<p>UCSC
UC Davis
UCSD</p>
<p>well, I guess I'll never know if I would have been accepted to WashU(stL) because I didn't opt to stay on their waitlist. Well, I considered their school to be a "fit" school for me when I applying, so I was sort of miffed when they waitlisted me, haha. And I didn't care for it that much to begin with. Now, w/ Princeton and Columbia, I consider it a compliment just to have made the waitlist for those schools.</p>
<p>Haha I have the same 'problem' with wustl. They waitlisted everybody it seems, including our MIT acceptee and a HPME acceptee. Odd ones they are, no?</p>
<p>That's so they can get higher in the USNews rankings. They should be the #1 ranked school in Marketing if they aren't already. WU = overrated.</p>
<p>SDSU - I really like the school, but it was somewhat of a safety for me, and it wasn't tough turning it down.
UCSB (Honors) - I LOVE this school, but the only tough thing for me was turning down the beautiful campus/city.
USC- It was tough to turn down SC. I really like the school, my dad is an alum, a bunch of family friends are either trustees or involved in the administration, most of my friends and classmates are going there--and the Dean of Annenberg called me up, then invited me to meet with him personally and said my application really impressed him. He already made me feel like part of a family LoL before I even said if I was going or not. (that tactic of their's!) </p>
<p>But in the end I'm super happy and confident with my decision to go to UCLA and hey it's 25,000 dollars cheaper!!!</p>
<p>pixiedanzer what kind of EC's did you have, what do you think it was that you impressed the Dean of Annenberg?</p>
<p>I think it was my essays that impressed him. The interests I expressed are specifically related to his area of expertise: the impact of media communications on politics/international relations. Along with being the Dean, he's a professor of Political Communication and has written books about it too.</p>
<p>Why was everyone offered so much money? I wasn't offered any. My grades and test scores seem to match up pretty well. 1400, 4.2, Rank 2 out of 600. Essays looked good. 2 varsity sports. I think the fact that my parents EFC is around $40K has something to do with it. Maybe applying undeclared also has an impact because it doesn't show a passion for a particular subject. I know some people that had similar statisitics (not as good) but were offered both need and merit aid. Oh well, very happy to be going to UCLA. My next choice would have been UCSB, rather than UCSD or UCB. It was interesting how some people that were rejected from UCLA yet accepted to CAL. CAL has very high standards but they make more exceptions. It seems UCSD relies more on grades and scores than any other UC so unless you meet their minimum requirement you don't get in even if you have some compelling personal attributes. This whole process was a little draining but now it feels good to know that the hard work and stress was worth it.</p>
<p>theCollegeGame,</p>
<p>I think it was your folk's EFC that largely did you in for need-based.</p>
<p>for someone who's family EFC stood no chance even against private school standards, getting UCLA regents scholarship was a life(money)saver for me. Yay for merit-based scholarships.</p>
<p>Major: Mechanical Engineering</p>
<p>-USC
-Purdue
-UC Davis</p>
<p>Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would prefer going to Cal over UCLA unless LA is their hometown. Cal is academically better than UCLA and school life at UCB isn't that bad either. I was pretty devastated when I was rejected by Cal and I wouldn't have thought twice about going there if they had accepted me.</p>
<p>thisguy,</p>
<p>The argument that Cal is "academically" better than UCLA is moot. It's better in several areas of research and prestige, but to say that you'll get a better education there is difficult to argue.</p>
<p>I think the fact that my parents EFC is around $40K has something to do with it.</p>
<p>yep, thats generally a problem haha. my EFC was up there around $40K, too. But hey look at it this way - if we went to private schools, we wouldn't get any money either. So at least UCLA is a sweet deal lol.</p>
<p>cal is much better than UCLA for engineering, but for the rest its a close call and i think UCLA is a bit better because it feels more lively.
Thats what I think.</p>
<p>UCLAri, Cal's undergraduate engineering program is widely regarded as one of the best in the world. Though it may be difficult to say whether you'll recieve a better education at either UCLA or Berkeley, its more likeley that Cal is a better option. And since I plan to major in mechanical engineering, thats all I'm concerned with.</p>
<p>thisguy,</p>
<p>In your case, yes, Cal is probably the better option. However, it's hard (I think) to argue that people come out of UCLA "less educated." Maybe, I just think it's truly and honestly moot.</p>
<p>Berkeley
USC- Film, $4,000
Chapman- Film, $21,000
Brown
Irvine- Regents $9,000
UC Merced</p>
<p>And I picked UCLA and the Regents Scholarship!</p>
<p>turned down:</p>
<p>berkeley (alumni schlorship)
uci (a lot of stuff....i think that i would have paid like 3000 out of pocket)
boston college </p>
<p>but ucla rocks!</p>
<p>Turned down:
UCSD ($8000)
UC-Davis ($4400)
Cal-Poly: SLO ($3400)</p>
<p>UCLA gave me $11450 :) easiest decision of my life</p>
<p>Why did UCLA give you so much money. Was it need based? I have looked up peoples grades, SAT scores and class rank when available. I see a lot of people who claim they were offered all this money and I was offered none. Who do you have to know to get money? Other than my SAT's (1400) I don't know what I could have done with 4.3/4.4 and class rank of 2 out of 600. Maybe I didn't kiss enough ass in my essays.</p>