<p>jyancy: a friend from work got into UCI with a 2.7 (criminology major). She was a tranfer student, and was part of some program that guarantees admission.</p>
<p>I dont think that there is any racism at ucla</p>
<p>I meant what Icarus said...it just didnt come out the same way. </p>
<p>malagamba2k: That's because the 2.8 policy is for incoming high school students.</p>
<p>sempitern555: Ideally, there shouldn't be (also illegal).</p>
<p>i guess i'll join the rejects. I am international
1400 SAT I
630 Bio, 700 Writing and 780IIc
4.0 GPA
rank top 1%/340 students
rejected!</p>
<p>Eh I looked into this a little deeper and found that the students that got in had some EC that they really stuck to and became awesome at, which is probably what LA was looking for either in that area, or just the fact that they stayed with it, so bleh. I just wish I knew what they based their admissions on</p>
<p>jyancy: that's exactly what I'm talking about. how can you possibly judge someone with low stats who went undeclared and got into UCLA with someone with high stats who was rejected from UCLA?? If there was more competition in the major then the university may only take a certain number of students in. Judging whether someone should go into UCLA just because of their stats is not enough. Mayb there's something to do with majors. If you could tell me what % of people actually chose undeclared then that might actually help.</p>
<p>First of all i'm glad they didn't let in the first person who made this post.. someone who characterizes another person as "FOB" should not be let in, because you forget personality and maturity as an important part of getting anywhere in life. </p>
<p>Quite frankly folks, after I got rejected by MIT, I realized that I'm not such hot stuff.. and I hope you guys realized that too. Try checking out your stats in the Duke or MIT forums, you are small fish in a big big big sea... Sorry... in a 42000 applicant pool, with room for 4,300... thats roughly a 1 out of 10 chance of getting in. Quite frankly, the state of California has plenty of students that can destroy high 1300 stats and a 3.8 uw gpa. Wat does that mean anyway? the second ranked kid at my school is a 4.5 wgpa with a 1070 sat. hahaha.. and he got UCLA.. so the whole story is never just some dumb numbers. Because... he's one of the most persuausive and rational guys around campus.</p>
<p>And its quite ironic... everyone thinks they got great essay.. yet no one ever posts.. it .. so i'll start. </p>
<p>if essays really matter that much then i shouldn't have gotten in, because it truly did not exemplify the full potential of my writing::</p>
<h2>{SHAME ON YOU IF YOU PLAGARIZE MY WORK!}</h2>
<p>I once thought that there was a limit to what I
needed to learn, to what I needed to achieve. I
always thought I would grow up to be a doctor or
a lawyer and that would be the end of the story.
After thirteen years of school and exploring all
the opportunities laid out before me, there is
still not enough time to digest all of the
knowledge and wisdom that Ive encountered. I
often regret not being able to take every class,
join every club, play every sport. Even now when
I peruse the endless lists of college majors, I
cringe at the fact that I cannot complete
studies in all of them, each seeming infinitely
interesting and essential to understand. But if
a miniscule thirteen years of schooling has
taught me anything, it can be summed up in the
words of my leadership teacher and Student
Council advisor: "Excellence is doing ten things
at one hundred percent rather than doing a
hundred things at ten percent."</p>
<p>Within the ten things I've chosen to focus my
efforts on during high school, it still never
ceases to amaze me that I've developed such a
diverse interest. In hindsight, it is surprising
that I could love and enjoy such extremely
dissimilar things like Mock Trial, water
polo, chemistry, and the Boys State leadership
conference so equally. Still, my reason for
participating in these activities remains
constant. I have always striven to excel at new
things that not only develop the wide range of
my academic interests but also as importantly,
develop my role as an individual and as a member
of a greater community. </p>
<p>In the case of Mock Trial, I opened my mind to
the world of criminal justice and the court
room. It taught me how to conduct myself in a
court environment, how to express my ideas
through abstract ideas but concise speech, and
how to work with the diversity of views that
exists in the law. More importantly, it
gave me a new appreciation of personal
responsibility - to my peers on the trial team,
to society, and to myself. Water polo, though
unrelated to Mock Trial and not an academic
pursuit, paralleled Mock Trial in the values it
taught me: cooperation with others, dedication
required for victory, and once again the
responsibility to self and the greater community.</p>
<p>Now as I near another milestone in my life, I
find it one of the most rewarding parts of my
high school experience to be able to draw from
the above experiences as well as others like
organizing a blood drive to save lives or being
a role model to young students while teaching
them about leadership. And during the California
Golden Boys State Conference I attended last
summer, I saw that there were many others like
myself who had also found a positive role in
their schools and communities to be rewarding.
These 900 young men had multi-faceted interests
and abilities, and all were passionate about
making a difference in their schools, community,
and individual lives. </p>
<p>Like these young men, I've manage to find
significance and personal meaning in the things
I've done. It is with pride that I can reflect
on my course through high school and say that I
did not enroll in a class, join a club, or take
on a leadership role just to make a grade or to
reach a standard, but instead I did them because
I hungered for knowledge, desired to help
others, and ultimately because I wanted to
satisfy a passion for achievement that went
beyond what was expected an achievement only
attainable through the dedication, the
responsibility, and the character that Ive
tried to emulate throughout my life.</p>
<hr>
<p>Response to Prompt #2, UC 2005 Application
Copyright K. Nguyen</p>
<p>btw folks.. i did get in, and my stats are as follows::
1480 SAT
750 WR / 730 M1C / 740 CHEM
1/625 - 4.00 GPA
Water polo (captain)/swimming, Student Council, Mock Trial (Top 16 teams Orange County twice), Academic Decathlon.. 1st place this year yayaya! and on and on with ECs. </p>
<p>so yea.. get over it.. different people are good for different reasons... some are just overall exceptional, some are great at one thing. and some have special experiences that have limited their potential.. but that doesn't mean their less qualified.. </p>
<p>yea.. i feel bad for friends taht didn't get in... but we all face rejections in our life.. learn and grow. wasnt easy for me to take MIT rejcetion either. but i did.</p>
<p>Q: If I am not admitted under my first choice major, will UCLA review me for my alternate major?</p>
<p>A: Within the College of Letters and Science, the major an applicant
chooses is not a factor in the review process at the freshman level.
UCLA does not normally consider the alternate choices of applicants who applied to majors in the other schools (Engineering, Arts, etc.).</p>
<p>Westow: What "exactly are you talking about"??</p>
<p>If anything, steaky has already given a response to the purpose of this thread:</p>
<p>
[quote]
From steaky:
Shouldn't academics be the main factor in an application? I know there are some situations that seem totally crazy and unfair but im sure that there are definitely very little compared to teh total admitted/rejected. it's those ones that find it unfair or whatever that go on to this site to post. the avg number of admitted/rejected don't go on this site. We'll see the stats next year. Don't be surprised that it all falls into place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>jyancy: first of all, i dont think u understand my reasoning. the UCLA answer simply says that the major u choose is not a factor. it doesnt say that SPACE is not a factor. quite simply, its a vague answer which may not be correct in the end anyways. unless u work for UCLA admissions or something I dont think u know how UCs work either. </p>
<p>and second, jyancy, not everyone applied to College of Letter and Science. I applied in the engineering school and im sure many here did as well. why are u assuming that everyone here who got rejected/accepted applied to the College of Letter and Science? since u seem to be so keen on evidence, why dont we analyze the answer UCLA gave us. it only says that "within the college of letters and science" are majors not considered a factor. so it MIGHT be that each major in a certain school (Engineering, Arts, etc) DO have a specific standard. which all goes back to what im saying: that majors might affect admissions.</p>
<p>nocreativity- your sucky essay was much better than your standards suggest. My essays were limited to the word count, and I had to cut out about 100 words for each essay. I would post, but your one essay far outshines all of mine.</p>
<p>JYANCY
Oops. 4.4 Weighted. Sorry, my mistake.</p>
<p>indeed.. twas sucky. but don't be so modest yourself littleol'me.. i'm just trying to show that not any one aspect of a person can guarantee decision.. it just happens when u get the right combo. so people should stop trying extrapolate.. like quirky lil mit kids :-p</p>
<p>Formulating theories (no matter how far-fetched some may be) and second-guessing is certainly understandable, especially for the rejects.
It's undeniable that a lot of fantastic students were not admitted, and certainly it is in the nature of any great mind to wonder why, why, whyyyyyy....
Plus, Being rejected hurts. Virtually anyone can understand that.
Also, without all the "extrapolaters" we wouldn't have much of a discussion going here now would we?
I wish I could hug everyone of you rejects.
Bless you all!
And I feel obliged to add: Congratulations to those who were accepted! It's no small feat. Best of Luck in LA.</p>
<p>NoCreativity: i resent your comment by me calling them a FOB I am some sort of bad person, i kind of take that stuff personally, pretty much all of my friends are asian FOBs, I am as asian as they come, I do not use FOB as a degrading term at all just to say that she is not from USA, which might help/hurt her and that her english is significantly lower than her math, which since in asia they put heavy emphasis on that sorta makes sense</p>
<p>But on a lighter note 15 days before UCB, and unknown amount of days before UCSD...YAY</p>
<p>Westow: Like I said earlier:
[quote]
Admissions are not based on your declared major for any of the UCs unless you choose a specialized major, like engineering, Theater, or Music.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course choosing a specialized major ^ will affect your chances. There's no doubt that specialized majors will affect your chances. It says so on the description on the application that choosing those types of majors will put you through a separate, more rigorous process. </p>
<p>You said that major does play a role. I said that majors outside the specialized major does not play a role (the vast majority of applicants apply to a L&S major). UCLA says that major does not play a role outside of the specialized majors.</p>
<p>being asian doesn't give you the right to call people fobs. be insulted all you like. call people who come from asia with a difficulty with english: asian immigrants..or better yet, low english proficiency asian immigrants.. Not FRESH OFF THE BOAT. nowhere in those four words does it say that the person does not speak fluent english.. only a stereotype about asian immigrants and their method of arriving in this nation.. which is not true considering i travelled by air. Anyhow, i'm sure no hispanic immigrant.. regardless of how new to the country they are... likes being called a wetback. and the list goes on and on with the different groups in america. so if you are gonna pull a politically correct defense on me.. really think about it, before you try coming back with such an ignorant "i'm insulted.. let me give u some bs argument to try to save face."</p>
<p>btw slippy, i concur (haha catch me if you can..). We should wonder why we get in or not, but it gets really stupid and pointless when we start comparing the most minute of statistics to consider who got in and out. we must put into perspective that... everyone gets rejected sooner or later.. at one thing or another. what u got in and took forgranted maybe be what someone else dreams about getting into.. just like the way u are griping about UCLA. and i'm using "YOU" in a very "GENERAL WAY" .. not directed at slippy.</p>
<p>yeah. so i think some people here are complaining that they didnt get in even though they gots 1460 SAT and etc.. they mighta chosen a specialized major. who knows. in the end i dun think u can simply judge whether someone deserves to get into ucla czu theres TOO many factors to consider...</p>
<p>obviously...if you didnt get in and you think you should've...think again! something doesnt fit. and if you think you got rejected because you're overqualified...you're wrong. overqualified people get regents scholarships.</p>