<p>Hi everyone!
well, i just want to know people's experinces when applying to UCLA, or any stories you have heard. it is really CRAZY competive as people say? i mean, i know it is, but the way people talk, it seems like you have to have a 4.5 GPA, been the captain of 2 sports teams, and been the president of every club to get in. it is really discouraging me! if anyone knows anything or have stories to tell, please do!</p>
<p>I heard that the head addmissions officer is a one legged gypsy that picks names out of a felt derby hat.</p>
<p>more people apply to UCLA than anywhere else. stats matter alot, but i've seen surprisingly weak people who called it their reach get in.</p>
<p>The UCLA admission is not random. If you have the goods, you are in. By goods, I mean, GPA, SAT, SAtII, AP scores, and EC's.</p>
<p>all i know is that UCLA is one of the best universities in the world and is on par with stanford</p>
<p>UCLA is a great university, but it doesn't have the randomness associated with HYPS. The low acceptance rate is deceiving due to the quality of applicants that apply. While UCLA has the same acceptance rate as UPenn, the avg SAT score that applies to UCLA is 1180 whereas the avg SAT that applies to Penn is 1400 (all the UC's are on one app so many not-so-bright students will just check the box & hope they get lucky). </p>
<p>For students w/ top stats, UCLA isn't a reach. UCLA accepted over 85% last year that had a 1500+ on their SAT. </p>
<p>And liz, UCLA is not on par w/ Stanford, either in prestige or selectivity. </p>
<p>However, one catch w/ UCLA is if you are out of state it is extremely difficult to get into. As the UC's are state sponsored schools, they are required to accept a large amount of instate students, leaving few spots for out-of-staters.</p>
<p>UCLA is as good as stanford. maybe not in prestige or selectivity, but in things that actually matter in real life: like education and academics</p>
<p>i'd rather go to UCLA than stanford</p>
<p>Sometimes I wish UCLA would publish a comprehensive point-based admissions criterion like UC Davis so every applicant would know exactly how the school weighs different attributes, instead of him/her resorting to calling it a "crap-shoot".</p>
<p>Liz are you in high school? Because your opinion seems uninformed. I am spending the summer at UCLA right now and I can put you in touch with countless students who complain about about the large class sizes, the lack of contact with Professors, the "red tape", the difficulty in getting classes. none of which occurs at Stanford. UCLA is a good school but not even close to the same league as Stanford or any of the Ivies for that matter.</p>
<p>UCLA is nowhere close to Stanford- prestige comes with a reason you know</p>
<p>i must agree.......for example stanford student-facualty ratio is about 7:1 whereas UCLA is 100+:1 to say the least......that's quite a difference. Also, stanford's prestige comes with reasons as everybit as tangible and reasonable. It's engineering department is, as far as I know, right below Berkeley engineering and on top 10, if not top 5, in the entire nation, and its other major departments such as humanities, social science, medicine, law, etc are also very competent. UCLA is a great school, but to say it is on par with stanford seems a little stretched........</p>
<p>OH sry hello88 to hijack your thread for this discussion........so yea about UCLA:
UCs are generally very number-oriented.......meaning they put A LOT of importance on GPA, SATI, SAT II, etc. not so sure about class rank, but they definately care about how tough your courseload was. I know a berkeley admissions officer who specifically stated that E.Cs are secondary to GPAs and test scores/a-g unit count. I assume same goes for other UCs, as well as UCLA. Since the admissions standard for UCLA is bit lower than UCB, if you have good enough GPA, test scores, and high a-g unit count, consider yourself a match.</p>
<p>No, you donot have to have 4.5 GPA, no you donot have to be a captain of two varsity teams. If you took hardest courseload available to you and got the highest GPA you can get, it doesn't matter if that GPA is 4.2 or 4.8. As for E.Cs, stick with two or three that you do best and show commitment to them. But, as I have said, UCs are very number oriented so get the highest GPA you can with hardest course load available and achieve great test scores.</p>
<p>UCLA is not 100+:1; it is 18:1</p>
<p>If that is so, than I stand corrected. However, in my visit to stanford I have seen some of their classes.....only ten students in a small room being taught face to face with the professor! Only a number of freshman courses are in a big lecture room with many students surrounding one instructor. Whereas, the UC system is already over-crowded and UCLA is one of the most populous campus among the UCs next to UCB, so I think it is fair to say even if the ratio is somewhere in 18:1, the actual lecture halls could be A LOT more crowded and packed with students who are unable to confer with their professors face-to face.</p>
<p>
Interesting...</p>
<p>Cardinal880804-</p>
<p>You made a lot of unsubstantiated and sometimes exaggerated statements there and what, you're not even a junior in high school? Just as Stanford only really has freshmen, general education courses that are large lecture halls packed, so to do the UCs. Once you reach upper division, one would not be surprised to find classes with- as you like- 10 students "face-to-face" with professors. Also, the UC's understand that class size can be a problem, and several of the key courses- like required freshmen writing courses- are capped to, say, 20 students per room. Is class size a problem? Yeah, I suppose so, but you've got to work at it to succeed- wait, isn't that what life is about?</p>
<p>I was a little suspicious when you said the UCLA's engineering department was "just below Berkeley," but it's not even close. Berkeley's department is world-renown; UCLA's is commendable, on the national level. I do contend, however, that UCLA is, perhaps, the most overrated university in the United States. Across the board, the school has a host of quality programs, nothing at all weak, but then again nothing great either (I suppose Geffen's ok). The school receives a lot of applications because it has all the flashiness of its Los Angeles name (for CA residents) or its California fun-in-the-sun atmosphere (for OOS), and without the association with homeless people, as is the case with Berkeley. Also, because the school is a notch below Berkeley, many more students across California feel the school is "within reach," so the school receives more applications. And, oh yeah, that baby blue and gold looks good, too.</p>
<p>In the end, UCLA's admissions can sometimes be wacky, but there's a standard the school is looking for. As was said before, 85% of 1500+ SAT applicants got in, while the other 15% are looking for schools, right now. It's not all numbers, but it does play a significant part of the application. </p>
<p>Haha, did someone say UCLA was "on par" with Stanford earlier. Please...</p>
<p>TTG</p>
<p>"I was a little suspicious when you said the UCLA's engineering department was "just below Berkeley," but it's not even close." </p>
<p>Actually I was refering to Stanford, not UCLA. I believe their engineering program is very competent. Is this also unsubstantiated? I certainly hope not.</p>
<p>"You made a lot of unsubstantiated and sometimes exaggerated statements there and what, you're not even a junior in high school?"</p>
<p>If my statements were unsubstantiated, ttgiang, than I stand corrected. If any comment I made was like that, than please point them out and provide some accurate info about UCLA. However, it's a little too much that you would base the accuracy of my advice to hello88 on the fact that I am still in highschool. Yes, the ratio 100:1 is a stretch, but I had firmly believed that most of the other information I shared with hello88 was solid, especially about the UC admissions. I had many talks with the admissions officer and the information on the UC admissions is pretty solid. The number-oriented nature of the UCs and its importance on grades and test scores, and also a-g unit counts are not unsubstantiated. </p>
<p>Flopsy - Yes it was not a substantiated info, that was an error on my part. I may have had a wrong impression of student-facualty rate at UCLA.</p>