THE "Im going to make UCLA regret the fact it rejected me" Thread

<p>


It's OK. The main issue is just to what degree the soft factors play in and if it's unfair... something we can't really gauge. I still have some cynicism about the process, to be honest. </p>

<p>Also, your apology was nice. I can see where you're coming from. I knew a girl from HS who got in with sub-1700 scores, about 3.65 unweighted GPA, etc. I knew another student with about an 1800 SAT. He hardly took any AP classes while his friends were slaving away with all 12 of them. He was a complete slacker compared to the rest of them (and us). I was upset that he got in while my near-Valedictorian friends who did all sort of activities got rejected from UCLA. Also, I knew another person who managed to slip in. She couldn't take it here and ended up going to a CSU or one of the lower UCs. It was really annoying. I know this sounds mean, but I knew plenty of more 'deserving' people. I knew these people personally and I would've have chosen others who I knew worked harder. It's not always fair, I agree. To knock the whole process with its intentions implied, is a different thing.</p>

<p>I'm sorry again for creating this thread because it still continues to offend people. We should agree to stop posting on this thread because I believe its best that we all forget about this and move on. The very creation of this thread was based on a flawed idea so perpetuating the growth of it is going to make the whole matter even worse and offend even more people.</p>

<p>jasonlee576, I understand that you're frustrated. You were very mature to admit your mistakes and move on. Now we need to let this thread die.</p>

<p>lol, I got my rejection letter in the mail today. Haven't opened it yet though.</p>

<p>I thought they dont send out rejection letters?</p>

<p>Why should we let this thread die? Its very worthwhile to talk about this instead of just shoving it away. I think that college admissions have gotten way to random when it is unnecesary. Sometimes 1 applicant is clearly better than another academically, and unless there is a huge difference in background, the better applicant should be selected. I dont know why u think im sour, I got into a top 10 school and could care less about UCLA, its just that I think they are selecting a weak freshman class relative to the applicant pool. I mean look at their sat average, its still only about 2000, yet acceptance rate is dipping below 20%. This just doesnt make sense, because they could obviosly select higher scores, and they are not yet at the level where sat score is just a prerequisite that must be passed for the ec's/essays to be weighed more, as in top schools. They are seemingly selecting randomly, and the quality of their freshmen class will suffer. I think I might have to get a job at admissions myself to fix things up with those file-juggling clowns.</p>

<p>AAfoDaURM:
Are you proposing a universal point system for college admission? </p>

<p>
[quote]

This just doesn't seem right to me, and I know this kid will struggle, because he does not comprehend academic material so readily.

[/quote]

You can't predict that. Your point is just about pride - that you're better than him. There are easy majors at every university. How do you know he/she won't succeed or change study habits in college?</p>

<p>What part of being WELL-ROUNDED do you people not understand?</p>

<p>I guess academic superiority can make up for other important factors...amirite or amirite?</p>

<p>dumb.</p>