<p>I did some quantitative research based on the data that has been released for 09-10 admit GPA's for TRANSFER students for all majors within the school of letters and science. </p>
<p>There are a 97 majors that released data (the actual number of majors is around 100) for transfer admits for 09-10. The average is given at 3.51. I calculated the median at around the same as the average at 3.52 which is surprising. </p>
<p>However, the standard deviation is .169, which is greater than the critical value of .05 (95%) so it does not represent the GPA of the majority of admits to the college of L&S. This means there are outliers affecting the average</p>
<p>Here is a simple view of the raw data (keep in mind every GPA represents an average GPA of the transfer students admitted for a particular major within L&S)</p>
<p>68% of the average GPA's for transfer students admitted to Letters and science were below 3.68. In my opinion, you're best bet (if you are struggling) is to set a goal between 3.4 and 3.59 because this will greatly increase your chances of acceptence.</p>
<p>My bad, I could not add the pic in time. add this to my original post PLEASE. "This means that the non skewed average is a deviation of +.16 and -.16 so a more useful GPA range would be 3.45 to 3.59 as an area where most (Indeed over 60%) of averages occur. The graph almost looks like it’s slightly skewed to the right, or I could just be seeing things because it does look alot like the normal Bell curve.
Click this link to see the graph I created. (Frequency “x axis”=number of majors that fall between a certain GPA range…Total “Y axis”=GPA ranges.</p>
<p>In other words (non-straight A students!) if you aim between 3.4 and 3.59 or so it will greatly increase your chances of admission to the college of Letters and Science. (Transfer Students only)</p>
<p>Keep in mind this is all based on averages of the average, so actual majors could be VERY different. Do not take this advice if your major is impacted, or if your major has super high GPA’s. In fact you should always take any advice with a grain of salt. This advice is just for the majority of people who are not applying to impacted majors or highly selective majors.</p>
<p>By the way I’m not a math major, so if any of you stat freaks can add a few words it would help.</p>
<p>This is an extremely helpful thread, and the graphic representation of UCLA admit rates (if accurate) is brilliant.</p>
<p>I love statistics and am impressed with the data you’ve compiled.</p>
<p>However, I noticed two things that I think you should add to try to make your histograph more accurate.</p>
<p>First, calculate the % margin of error. This will provide a more accurate GPA range. I believe you said 3.4-3.6 had the highest admit rate in the balanced distribution, but margin of error could make that range more precise.</p>
<p>Second, and more importantly, I think it would be fantastic if you could calculate and create a histograph that displays the GPA’s of rejected applicants to UCLA. This unfortunately will probably have a similar distribution. If it’s possible to collate the data and graphically represent it again, that would be really helpful.</p>
<p>“68% of the average GPA’s for transfer students admitted to Letters and science were below 3.68. In my opinion, you’re best bet (if you are struggling) is to set a goal between 3.4 and 3.59 because this will greatly increase your chances of acceptence.”</p>
<p>By using common sense, I was able to note that the MAJORITY of the applicants had GPA’s around 3.4-3.6 and that there were fewer students with a 3.8-4.0 GPA’s.
Therefore, I concluded that the large frequency of 3.4-3.6 GPA admits was due to a higher number of 3.4-3.6 GPA applicants.</p>
<p>The chance of being admitted according to GPA will probably look like:
30-40% for 3.5-3.6 GPA applicants.
70% for 3.8-4.0 applicants.</p>
<p>However, PLEASE go ahead and aim for a 3.4 GPA, it will make other students’ and my life ALOT easier :)</p>
<p>Okay, there is not a 70% chance of anyone getting in with 3.8 and above. You used blank logic. I never said anything about people getting in, I said that the majority of applicants admitted had a GPA in a certain range. So would it be beneficial to aim higher? YES obviously, but for struggling students (you know the ones with lower GPA’s) they can set a goal to be IN the group of students that were most accepted. Think of it this way, just because more people had GPAs in a certain range, this does not mean that they had a higher chance of getting in, it just means that more people got in with those GPA’s. Don’t make a claim that “less people had 3.8-4.0’s” when you have no data to back it up. How do you know the number of people with 4.0’s that applied? Can you show me? Why take the time to criticize something that I worked hours on to help struggling students, when you have no raw data to prove any argument? You can interpret this graph and the data any way you want, I just put it out there. </p>
<p>Secondly, yes a graph of rejected stats would help because you would get an idea of the GPA range that was least likely to get in. Let me collect enough data and do the calculations in SPSS (my trusty stats program)</p>
<p>Let me guess. You just finished a statistics class and now you think you’re some kind of whiz kid? Oh god…</p>
<p>Assuming your data is accurate, you claim</p>
<p>
You then say
68% of the average GPA? What does that mean? You are incorrectly using the word average. Did you mean to say that 68% of the admits to L&S had a GPA below 3.68???</p>
<p>Because that’s false. You should have paid better attention in class.</p>
<p>If the average GPA is 3.51 and the std is .169, then the GPA of students who are +1 standard deviation away from the mean is 3.679. Assuming a standard normal approximation, this means that .84134 (or 84.134%) of the data is contained up to that point. **That means that 84.134% of the students had a GPA of 3.68 or lower. **The 68% BS you “calculated” comes from poor application of empirical rule. </p>
<p>Empirical rule approximates that in a normal distribution, 68% of the data lies between one standard deviation. That would be the mean plus or minus one std. Therefore, that means that 68% of admitted students had a GPA between 3.51 - .169 and 3.51 + 1.69. Or in other words, 68% were between 3.341 and 3.679.</p>
<p>The fact that you “calculated” this totally wrong makes me very skeptical about your data and your other “calculations.” Instead of trying to act smart on teh interwebs, you should go re-read your book or maybe retake your class.</p>
<p>Honestly people, stop wasting your time trying to guesstimate your chances and focus on your studies. Want to increase your “chance” of getting in? Go study, volunteer, join a club, etc.</p>
<p>I remember how stressful this period can be, but try not waste too much time on BS like this. Best of luck to you all.</p>
<p>68% of the average means the average of the average. These are not actual GPA’s, they are a total of 90+ average GPA’s. Each of which is an average itself. Get it. It wont matter because you actually proved my point. Tell me how “68% were between 3.341 and 3.679” is different from “68% of the average GPA’s for transfer students admitted to Letters and science were below 3.68”…lol. I dont see a difference. I said 3.68, you said 3.679? Okay, great job finding the number I rounded up from moron. My statement is an approx. it’s off the cuff (as I said in the original post) And you can get the data from the UCLA.edu website itself. Yes I collected every single GPA from the 2009 chart.</p>
<p>Each of the 90 plus GPA’s that I averaged are averages themsevles. Don’t blame me for your misinterpretations. When I said “average” I meant that 68% of the average GPA’s (meaning the GPA’s themselves since they are all averages) were below 3.68. Am I speaking clearly? What don’t you get? If you don’t understand the graph or the data, why comment? Why comment at all if this does not apply to you or help you? This thread is for people who wish to know. I said about a thousand times to “take this with a grain of salt” as anyone should.</p>
<p>Oh, and nice link to Wikipedia. I’m sure all self respecting stats majors put a lot of faith into wikipedia. Too bad academics don’t share in this pious belief.</p>
<p>PS. Take an English class while you’re at UCLA.</p>
<p>I can’t believe you had the audacity to call this “quantitative research.” It sickens me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because according to your false data, 84.134% had a GPA of 3.68 or below. That would also mean 68% had a GPA between 3.341 and 3.679. That is not the same as 68% had less than a 3.68. This is significantly greater than 68%; thus making your claims even more outlandish. Also, the 25-75th percentile GPA range for Berkeley in Fall 2008 was 3.72-3.76. I highly doubt UCLA has such a monstrous difference.</p>
<p>Additionally, you calculated an unweighted average GPA? Are you kidding me man? So that means the average GPA of the 2 accepted undeclared social science majors (3.24) is weighted the same as the average GPA of the 82 accepted Comm majors (3.95). Good god… </p>
<p>What I understand is you know little to virtually nothing of what you are talking about. You are giving false information to people and I believe that is wrong. Consequently, the fact that you’re not willing to admit your blunder compels me to warn others.</p>
<p>PS: The Z table listed on wiki for the normal distribution is accurate. Any “self respecting stats major” will confirm that. The fact that the image was hosted on Wikipedia has nothing to do with its statistical accuracy. I implore any else who is enrolled in a stats class (or knows some basic stats) to look up a z-table themselves. I think it’s funny how you imply my entire post was false when I simply linked to a wiki page. The Z-table is accurate, my English is fine, and you making petty false claims because you are full of BS.</p>
<p>Hate to double post, but you’ll probably state my entire post is wrong due to one meaningless grammatical error.
The Z-table is accurate, my English is fine, and you are making petty false claims because you are full of BS.</p>
<p>There. I’ve wasted enough time on you.</p>
<p>EDIT: I would really like to emphasize again that these “calculations” are COMPLETELY MISLEADING. If you would like accurate and trustworthy admission statistics about UCLA I recommend looking at UCLA’s official transfer profile page.</p>
<p>@ Vintij- I think we all appreciate your effort. However, I do believe your numbers are a bit misleading. Especially because you are using unweighted averages. Although Supa could probably be a bit more tactful in his approach, he is doing a service by alerting others to the flaws in the data. </p>
<p>But, as you said yourself, everyone should shoot for the highest GPA attainable and not base their effort in class on on the averages, of the averages, of the unweighted averages, of the averages…std deviation…</p>
<p>Right. Nor should they take any advice (especially numerical data) without scepticism. My problem was with the agressive and slanderous critical language used against my work and my opinions. (Ex. “trying to sound smart on interweb”) though this statement alone is questionable and almost unreadable, it is still a crack at my motives for starting this thread in the first place. If I was trying to sound smart or wanting people believe my every word I would not have put disclaimer after disclaimer on every one of my posts with “take this with a grain of salt.” I accept the valid criticism but I resent the manner and language in which it was executed. An argument from the ethos, or authority, prespective was not my intention. However it was my opponents intention from the get go…I simply pointed out that he should use a more respected website than Wikipedia to argue from that prespective.</p>
<p>Vintij’s post is only to help others with their studies and expectations toward being accepted to UCLA. I found the information he provided to be extremely helpful, and I admire his willingness to provide a sample admitted average GPA for transfer students. In no way did I find his information “highly misleading” or false, rather I found it to be a fairly accurate assessment of what to expect during March. Regardless of whether his wording was completely accurate, I still understood his point, and the histogram he made was impressive. The compiled data, one can merely surmise through logic, is roughly accurate. As he says, “Take it with a grain of salt.” </p>
<p>Helping others during this stressful time is crucial, and I believe that is all he was trying to do. If you disagree with the data, that is your belief, and nobody is trying to change what you believe. However, disputing what he said and disparaging his work I can see is purely for your own enjoyment. He’s trying to help others, while (Supa) you are being selfish.</p>
<p>Anyways, Vintij, that graph of GPA’s of rejected students would still be really helpful as long as you’re still willing to help out there.</p>
<p>If you believe is data is “roughly accurate” you are EXTREMELY misinformed. You obviously are not majoring in any of the natural or applied sciences. </p>
<p>Regardless of his intentions, he is giving false information that could HURT people. Should we allow people who failed their exams still become doctors because of their “willingness to help?” I don’t think so.</p>
<p>EDIT: And don’t give me this “take it with a grain of salt” BS. Putting a disclaimer doesn’t mitigate posting false information.</p>
<p>See that is where you are wrong Supra. The information I got is from the UCLA website buddy. I looked at every single average GPA in the College of Letters and science majors and compiled the histogram with those accurate numbers. So if the information is false, then complain to the department of undergraduate studies at UCLA, because that is where the numbers came from. The graph is 100% accurate, my statements are opinions so they can never be 100% accurate but the graph itself is accurate I can assure you. If you dont believe me then check the numbers for yourself at this link. </p>
![http://i3.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/y96/vintijborn/OUTPUT0.jpg[/IMG]](http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/vintijborn/OUTPUT0.jpg%5B/IMG%5D){kind=link}
![http://controls.engin.umich.edu/wiki/index.php/Image:Standard_normal_table.JPG[/url]](http://controls.engin.umich.edu/wiki/index.php/Image:Standard_normal_table.JPG%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
![http://business.statistics.sweb.cz/normal01.jpg[/url]](http://business.statistics.sweb.cz/normal01.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
![http://www.magniel.com/alex/z_positive.gif[/url]](http://www.magniel.com/alex/z_positive.gif%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
