenty of other opportunities to succeed.</p>
<p>yes i realize that too kirklandwaterboy, but darnandnasdkfjaskjf i just want to strangle those admissions officers. what makes it worse is that im not so confident about LA or CAL anymore. :(</p>
<p>gogogo seriously, how old are you? Have you never heard of the adage "grace in defeat?" I can understand that you are sad after getting rejected, but it's not like UCSD was guaranteed for you was it? Sure, some people on CC might have told you it was a "match" or a "safe match", but what do they know? You say that the UCSD point system is flawed, but like someone said before you get hardly any points for "overcoming difficulties." You make it sound like dumb kids get into SD because they are poor or something. I know for a fact that being poor does affect how you do in school. My parents are immigrants, and they work close to 14 hours a day, 7 days a week to support me and my younger sister. I've had to work since i was in 10th grade, I've taken 12 APs, 8 5's and 4 4's. I have a 36 ACT score, which i got from studying my ass off. It was so annoying to see many of my more affluent friends having fun while I had to work, and cmon: imagine what it's like to study for tests or concentrate on homework when it's getting hard to figure out where your next meal is going to come from. </p>
<p>You always go on and on about how you could have gotten in with GPA and SAT alone. If they're so good, why not tell us all? And you continually brag about how many leadership positions you were in, yet maybe UCSD realized that there was no commitment. How do you define "undeserving" people? Just because they got lower GPAs and SAT scores than you does not mean that they are inferior to you. Maybe you got overconfident when you applied and thought colleges only cared about numbers. I guess thats why you got pwned at the end. </p>
<p>What really riles me are ignorant kids like you who always ***** and moan about not having an EFC of zero, which would have guaranteed you an acceptance at a good school. You probably never worried about where your next meal would come, or how you would pay for your water bill or something. I worked my ass off for four years, and ended up with a 3.8uw gpa and a 36 act score. I guess that makes me undeserving to go to SD, since i got SO many points for being a first generation college student and for being poor? </p>
<p>The funny thing is, i'm not even going to go to UCSD. So i guess i took up a spot that could have been yours huh? I'm going to Stanford, with almost a full ride, so I hope you end up at a local community college you ignorant jerk.</p>
<p>please ni, whats with all of this anger. seriously. i have gotten into cornell. but i cant go because of the great cost since i have three younger sisters. i also work everyday after school and am expected to pay for college myself as my parents are leaving to go back to taiwan when my sisters graduate (in 3-4 years) i am in IB , etc etc. can you speak with more 'grace' yourself. i have already stated that i am not trying to offend anyone. enough with the attacks.</p>
<p>so you aren't trying to offend anyone? I wonder what you would call calling the UCSD point system flawed because it admits undeserving people just because they are poor or first gen students. If that's not demeaning, then I just don't know what is. I normally do not care about ignorant people, but after meeting so many people who complain about their affluent financial status, especially those who claim that UCSD admissions are flawed, I just can't keep quiet. It's true that at most, if not all colleges they give a little leeway towards applicants who have struggled from poverty or discrimination. UCSD just quantifies that "leeway" because not every admissions officer would define that leeway the same. Whats so wrong with that? And if you can't go to Cornell because of the costs, than there's always community college or some other way. Don't expect the world to be handed to you on a silver platter.</p>
<p>ni please stop this bantering. if you want me to say it then i will: </p>
<p>sorry for offending anyone. im sorry. seriously. i am. </p>
<p>there you go. i have already stated countless amounts of times that i dont mean to offend anyone. i have never had the world handed to me on a silver plate. i have not specifically attacked anyone, and if i unintentionally did, i always try to apologize. honestly ni, can you see, i am not trying to be ignorant, if anything im just trying to bring up a topic that many people are curious about. i dont appreciate these baseless attacks. </p>
<p>im sorry if i offended you , honestly i am. im a really nice girl if you get to know me. just calm down. it isnt healthy to get worked up over this after ive apologized countless times and have tried to amend my statements.</p>
<p>You're right gogogo. I'm sorry I got carried away. It's just everyone here has been buzzing about how overqualified applicants got shunted aside because of poorer people, and it made me pretty mad. I'm sorry for attacking you like this, please accept my apologies. I'm sorry about your situation with Cornell. Hopefully things will work out. Again, I'm sorry for overreacting.</p>
<p>i understand that you are frustrated, everyone is frustrated! darn college. i think we should start our own and just succeed from there. </p>
<p>dont worry ni, i know how frustrating it is to hear lots of whining. in fact, if i were in your position id probably pull out all my hair by now. but yeah i really apologize if i offended anyone, and at all costs i try to see it from both sides and i try not to personally attack anyone or offend anyone. but i really really really try to see both sides of the situation. </p>
<p>i understand it must be difficult to live in poverty and still succeed. however, i still can be bitter cant i? haha well lets make amends. i really hate fighting. darn me and my peer counseling nature. :)</p>
<p>Yeah of course you got every right to be bitter lawls. Although I don't feel the point system is totally flawed, i do admit that it is not that practical.</p>
<p>sonicboom:"The point system outlines everything that makes you a "well rounded" student. You have to be well rounded to get the points."</p>
<p>I simply find this statement fallacious because who says a "well-rounded" student is most likely to succeed? Depending on which career route you take, you might not have to be "well-rounded" to be successful. For example, I doubt a physics researcher really needs to know the philosophy of Nietzsche and Foucault. Sometimes, "well-rounded" students can find soo many interests that they spread themselves too thin and aren't truly successful in any of them</p>
<p>Isn't UCSD trying to find the applicants with the most potential? (And yes, past academic achievements and such do add to "potential" in this process)</p>
<p>There are a lot of arguments about how ucsd gives too much to disadvantaged students or whatnot. What I find unfair is that you get all the points or none, when situations can be rarely so clearly quantified. </p>
<p>Um. Let's keep name calling to a minimum please? It really doesn't do anything but detract from the aesthetic value of the thread :-P. I'm sure we've all gone through some hardships but what does comparing them do? What does putting another person down achieve? If you must, PM each other. Can you imagine your future employer looking up this site and finding out what you've written?</p>
<p>And there's so much debate about what's "deserving." In our eyes most of the time, whatever standard would favor calling us deserving is the one we think we should use. </p>
<p>But wait! Who decides who is deserving? It's the admissions office. </p>
<p>gogogo: I understand your hurt and surprise. But I'm not sure ranting on such an open medium was wise, as online there is a countless number of people coming from another stance reading this forum. If you wanted comfort or affirmation, you should had looked for another place. I'm sure you'll do fine no matter what. As cliche as it sounds, the college doesn't define you. You define yourself. Best wishes in all your endeavors. :-)</p>
<p>yes i realize now that i shouldnt have expressed my views (no matter how much support i thought behind me) haha but come on, at least once in their life someone has to experience the feeling of starting an almost riot. haha :)</p>
<p>Take a moment and stop to think about why there's so much criticism on UCSD's point system and there isn't much on the systems of other colleges. It's because we have no idea what the systems of other colleges actually are. We have a vague outline: more hollistic, more readers, etc. But when it comes down to it, we don't really know what goes on. Since UCSD clearly outlines the system for applicants, it's easy to point to different parts and say "That's not fair!" </p>
<p>But what everyone in this thread seems to be ignoring is that it really doesn't matter whether UCSD's point system is fair or not. Someone in another thread said that college is a business, and that's exactly right. They want to maximize profits and reputation. It's not always fair. But nothing in life is ever going to be fair. </p>
<p>Everyone gets very worked up about concepts like "overqualified," and "deserving." Well, guess what? UCSD defines deserving, not you. UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Harvard, or even lower ranked schools like SDSU define deserving. If you apply for a job at Cisco, Cisco defines deserving. Unless you're the one doing the hiring, you will never define "deserving." Getting rejected because you're "overqualified" will similarly never go away. Maybe you got into Stanford, then you went on an got a PhD from MIT. You can't cut it in academia, so you want to work in industry. You may still not be able to find a job because the company doesn't want to have to pay you more because you have a PhD. Who cares that you're "overqualified" or that you have a PhD? Bottom line is that you don't get the job.</p>
<p>I have said it before and I will say it again. It doesn't matter who you are or what you've been through, there is still no entitlement. Having a certain GPA, SAT/ACT scores, leadership positions, awards or even being underprivileged, having cancer, struggling to maintain a high GPA in an unforgiving environment will never guarantee you anything.</p>
<p>Yeah, you're bitter. That's natural. I get it. Welcome to adulthood.</p>
<p>^--- Bingo. When a college picks a certain applicant, they pick them because that's the kind of person they want. Hey, maybe one day College of So and So decides it only wants poor people - that's the administration's prerogative. Or maybe they decide they only want rich people. Or maybe they only want people who can do eleventy billion sports. Or maybe they only want people who scored 800 on the Math SAT. Or maybe they only want people who can speak Cantonese.</p>
<p>How is this any different from wanting "smart" people or "well-rounded" (whatever the heck that means) people?</p>
<p>It's up to the administration to decide whom they want. You have no idea how relieved I was when Berkeley rejected me, because that was a clear sign that I wouldn't fit in, whether because I wasn't smart enough, or not well-rounded enough, or hadn't overcome enough obstacles in life, or whatever. The point is that I didn't fit in, I did not take any offense, and it made my decision process that much easier. Now I'm happy at a school where I totally fit in instead of miserable at a school where I don't.</p>
<p>Ok, you guys have to realize a BIG factor that isn't exactly part the so called "point system."</p>
<p>THE ESSAY!!!! I bet UCSD really takes the essay seriously and make your essay just what they weren't looking for gogogo.</p>