<p>ruchki: </p>
<p>Did you apply to 3 or more other UCs? If so, then what i said applies to you. if not, then it doesn’t.</p>
<p>Okay, this is an “of course I did”</p>
<p>SD, Cal, and LA are generally NOT safeties for any student (well, not LA or Cal). So obviously I’m going to apply to Davis. Also, I applied to different UCs under different programs - and I took them all seriously.</p>
<p>And even though I did, your “gladness” that other people didn’t get in is just wrong.</p>
<p>though there will always be those exceptions that everyone hates, i have a feeling that this year ucla was heading for a more holistic approach, closer to the approach of many private schools, and this may be at the disadvantage of 2300+ scorers IF they forsaked ec’s for those scores/grades, again not all 2300+ scorers are like this, its just that i saw many posts where people were like “2310, 4.9 GPA, rejected”. okay, what does this even mean? again, take cc with a pinch of salt</p>
<p>maybe ucla doesn’t like people who try too hard, lol.</p>
<p>wait, ruchki, i know at cal if you were even invited for regents, it meant you were in, so how can regents scholars be rejected at UCLA?</p>
<p>everything’s inside out, upside down, a l’enverse</p>
<p>hahah to be honest, I have no idea. The guy was shocked and we all thought he was lying until we saw the webpage. But I don’t know, LA was really weird this year. Out of the top 20 in my class, 4 got in and the next sixteen got rejected. I honestly felt this had to do with performing arts, considering almost everyone who got in (a few exceptions here and there) were in some sort of band, play, etc.</p>
<p>Also, last year, kids got rejected from LA that got into harvard. So does the rejection mean much? Nah - I got regents everywhere else EXCEPT Cal and La. So yes…</p>
<p>oh - after that top 20, the next like twenty kids got in.</p>
<p>Sounds like Tufts Syndrome but at D’s high school, UCLA accept the val with 2400 SAT. She was deferred from Stanford.</p>
<p>What the heck is “Tufts’ syndrome”? Sounds like some horrible neurological disorder.</p>
<p><em>I know what Tufts is</em></p>
<p>From what I’ve heard, Tufts’ syndrome originated from the fact that Tufts University rejects highly competitive students because they think they would not go to Tufts (ie. go to a “better” school than Tufts, like any of the Ivy league schools, etc.). The syndrome “occurs” when other universities reject highly qualified applicants.</p>
<p>IHaveAHobbie: UCBChemEGrad was talking about how he knew what Tufts Syndrome was, but was poking fun at the name xD</p>
<p>The theory that UCLA rejects students because they’re overqualified and would thus matriculate to a better school makes some sense. However, watered down admission conspiracy theories aside, it probably makes makes more sense for a university to accept the applicants they believe are most qualified to “make their school better.”</p>
<p>And if admission/matriculation rates for high and middle stat applicants show consistent trends (i think someone previously posted the rates), then wouldn’t UCLA be able to offer admissions based on those proportions? They wouldn’t need to reject high stat students for fear that their matriculation rates would be too low and unpredictable. </p>
<p>I think the most likely reason that UCLA rejected some qualified students this year had more to do with 1. they received a record number of applications this year, 2. they’re over-enrolled atm 3. budget cuts and 4. the stats of the average applicant is increasing as well. Read here: <a href=“http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2008/jan/30/record-numbers-apply-uc/[/url]”>http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2008/jan/30/record-numbers-apply-uc/</a></p>
<p>Also, UCLA I think also focuses a bit more on extracurriculars and personal essays, so a sparkly academic record doesn’t neccessarily guarantee admission. But I agree with Sam Lee about UCLA admissions being fairly predictable. Most of the people I know who were accepted to UCLA had better academic and extracurricular records than those who were rejected.</p>