<p>The essay isn't as big as you'd think, bman14. Everything will be done in light of the point system, so they will skim it to see where to award points. Even if an admissions officer is deeply moved by what is written, they can only grant favoritism to their maximum ability within the context of the point system.</p>
<p>and I'm also pretty sure if you don't present yourself well in the essay and make yourself sound like some arrogant bastard, they're not going to accept you no matter what your stats are. btw, that was sort of exaggerating it.... but you get my drift. </p>
<p>edit: there's this guy at my school who is president of key club, interact, on the crew team, swim team and water polo team. he had straight A's his whole high school career, top 2% of his class with straight 5's on ap bio, chem, calc ab, micro econ, macro, us history, and a 4 on spanish. 800 math 2c, 750 on bio and chem sat 2's and a 2380 on the sat's. he didn't get into princeton (ok, i know princeton and ucsd aren't on the same level but still). But, he was a REALLY arrogant person and me and my friends decided he didn't get into princeton because his essays probably sucked (we joked his essay was "accept me because i am ___). so essays are more important than you think.</p>
<p>Yes, but admissions officers are held accountable for their decisions with respect to the point system. An essay can naturally give a bad rub on people, but what can the admissions officer do? </p>
<p>If the student demonstrates leadership in a school, that's 500 points, if the student demonstrates disadvantaged circumstances, that's 300 points. How would the admissions officer justify cutting out a significant amount of points enough so that an overqualified student is rejected? </p>
<p>Even if one admissions officer has a bad impression, the application is read again by another one. They have to be as impartial as they can, and for all the people that come off as arrogant, there are obviously those that get in (@Vietsta and UCLA >_> I'm going to have a great 4 years eh?). </p>
<p>The prevailing theory remains is that UCSD rejects overqualified students because the chances are that these students will not matriculate anyways in favor of UCLA or Cal. Instead, UCSD will save this seat for a below average applicant. What you do in high school might determine how you perform in college, but it by no means guarantees it. I was a late bloomer in high school and probably barely awoke to the realities of college and stuff before it was too late. A lot of others are in the same boat, and UCSD is structured precisely so that these people are given the ability to thrive, regardless of their past. After all, college is a clean slate.</p>
<p>hehehehehehehheehehehehhehe read my stats on the decision board and tell me if i should'v been rejected.</p>
<p>thats all i have to say about the admissions dealio</p>
<p>well i dont really want to go through the whole thing. but im assuming you got in with really low stats right? </p>
<p>hmm...</p>
<p>dianal actually colleges are looking for WELL rounded students i never said anything about who was going to succeed. I was talking about how you get in read before you write ok? Academics alone will not get you into college. Without other skills you achieve through extra curriculars you can never make it in the real world. Imagine if your boss found out you didn't socialize, nor knew how to work with others what would he or she think about you? Academics alone will not get you through life. If it were purely academics, the point system would be grades and scores and thats it. Its obvious that the other categories that are there show that a well rounded student will get those other points which will give them a much better chance of being accepted through the bell curve. Think before you say what i said was fallacious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The same argument could follow that academic-strong students will not succeed either. UCSD follows a much safer option to optimize graduation rates if they take in well-rounded students. And as much as I would disagree with this policy, for every 1 person here with 2300+ SATs and 4.2 GPAs who fail to disclose a list of ECs and got rejected, and this makes up a large number of those who were rejected, there are equally 5 or more who were accepted with 2100s and 3.8s with ECs and clear demonstration of well-roundedness. </p>
<p>Even if the argument runs that the school should accept those who have high stats, and that they <em>might</em> succeed in college, what is to say about their chances in the real world? The real world doesn't embrace intellect like the sheltered institutions we've been raised up in do. The real world needs the overall character that a well-rounded applicant can muster. It's true that some people are good at academics, really good in fact, but what good is that when they graduate Summa Cum Laude and are unemployed? UCSD wants to raise its prestige, but not necessarily from these people. Some people might not be as "smart" as those who were rejected, but that's what the school is meant to do, teach a new generation of engineers, scientists, productive members of society.</p>
<p>yeah looking at the thread, it does seem like ucsd is kinda weird in terms of admission this year. But i really do not believe they would reject you on the strict basis that you are overqualified or would most likely attend elsewhere. if they WANT you, they WILL admit you, even if you are "overqualified"...hence the regents scholarships, Jacobs scholarship (full ride), or any kind of money incentives.</p>
<p>There are cases like these at sd, some of my friends who are undoubtedly bright are here b/c of the money they were given. and belive me, some of those few are WAY OVERQUALIFIED..as in..this guy got into Princeton, Stanford, MIT but was offered a full ride to ucsd. he took the money. He is not poor, but from a middle class family</p>
<p>Goin with the argument of rejecting well qualified kids, ucsd could have rejected him cus he was "too good" for ucsd, but they gave him the moohlah and so he is here now. they might reject some ppl b/c they are too good, but im sure they dont always..cus then what is the scholarship money for? fi they only admit ppl who will most likely attend, there will be no need for scholarships to persuade them to attend right?</p>
<p>Okay, you guys are totally running a slippery slope.
I didn't say people needed to be completely committed to one thing (academics is constantly being used as an example in this thread.) But that doesn't mean people should go and do things they don't care about to be "well rounded" or "better qualified." </p>
<p>SonicBoom:Colleges are not necessarily looking for "well rounded" students. Often times they want passionate ones! Perhaps UCSD is looking for "well rounded" but I know schools like Caltech want passionate kids for science/math and Stanford and Rice have stated that they want "passionate" ones. Sure, they need to be able to communicate and pleasant but they also need to excel in what they love. (okay fine, maybe not what they love but are good at)</p>
<p>who says everybody good at academics isn't good with their social life? That's such a stereotype and sometimes it's false.(though admittedly there are quite a few that fit into this stereotype. The problem with UCSD is that it doesn't take this into account. What does a list of meaningless activities mean in the long run?</p>
<p>I've thought about what you've said. And I watched trends over the years. I've watched so many dispassionate "well-rounded students get rejected from colleges because it looks like padding and padding worthless in the long run.</p>
<p>Sonicboom, I think you need calm down before you take on this aggressive tone. And yes, I can tell that you're annoyed due to dropped the periods, "ok?" and the curt ending. You're acting like you know everything about the system. Talk to a few admission officers and they'll tell you quite the contrary. Perhaps I don't know much either, but when you generalize "colleges are looking for WELL rounded students" that's definitely not true. If you want details PM me, I don't feel like sharing some of the information on such a public forum.</p>
<p>Why would colleges want students that wouldn't succeed? What do "well rounded students" translate into?</p>
<p>Btw, I'm not bitter about this system. Nor am I that un "well-rounded" student. Actually many have told me that the preference for ECs will give me an edge. If you want my list of ECs feel free to PM me....</p>
<p>Does being a child of divorced parents, an immigrant, etc make you a well rounded student? That's what you're saying about UCSD. </p>
<p>I'm just curious. Sonicboom, have you ever talked to an admissions officer from a highly selective school or even from a UC?</p>
<p>hm.. no wonder somebody I know stopped talking on cc due to all the false information that circulates...</p>
<p>rofl this isnt a caltech thread. this is for UCSD learn to read AGAIN. And yes i have talked to admissions officers and ive talked to various counselors about this. And yes the well rounded students is quite true. Colleges need to know a person can handles grades as well as extra curriculars. And while doing those extra curriculars they can keep those grades up. Its a bit common sense isnt it? Well rounded shows students can handle coursework load as well as other events. Not just focusing on their studies. That's how people succeed. And if you havent noticed the point system consists of being well rounded AND the affirmitive action areas all packed into one place. Passionate students do everything they can to get into college. This in place makes them WELL rounded because they do many different EC's such as music sports and internships. If you were truly passionate about getting into college, you wouldnt do those EC's just for it. your arguement is flawed maybe you should join your friend and stop talking on CC gg nub</p>
<p>I fail to see a slippery slope, and I continue with the argument pertaining to an academically-inclined person not being able to succeed. First off, who's to say that they enjoy academics in the first place? Isn't going and getting good grades for basically the express purpose of going to a good school? </p>
<p>A well rounded student will demonstrate not only the ability to handle coursework, however dry it may be, while also handling extracurriculars, some of which will be for the purpose of enjoyment as well (eg sports). </p>
<p>One can logically argue that some academically-inclined students actually enjoy study. That's absolutely true. However, these are also the people that are largely using UCSD as a fallback and waiting on decisions from CIT/MIT. Does UCSD want to recruit such people? Obviously it does, however realistically the school really doesn't have many incentives to lure them, and it's likely to end up in a futile waste of an otherwise good spot for a prospective student, and an unnecessary increase of the minimum point total (I'm under the impression that they take an average)</p>
<p>Bringing schools such as Caltech and MIT into the whole "well-rounded student" argument adds no actual substance. Of course schools like these want students with passion. They are highly specialized institutions and they want to make sure that the students they admit can survive in at a university which is so focused on science. </p>
<p>And being a well-rounded student is very important for a non-specialized school like UCSD. Although you may think that being a good writer or an amazing mathematician will be completely useless to you in whatever career you choose (although being a good writer is important for many jobs and life in general...), not having these skills will guarantee a very difficult time for you in college because of GEs. So being good in a variety of things will be a useful asset for college, and its there that being well rounded is important. And its institutions like the UCs that don't have specialized curricula that want students that are good at many things and not necessarily focused on a single like. </p>
<p>And of course Stanford and Rice state they want passionate people. What are they going to say, they only want robots that work meaninglessly for all time?</p>
<p>well without interviews how are UCs supposed to even know who is passionate and whos not? its not fair to assume that applicants are not passionate without even meeting them- thus i really dont think passion is a factor</p>
<p>and why are we talking about ivies in here? ;)</p>
<p>lol i dont think dianal quite understands that this is a UCSD forum yet lol</p>
<p>I see the word "robot" thrown around a lot, yet I have never met one. Everyone has a unique personality, and I am thinking that it is a term used by those who feel that they could have achieved more in an academic context had they studied more. To an extent that's true, but conversely, I have slacked off this second semester and my grades have actually improved over last semester's. Thus, I believe that grades are not as proportionate to effort as one would think. If you want effort to shine through, I think it is really apparent from lists of awards that one has won, such as those of science fair, book awards, etc...</p>
<p>i personally would love to be a robot haha dont know about the rest of you ;)</p>
<p>according to DIANAL in a recent PM lol too afraid to confront everyone else here</p>
<p>Simply because it is a ucsd forum doesn't mean you can generalize and use the word "colleges." ucsd is often considered ONE college (though there are 6 internal colleges.)</p>
<p>I think as an applicant we need to have a wider perspective. We shouldn't just apply to one school. Nor should we be so near sighted that we only see college as the end goal. I think we need to go for what we love. For example, I know somebody who got into UCSD with a weighted 3.0 but he was incredibly passionate about speech and debate. The highschool experience is a means..it's a journey and college isn't the end.</p>
<p>The slippery slope is that not all passionate students are horrible at academics. nor are all academically strong people dispassionate about ECs. I think UCSD should accept some lobsidedness.</p>
<p>Just as a side note, if your future employer read what you wrote...what would they think of you and your derogatory comments and tone?</p>
<p>Don't take everything I say so harshly. Perhaps I'm more idealistic because I did apply to other schools. And I did pursue what I loved. (No, I'm not a complete hardcore academic nerd. I did a lot of speech and debate, science club, tennis, and volunteering...but I loved every single one of my activities! I honestly wasn't thinking about college apps when I did them) And I don't regret it.
I don't think people should be forced to do what they don't like if they've already met minimum standards like decent grades or a EC. That's simply what I'm advocating.</p>
<p>During the college search and application, I don't think people should just take your advice and go "Oh, I should be well rounded and do this." because in the end, it doesn't stick or create a lasting effect.</p>
<p>-shrugs- just my two cents. Doubt you care though...</p>
<p>Okay UCSD was never my first choice, so I'm not crushed that I didn't get in. However, I have to admit UCSD is absolutely retarted and random. And just to let you people know, ethnicity probably has nothing to do with being accepted. Case in point: I'm a Latin kid coming from a middle class family, I have about a 3.95 GPA and 1820 test scores, and descent EC's. I guess it wasn't good enough for UCSD, so I didn't get in. This other latin girl I know also didn't get in, and she has a higher GPA than me. My other Latin friend, on the other hand, he got in with a 3.3 GPA probably 1500 or 1600 SAT scores, and barely any EC's. Okay how can anybody make sense out of this? And he doesn't really come from a low-income family, since we both go to an expensive Catholic school. So how does this make sense?</p>
<p>Your chances might have been better if you knew how to spell "retarded" and "decent"! Hope you spell checked your essays!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay UCSD was never my first choice, so I'm not crushed that I didn't get in. However, I have to admit UCSD is absolutely retarted and random. And just to let you people know, ethnicity probably has nothing to do with being accepted. Case in point: I'm a Latin kid coming from a middle class family, I have about a 3.95 GPA and 1820 test scores, and descent EC's. I guess it wasn't good enough for UCSD, so I didn't get in. This other latin girl I know also didn't get in, and she has a higher GPA than me. My other Latin friend, on the other hand, he got in with a 3.3 GPA probably 1500 or 1600 SAT scores, and barely any EC's. Okay how can anybody make sense out of this? And he doesn't really come from a low-income family, since we both go to an expensive Catholic school. So how does this make sense?
[/quote]
maybe your essays blew chunks or even, were simply average? maybe he's first generation college and you aren't? maybe he had excellent essays? maybe he was ELC and you weren't? GPA and test score are far from the only two things that colleges consider, you can't get an accurate idea of whether or not someone will be accepted just from them most of the time. </p>
<p>you were below UCSD averages in both GPA and SATs, and didn't mention anything exceptional about yourself - not to be mean, but it shouldn't be a shock that you didn't get in.</p>