<p>I know this girl who got into UCB but not UCLA, UCSB, UCSD, UCD</p>
<p>They are completely whack.</p>
<p>All of the UCLA rejects at my school are going to Cal.</p>
<p>The lower UCs may have rejected qualified applicants because they wanted to increase their matriculation rates.</p>
<p>There is no point in appealing if you do not have new information that occurred between Freshmen and Junior, they might accept activities undertaken and awards received in your senior year. Senior grades might only reinforce your appeal; however as said before, such grades are worthless if it has nothing to reinforce to begin with. Stressing your stats and activities that you already mentioned in your application will not help.</p>
<p>the only thing that's consistent is that it isn't consistent..</p>
<p>yeah it's totally weird. I got accepted to UCLA but not to Irvine. (I don't think Irvine got my scores though. Irvine have a messed up system. I called Irvine and the guy said he didn't understand what I was talking about and hung up. But i'm not trying to appeal because it's not worth it.)</p>
<p>I noticed in my school and schools around my location that Berkeley accepted almost all of the Mexicans but none of the whites, asians, or pacific islanders.</p>
<p>UC schools are not random, although they may seem to be. my close friend got accepted to cornell, tuft, and other top 20 to top 10 schools. however, he got rejected from berkeley and davis. How does HE get rejected from davis?? its simple. davis knows that someone as smart and has a lot of other extra will get into other schools, so they don't bother to accept him, since he will not attend davis anyways. accepting someone who they know will not attend their school only hurts their stats. it shows every year how many were accepted, and how many enrolled. if they accepted every single good candidate, most will not attend, since if their scores and other stuff are good, they will most liekly attend a better school.</p>
<p>jcammit: dude i totally agree. i don't mean to sound racist, its just an example. in my school, a black person who had 1600 sat score, out of 2400, ok gpa, and ok extra got into johns hopkins, cornell, stanford, berkeley, and ucla. its obviously due to affirmative action. you can't help it. who are you gonna chose, thousand of smart asians or those rare people from different races who actually apply to top schools with decent grades. not many blacks or mexicans in my school are smart, but the ones who are got accepted to top schools becuase they are rare.</p>
<p>Yeah...I agree. I got into UCSD, but not UCI</p>
<p>UC's this year are ridiculous, I cannot believe how frustrated it has made me. What it seems to me is that the UC system is selecting which students go to which campus, but not based on merit. I just cant figure out what that other thing is. I know at least 2 kids who got accepted to UCLA and Cal but were rejected from UCI and UCSB. I got accepted to UCSB but rejected from UCI, and my best friend who was literally identical gpa, lower SAT, and less EC was accepted at UCI but not UCSB.</p>
<p>Who the heck says you're better than the other guy? Just because you have higher grades? Whohoo! High grades + high SAT's = HYPS! Not.</p>
<p>Lol...he says it. He's my best friend, no superiority complex here. He says it cuz he's jewish and its one of the biggest anti semitic universities, haha, that might be true. But seriously, I just thought it was interesting, because we each spent a lot of time helping each other with out admissions essays, and I thought those were pretty similar as well. and im not sure what HYPS stands for. I am a a newbie here on this website.</p>
<p>and its not that "Im better" i just did some things differently in school than he did, no big deal. If you asked me, he is smarter than I am...</p>
<p>the SAT is 1/7 of the application</p>
<p>there are so many factors the admission people have to consider when they get 40,000 appplicants with the same SAT score</p>
<p>you people who are complaining about people getting into UC'S over you with less SAT scores obviously don't do a lot of EC'S</p>
<p>you guys think the SAT is the application, but the kids who got in with lower scores got in because of their hard work in sports, community service, etc. rather than studying 24/7 for a standardized test; they have a life</p>
<p>"you guys think the SAT is the application, but the kids who got in with lower scores got in because of their hard work in sports, community service, etc. rather than studying 24/7 for a standardized test; they have a life"</p>
<p>An unfortunate generalization in our experience. My son had a 2180 SAT and 4.1 UC GPA. He was recruited for track at a number of schools (though not UCLA and UCB), served on student government, devoted hundreds of hours toward community service including many weeks with underprivileged children, worked as a private tutor in math and science, and was rejected at UCLA and Berkeley. He has quite a life, indeed, and will be attending an outstanding college.</p>
<p>For better or worse, I think the original title of this thread is quite accurate.</p>
<p>I know people who didnt even have the MINIMUM UC GPA get into SD of note and other lower UC's. now HUH? how did that happen.</p>
<p>Colleges were screwey this year ok guys? Its time to get over it. You want to blame someone? Blame all those kids who sent out 20+ applications who all have good stats. Blame the kid who got into Harvard ED but applied to every other ivy and Stanford, MIT, Cal-tech (God I hate that). Blame them, don't blame the school.</p>
<p>I don't see a lot of blame being tossed around. I see confusion, questions, requests for guidance. I think students have every right to know what - if any - criteria are utilized in this critical decision, particularly after they've spent the last four years putting their best foot forward, and then poured their hearts and souls into the application process.</p>
<p>And I certainly don't blame students for submitting multiple applications. The rules of the game have changed. Safeties have become matches, matches have become reaches, and reaches are out-of-reach for all but the Sainted. Woe is he or she who doesn't cover all the bases.</p>
<p>Are you all forgetting about something called "context"? The applicants at UCSB and UCLA will be considered in different contexts, so the outcome will be different.</p>
<p>Many of you, also, seem to be pointing out "oh I know of such and such who got into Selective College X, but Not-So-Selective College Y." Now, compare that to the number of cases where that didn't happen.</p>
<p>Don't forget, either, that the UCs care a hellofalot more for GPA, etc. than for the SAT. This much is obvious in the common data sets. It's part of the UCs purpose (taking in top ~10% of high schools, not top 10% scorers on the SAT).</p>
<p>And of course, you have to consider that the person might've gotten in on the other factors of the application: essays, ECs, etc.</p>
<p>Lastly, remember that the UCs, especially Berkeley and UCLA, will (usually) accept the great students, the good students, and then some of the not-so-good students. Why the latter? More students --> more money, more power on campus, etc. (What distinguishes those two from "lower" schools like Cal States, which accept great/good/not-so-good/ungood students, is that Berkeley and UCLA tend to bring in the good/great students, whereas the Cal States tend to lose them to higher-ranked schools.)</p>
<p>"Don't forget, either, that the UCs care a hellofalot more for GPA, etc. than for the SAT. This much is obvious in the common data sets. It's part of the UCs purpose (taking in top ~10% of high schools, not top 10% scorers on the SAT)."</p>
<p>There is no doubt in my mind that this is true. However, this:</p>
<p>"Lastly, remember that the UCs, especially Berkeley and UCLA, will (usually) accept the great students, the good students, and then some of the not-so-good students."</p>
<p>I'm less convinced of. Especially the "good students" part, though it may all depend on our respective definitions. In my position I come into contact with a lot of California students and I simply don't recall a year when things seemed quite so upside down. Somehow Berkeley and UCLA seem to have added a new layer to the riddle.</p>
<p>provider: you're saying that Berkeley and UCLA have great students and not-so-good students, but not good students? "Good students" to me means that they aren't the phenomenal applicants who get into Harvard or Stanford, but still very strong applicants overall.</p>