<p>
</p>
<p>I was reacting to the word, “lot”. And, of course, your two examples are woefully short of a 2200 test score.</p>
<p>@bluebayou: True, but in UCB’s evaluation, SATs count a lot less than an applicant’s personal statement. That may have made the difference as well. Either way, we’ll find out tomorrow/thursday.</p>
<p>@dustinthewind: I’ve seen the exact opposite happen a lot too. However, this year’s admissions process was a bit funky between UCSC/UCB/UCLA:</p>
<p>[Ms</a>. Sun’s UC Admissions Blog - UC Santa Cruz Update](<a href=“Error”>Error)</p>
<p>UCB/UCLA basically scored a good portion of UCSC’s applicants and UCSC’s acceptance thresholds are way lower than UCB/UCLA. So if the UCSC rejects were unable to make UCSC’s acceptance threshold, then they definitely won’t UCB/UCLA’s threshold, correct?</p>
<p>I’m not saying that people from previous years haven’t been rejected from UCSC/lower UCs and gotten into UCB/UCLA. This is year is just completely different due to UCSC’s weird decision to use UCB/UCLA as a crutch (see link above).</p>
<p>Panther, you are assuming that UCSC took the applicants that were well rated by UCB and UCLA. Actually, I think the opposite is possible. Perhaps UCSC took students with POOR scores from UCB/UCLA because they knew they weren’t getting in to those schools. UCSC isn’t that same tier as Ucb/ucla, so it doesn’t make sense for them to accept all the good applicants that will likely go to Ucb/ucla- it’s more likely they took the low scorers (who are probably still good students if they applied/ thought they had a chance at those schools). If your friends with high scores got rejected from ucsc, that would support my theory.</p>
<p>I must say that you just don’t know! You aren’t aiming too high, you’re aiming for what you want! 
Be optimistic and we will see seven days from today! :)</p>
<p>@sahalis:</p>
<p>I actually thought about what you did as well. At first I panicked because I thought that getting into UCSC meant that I was pretty much denied from UCB/UCLA. However, I noticed another trend: Not all high achieving applicants to UCSC (4.0s, 2000+ SATs) were rejected. There seemed to be discrepancies and some but not all high achieving students were rejected. The only difference between these applicants seems to be extracurriculars/other activities. So obviously, UCSC couldn’t have been banking on admitting the low-achieving students to attend their school.</p>
<p>@deee2016: thanks for your optimism! :)</p>
<p>Well, did those high achieving applicants who got into ucsc apply to both ucla and Ucb? You originally only mentioned you knew people with high stats who got rejected. If you’re going by the stats people posted on the ucsc acceptance thread, you’d need to know if they applied to one or both of those other schools as well.</p>
<p>Even if that was so, think about- just because you have good stats doesn’t mean you’re in to ucla/Ucb. Some of those with good stats are going to be rejected… And likely picked up by ucsc! There’s no other reason why Ucsc would reject the people whose grades would normall guarantee acceptance, unless they thought cal/ucla would be taking them.</p>
<p>I think it makes more sense for ucsc to accept those NOT accepted to ucla/Ucb. Otherwise those people you mentioned with high scores wHo got rejected would be at risk of not getting into ucsc, cal, or ucla, which seems silly to me. Of course, we’re working with imperfect information here, so i guess we won’t know what the true trend is until the rest of the decisions are out.</p>
<p>I still think you might have a chance at cal, but I wanted to stop you from setting too much in store by the ucsc thing.</p>
<p>Alrite, I’m just throwing this out there… everyone that i’ve talked to (~25 people) at my school who were waitlisted/rejected from UCSC (~4.0 UC GPA, ~1900-2200 SAT) have been rejected from UCLA. They applied to both UCB and UCLA as well. As far as I can tell, this only supports the fact that UCSC did not reject people who were overqualified (possibly qualified for UCB/UCLA).</p>