UCLA Admissions...overrated?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Los Angeles
1

<p>I hope you guys don't take this offensively, I'm not saying UCLA is stupid or anything, but I do think sometimes that people exaggerate the admissions/chances a bit much. This is speaking of strictly California residents only (Out of staters have it much harder so I won't have a say).</p>

<p>Now most people here on CC will say UCLA is a great school (no doubt about it) and requires extremely high GPA and extremely high SAT scores. Well quite honestly, the GPA may be true, but as for the SAT score, not so much. This is just from my experience of course.</p>

<p>My question to you guys here is, what's the lowest SAT 1 score of any person you know that was accepted/admitted into UCLA?</p>

<p>From my friends (they have 4.0 weighted and above grades from Freshman to Junior year), the scores were: 1770, 1740, 1610, 1500, 1530, 1390</p>

2

<p>Who cares what the SAT score is? It's not like they decide who gets in based on your SAT only. 26% acceptance rate, which means if you can put together a complete application better then 75% of applicants you should be safe :)</p>

3

<p>Yep. SAT's don't really count. What counts is what school you go to. Just go to a crappy school and become valedictorian. ez admission. I wish I took that route instead of plowing my way through a top-ranked school.</p>

4

<p>But if you are in a top-ranked school, there is a greater chance that they'd accept you as well. I heard that the UCs in general pull more students from top-ranked schools than from comparably less competitive ones.</p>

5

<p>heh my school was top ranked [out of state] and i wasn't anywhere near being valedictorian. i also agree they look at the competitiveness of the schools. my sat's weren't great but i had a good gpa and great out-of-school experience.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
I heard that the UCs in general pull more students from top-ranked schools than from comparably less competitive ones.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which could have something to do with kids performing better @ top ranked schools as opposed to non top ranked ones.</p>

7

<p>something that offsets that or encourages a more diverse pool -- </p>

<p>Welcome</a> to ELC</p>

8

<p>Interesting. I had no idea SATs were so relatively less important.</p>

9

<p>The University of California system schools place more emphasis on grades than on SAT scores. But, even with that understanding, the SAT scores cited by the OP are surprisingly low for in-state admittees. 1180-1410 out of a possible 1600 were the mid-range SAT scores as reported in USNews 2008 edition. I do, however, agree with the OP that UC schools may be a bit overrated for undergraduate education due to financial needs that lead to large class sizes during the first two years.</p>

10

<p>Well, your freshman and sophomore(?, maybe, I dont' remember) years, they were still using the 1600 scale.</p>

11

<p>you mentioned some examples of poor SAT scores.</p>

<p>i know plenty of people here who have scored in the 2200-2300's.
i know plenty of people who have turned down Ivy leagues for UCLA.</p>

<p>i believe berkeley has even lower SAT averages.</p>

<p>bottom line, who cares about SAT's?? I mean, how many of us honestly worked hard to do well on those things?</p>

12

<p>"i know plenty of people who have turned down Ivy leagues for UCLA"</p>

<p>Which one's? Dartmouth and Cornell?</p>

13

<p>I'm sure quite a few people have worked hard to do well on their SATs. Honestly speaking, SATs do serve as a nice way to cut out applicants, if only to make admissions officers' lives easier.</p>

14

<p>i took SATs once and was determined i'd never sit through that again, ever.</p>

<p>then again, i did get over 2200... :rolleyes:</p>

<p>seriously, i think SATs are helpful when GPA is an unreliable indicator, and likewise, when SAT is an unreliable indicator, GPA can give another perspective. high GPA and low SAT may mean that the GPA wasn't that hard to achieve; likewise, low GPA and high SAT may indicate a competitive high school. reliable or unreliable as the SAT is, it at least gives two ways of looking at an applicant's statistics. that said, having a high GPA at a highly competitive school means they don't really need to look at the SAT to evaluate the person's intelligence, cuz they obviously have some!</p>

15

<p>I know someone who rejected University of Pennsylvania for LA. =)</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
i know plenty of people who have turned down Ivy leagues for UCLA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I turned down cornell & brown for la</p>

17

<p>I agree with the OP. It is one of the reasons I chose UCLA.</p>

18

<p>I was once in the counseling office of my child's high school talking about entrance requirements of certain schools and the counselor said that she was about to make a phone call asking "why" the valedictorian of their school was rejected from UCLA. This boy was a national merit finalist, top scores, good enough ecs, certainly academically outstanding, and rejected from UCLA. He was accepted to some very prestigious schools, but a big NO from his number one choice, UCLA. She said it was his first choice and he was shocked when he was rejected. Apparently even being valedictorian does not guarantee entrance to UCLA. I do not know the outcome of her phone call, or where he ended up going.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]

My question to you guys here is, what's the lowest SAT 1 score of any person you know that was accepted/admitted into UCLA?

[/quote]
1650. I don't really understand how she got in. She had a relatively sub-par GPA (3.6 or something) and hardly outstanding extracurriculars. She did take a lot of IB classes though. But there was nothing impressive. :rolleyes:</p>

20

<p>Lowest SAT 1? 1250. GPA was about 3.8. Excellent personal statement.</p>