<p>Don't you guys think its unfair the way UCLA do their accepting and rejecting. They have four people who has to UNANIMOUSLY agree an acceptance. If on person tihnks no, then the applicant is rejected. That is totally unfair. WHat if one admission officer has something against a ethnicity and says no. Totally unfair in my opinion.</p>
<p>I don't think so. They get so many applicants, it's just not possible for them to do a majority rules deal. And I thought race couldn't be a factor for the UC's?</p>
<p>Onfire467: I agree that this may seem unfair, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that an admissions officer will have a bias. Considering the diverse population at UCLA, it wouldn't appear that any adcoms at UCLA are 'racist.' After all, UCLA receives the most applications in the country (nearly 45,000) as you probably know and UCLA clearly cannot accept all those applicants. So it's only fair that applicants go through such a tough process for acceptance.</p>
<p>still...UNANIMOUS?!! oh please, i believe that is the cheapest thing of all time. I bet Stanford doesnt do that. Berkely probably doesnt even do that. LIke lets say this way..3 of the 4 officers say yes..but then BAM! one of the officers see a 4.0 UC GPA, a lil lower than the average acceptance and says no...dats not fair. At least 3 out of 4 is pretty fair</p>
<p>they have to have a way to do it- that could let in hundreds, or even thousands more acceptees.</p>
<p>the unanimous selection process works as it gets the amount of students necessary. If it was 3 out of 4, then there would obviously be way too many acceptances.</p>
<p>unanimous though...ridiculous..so basically to get accepted..u have to be perfect i see</p>
<p>it doesn't mean being perfect, it means being what they want. Trust me, if they wanted a class of all perfect people, they could have it. Take harvie for example. Why don't all the 1600s, 3 800s, 4.0uw, a bazillion passionate activities, a million signifigant award people get in? Obviously there's more to it than being perfect.</p>
<p>Onfire, UCLA is already crowded as is. There are plenty of people who attend who are hardly "perfect." What you're recommending is that UCLA opens the floodgates.</p>
<p>UCLA is only being fair. If you're so worried that some random fourth person won't like your application-- maybe you're right. Look into another, more lenient, school that will accept you and your imperfections.</p>
<p>lol --------------------</p>
<p>wait was IVY LEaguer tryign to be funny? My brother applied there smart one. I just thought it was unfair when i heard about it.</p>
<p>How exactly is it unfair? Your little "what if" scenarios don't really make it unfair. To correct the previous number, UCLA receives an average of almost 55,000 applications a year (a little less this year, since applications have been going down) - do you honestly think that another system would be better?</p>