<p>So, I got into UC Irvine, UC Santa Cruz, and UC Davis... But I didn't get into Santa Barbara. Does anyone else find that a bit weird?
It's not like I was majorly counting on going there or anything, it's just that the rejection seems a bit out of place compared to all the admissions I got.
Can anyone attempt explaining?</p>
<p>Well, keep in mind that UCSB has been named the #1 party school by Playboy Magazine. UCSB wants to erase this image by becoming the next UCLA, thus they are attempting to get more harder on admissions year by year.</p>
<p>Furthermore, don't let it disappoint you. I have heard of many cases of students being rejected by UCSB but yet admitted to UCLA or UCB. It very much depends on who was your application reviewer at the time.</p>
<p>um that's not very random at all.</p>
<p>sb has the lowest acceptance rate out of all three.</p>
<p>irvine and davis both have around a 60% acceptance rate based on 2006 admissions. santa cruz is probably even higher.</p>
<p>besides, maybe the admissions person just didn't like your application.</p>
<p>edit: okay just checked. santa cruz has like a 73% acceptance rate. that's really high lol.</p>
<p>I thought UCI was the most selective out of that group</p>
<p>seems random to me</p>
<p>you might want to do a little more research on that then.</p>
<p>that's what i assumed when i was choosing schools too. then i found out santa barbara was a little more selective so i chose to apply there over irvine.</p>
<p>and honestly, this isn't really all that random. what's random is a girl getting into mit but not irvine. then again, there's explanations for that as well.</p>
<p>Ok I see in USNews</p>
<p>UCI acceptance rate 60 %
vs 53 % for UCSB</p>
<p>for '05</p>
<p>but UCI is more highly rated</p>
<p>Yeah, but I just thought UCI is more competitive... lol oh well, like I said, I wasn't too keen on going there anyway. I'm mainly waiting on UCSD and UCLA {the ones that take forever, its just ridiculous}... Otherwise, it's Irvine for me.</p>
<p>I've heard that SB's lower acceptance rate is because unlike the other UC's they aren't trying to vigorously increase the size of their student body, so it's a little artificial.</p>
<p>who knows. either way, all those uc's are a bit different so maybe you just weren't what sb was looking for? i don't mean that in a mean way i mean. it's just how every college always wants to find students they think will fit their school and yada yada. okay i'm just going to stop lol. i don't know if i make sense.</p>
<p>i hate march :(</p>
<p>so much stresssss.</p>
<p>oh and even if it is artificial, the result is the same isn't it? they're still accepting less people right? but that's still what you heard and not what you know :)</p>
<p>Admissions do seem random. Two years ago I got into UCSC, UCD, UCSB, UCSD, and UCB but not UCI. I guess they look for slightly different things at each campus.</p>
<p>SB gets more applications but from overall less qualified students. They also take fewer students than UCD and UCI (smaller capacity) so don't use those questionable statistics to choose between these three equal schools. Visit them they each have totally different vibes.
UCI quiet academic enviro, not a party school, large commuter population, suburban location, need a car
UCSB beach town, party school 24/7, sorority and frats are there, but not big, by the beach, don't need a car
UCD work hard/play hard, very sports oriented, sorority and frats are big, davis is a college town, don't need a car</p>
<p>no. doesnt really seem random to me. UCSB and UCI have the lowest admission rate out of those u applied. so if u got rejected from UCSB u were prob lucky to get into UCI.</p>
<p>Voice of reason-I agree with you, very well put.</p>
<p>I'd be surprised if UCSB actually got a lower quality of applicants compared to Irvine and Davis considering that applying for one more UC is just a matter of clicking a button and paying a little extra. Not disagreeing with you as I haven't seen the stats, but I would be surprised if it was true.</p>
<p>This was posted a while back on the UC forum, but here is your proof. These statistics are for 2007 (the kids who just applied). They are for the overall applicant pool NOT those accepted.</p>
<p>Go look at the numbers. Look at the quality of the applicants based on their statistics. </p>
<p>A-G courses
CAL 47.2
UCSD 46.8
UCLA 46.7
UCD 46.5
UCSC 46.2
UCSB 46.1
UCI 46.1</p>
<p>GPA
CAL 3.83
UCLA 3.77
UCSD 3.75
UCD 3.68
UCSB 3.65
UCI 3.65
UCSC 3.55</p>
<p>ACT scores
CAL 26
UCSD 25
UCLA 25
UCD 25
UCSB 25
UCI 24
UCSC 24</p>
<p>SAT verbal + math
CAL 1225
UCSD 1202
UCLA 1196
UCD 1172
UCSB 1163
UCI 1155
UCSC 1146</p>
<p>SAT writing
CAL 601
UCSD 589
UCLA 587
UCSB 574
UCD 573
UCSC 565
UCI 564</p>
<p>SAT overall
CAL 1826
UCSD 1791
UCLA 1783
UCD 1746
UCSB 1737
UCI 1719
UCSC 1711
Found at <a href="http://www.ucop.edu/news/studstaff.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.ucop.edu/news/studstaff.html</a></p>
<p>Very interesting...it looks like UCD has bumped UCI in all catagories.</p>
<p>UCI is ranked higher than both davis and sb, and sb is only "more selective" because they receive tons and tons of apps - far more than irvine or davis</p>
<p>UCSB cannot increase its class size, UCI can. So with increasing applications, it will be tougher than all the other schools listed.</p>
<p>correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are looking at a % of those who are admitted out of the total that apply as a measure of selectivity, that % does not have a correlation with how many apply as stated in post # 18</p>
<p>anyhow, that % is probably not a very good measure of selectivity</p>
<p>probably better measures of "selectivity" are the average UC-GPA's and average SATs of admits at each school, if someone wants to supply that info</p>