<p>especially since its so easy to tack a UCLA app onto your berkeley app, i can see how they might not take some of the very qualified applicants seriously. I just checked the box on the application and never really showed ANY interest in the school or made any kind of effort i guess. I thought UCLA was a school i could get into without too much trouble (although out of state is competitive), because i had gotten into georgetown which is generally considered to be more selective..</p>
<p>it was lower on my list than georgetown anyways, i was hardly crushed</p>
<p>@salamander, thank you that is exactly what I am talking about.</p>
<p>@CAkid, you are right that the matriculation rate of certain types of students does not change, and that is the point. So, when UCLA accepts only 500 “top-notch” students, who are unlikely to go to UCLA anyways, they open up 500 spots for kids who ARE more likely to attend. UCLA enacts this policy in order to keep the class size constant year by year. If they did the admissions process soley off of scores and “qualifications”, the matriculation rate would plummet, and UCLA would be in a quite a situation.</p>
<p>Sam Lee nailed it, I think, with a 91% admit rate for students above 4.2 and 700+ there clearly isn’t Tufts Syndrome.</p>
<p>A lot of kids with scores like that would NOT pass up UCLA, it’s the dream school of at least half our senior class. UCLA must know that, to some extent. Sure, the yield rate isn’t as high as the Ivies, but with the wealth of applicants and a ~45% yield rate all the same, there’s quite a few great kids who plan on attending.</p>
<p>I would imagine that what CAkid said is fairly true, </p>
<p>“I would think that they would admit students who are a good fit for the school, regardless of the thought of whether or not the people will actually enroll. Sometimes the students with the perfect SAY and high GPA come off as people who would not add anything to the University. UCLA probably doesn’t only want a bunch of kids who do nothing but study.”</p>
<p>Okay, I stand corrected. If they admit less “high stats” people, and more “lower stats” their yield % will go up.</p>
<p>But how can this be the goal of UCLA? Colleges know about how many of the students they accept will actually enroll based on past years and studies. Is it important goal of colleges to improve this yield %? They already allow for this approximate yield % by accepting more than they can possibly enroll. </p>
<p>Am I missing something? If I were UCLA (granted, I’m not), I wouldn’t presume to deny students based on the thinking “Oh, they’re too smart to go to UCLA.”</p>
<p>Maybe they looked beyond the numbers and admitted kids who they felt would make a unique and beneficial contribution to their university, even if they didn’t have perfect GPAs and SAT scores.</p>
<p>@bomgeedad: That is a good theory, but that fact is, these schools don’t always reject high stat students, that would be completely silly. However, they will reject MORE high stat students because of the reasons you already mentioned. Actually, I think that the lower UC schools (UCI, UCSB, and even UCSD) will accept just as many high stat students because they want whomever they can get. However, UCLA has 56,000 applications and a slightly different story. </p>
<p>Your idea states that the UC’s except no high stat students, my theory states that they will accept a lower percentage than the “more-fitting” stat students. </p>
<p>And, as someone else said. Another theory is that some of these high stat students who got denied were just plain boring. So, UCLA wouldn’t want them. I think in the college admissions world, numbers can only go so far. That works in a good and a bad way.</p>
<p>@Sam Lee, thanks for the site, a lot of great info. </p>
<p>I apologize. You were right, if this data is real, which I assume it is. The only counter argument I have is that it is 2008 and things might have changed in the admissions policies. If things have changed a lot, then a majority of these rejected students would be out of state.</p>
<p>um okay as an In-state student w/ 2200 + and 4.2 + gpa w/ leaderships and a bunch of e.c.s and plus w/ elc…i got rejected from ucla…i swear to god, ucla is doing tufts thing.</p>
<p>To look at what the numbers are like for OOS, change #3 to California residents instead of “All students” and then back-calculate the numbers for California (all students-Californians). Anyway, I just ran the table again and the admit rate for California residents are 78% and 92%–virtually identical to the numbers for all students (post #32). So OOS has similar results.</p>
<p>What you saw is nothing new; people said that in 2006 also. Some people just happened to know quite a few rejects with high stats and then they started to think (naturally) the admission was crazy and random. But as statsfinder shows, the admission is not random at all. I doubt things have changed much since 2006.</p>
<p>dominus, UCLA was my first 4-year college choice. I had a 2370, a 4.0+ (significantly higher) GPA, several awards for volunteering, a book award, cum laude society, national merit, and was nationally ranked for latin. If you think I just " sit back and expect to get an easy admission" you are sadly, sadly mistake. In fact, most kids I know DON’T do that. Feeling glad that other people get rejected is sick and wrong.</p>
<p>I personally think if you didn’t have acting/music/dance/the general performing arts, you had almost no chance of getting in this year. I heard UCLA is trying to “personalize” their apps instead of just number crunching. They rejected kids who they offered regents to this year.</p>
<p>Maybe they do have Tufts Syndrome; that explains that 9%. But on the other hand, it’s a small %. Nothing is 100% certain of course. But at peer privates, the admit rate was nowhere near 91% for people with just 2100+ and 4.2+ GPA. Maybe this year is more wacky. Time will tell when they put the data into their StatsFinder.</p>