<p>lol i think Hollistic admissions main goal was not only to get more well rounded applicants but to also shoo in some more URM's. </p>
<p>but besides that, i think hollistic admissions really helps out ppl who have a low sat score high gpa, high sat low gpa because it allows for you to impress admission officers in different areas that can make up for the area ur weak in. If you weak in multiple areas (i.e. gpa and sat) though, hollistic admissions wont be a saving grace</p>
<p>It's a nice thought, Flong, and I wish it were true, but I'm not getting my hopes up. We could debate the process, but you still get some clunker reader who had bad eggs for breakfast, or two of them who ate some bad sushi at lunch, and it wouldn't matter if you'd invented a cure for cancer. Since there is so many qualified applicants, it ends up being a beauty contest, I think. I figure if I really want to go to UCLA and I don't get in, I can either not go and instead go to one of the colleges I've been accepted in (most of which I would really enjoy) or do the 2 year thing at CC and transfer in. It doesn't matter where you start out, after all, it's where you graduate.</p>
<p>I still think UCs base mostly on scores, considering they don't accept teacher recommendations or interviews. Kind of hard to get a holistic view if you don't get second opinions from teachers or interviewers.</p>