<p>First off, I would like to say that I was accepted to UCLA as a History major and that starting from fall '14, I will be a proud Bruin. However, I have had this biting curiosity in the back of my head and I was hoping someone from CC can help me forget about this whole thing, or at least provide some information.</p>
<p>Here are my stats. (In-state student)</p>
<p>Major GPA: 4.0
Overall GPA: 4.0
IGETC certified
All major pre-reqs completed
Essay: Decent (It just hit me today that I could have asked my English professor that had a penchant for me and I could have had a stronger, more well-crafted essay)
EC's: none (This may have been my great flaw here, but from what I gathered, my academics was something that I should focus on, so I put my effort into maintaining my grades. Boy was I wrong.)</p>
<p>Now I know that admission into any selective school is a crapshoot and that I should just forget about this and move on, but I am just really curious at this point. I'm probably sounding bitter and not appreciative enough of getting to be a Bruin, but I guess I just wanted to get this off my chest and get some answers/information from people who have been or are going through the same experience I'm going through.</p>
<p>Without any ECs, you’re a a severe disadvantage. ECs help make you look like a well rounded person, and not just a student drone. Some people have the idea that ECs should be these massive philanthropic endeavors, but I think they love it when you say things like you’re in a rock band or poetry club. ECs help humanize you IMO.</p>
<p>I think you know it is the e c.'s. Colleges are looking for students that are going to contribute to the academic and social environment. Someone who plans to stay in their room studying all day will not be a competitive applicant. If you really have no extracurricular activities, then you are lucky ucla accepted you. </p>
<p>@pragmatic23 you want us to offer possible reasons for your rejection from the very little information you’ve given us. If you want a more meaningful guess, please add some more details regarding: ethnicity, income bracket, workload per term (semester/quarter), whether you came off as privileged or entitled on your essay, whether you showed genuine interest in your major, etc.</p>
<p>I am guessing that you did not show a convincing interest in your intended major. You said in your other thread that you were accepted “to UCLA as a history major and to UC Davis as an Animal Science and Management major.” How did you discuss your interest in those two majors? There is only one personal statement. It is possible that the admissions committee had access to where you applied and for what major.</p>
<p>Don’t believe the first two replies above. You made the best decision on concentrating on your grades above everything else. I was accepted to Berkeley EECS and UCLA CSE with a 4.0 GPA. I did have ECs, including a published research under my name while I was in my foreign high school. However, I personally know someone with a 4.0 GPA who was rejected by both UCLA and Berkeley, who was also a supplemental instructor for three years. It might be because he’s white AND possibly privileged (wasn’t eligible for FAFSA), but there was something about him that was … lacking. Sensibilities? Knowledge outside his specialization?</p>
<p>@sarahchun - Just because you have a differing opinion, doesn’t make us wrong. Since none of us are on the Cal admission committee, all any of us can offer are guesses. You can offer an opinion, but there’s no reason to try to discredit someone else over something that none of us can prove.</p>
<p>Or it could be just a matter of numbers. Compared to people will similar numbers, your resume did not stand out. at UCLA, it did. Be happy, don’t look back. </p>
<p>@2016Candles I can also offer the opinion that the application readers just felt rejecting OP for no reason, but that does not make the opinion reasonable. OP wants a justification for his rejection, even if it is merely speculation. From reading the stats of both accepted and rejected students, there are very few UCLA history majors with a 4.0 GPA. (I am assuming that the unreleased Berkeley stats is not far off.) Look at the stats for UCLA transfers: <a href=“http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/Adm_tr/Tr_Prof13_mjr.htm”>http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/Adm_tr/Tr_Prof13_mjr.htm</a> In general–and this is also mentioned in assist–absence of ECs is not a reason for rejection, and ECs can only help your application stand out. But having a 4.0 GPA in a major with an average admitted GPA of 3.73 (and average applicant GPA of 3.4) already makes the OP an outstanding applicant.</p>
<p>UC admissions are very clear about what they want to see in your personal statement. If I asked you why you chose your intended major, and you gave me two remotely related fields, if I were a specialist in one of those fields I would feel disrespected, as if my subject matter was a second choice. Unless of course you can convince me that you are passionate in both, and that you want to reconcile animal science and history in a new integrative approach. One non-BS way to do that is to study working animals throughout history, domestication, etc. But if you’re just choosing a random major thinking it’s an easy pass to the school, that is an insult to the practitioners of that field.</p>
<p>You had no extracurriculars? Did you leave that section blank? That’s a flaw right there. Berkeley wants you to be a well-rounded applicant and it seems like you didn’t impress them enough, unfortunately. </p>
<p>Berkeley is hella random OP. No one knows what they’re truly looking for. You’re right, it is a crapshoot and having zero EC’s likely didn’t help. </p>
<p>You were meant to be a Bruin! B-) See you next fall! </p>
<p>I feel as though that’s what people who got into Cal tend to believe. Personally, I know a few people that didn’t do anything EC related but still got into Cal. I think it’s fair to say that Cal is more “holistic” compared to UCLA but it’s harder to quantify what it is they’re looking for in an applicant. </p>
<p>Well A) UCLA and Cal both use the EXACT same system for admissions. B) The system they use leaves a lot of room for personal bias. You could get rejected because the reader didn’t view your essay in the sane manner that you wrote it, or because they didn’t think your ECs were well-rounded or because they needed to make room for a higher pay international student, etc. So C) don’t think that just because you got rejected it means you did something wrong, it could be the luck of the draw…</p>
<p>…but D) not having any ECs hurt you badly and you should be happy you even got into UCLA. Even if you have to BS and make a mountain out of a mole hill, just listing anything is better than nothing. Quantity first, quality second. </p>
<p>I’m going to have to agree with most of the other posters here.</p>
<p>Berkeley cares quite a bit about ECs, which you stated that you lacked. UCLA does holistic admissions too, but they seem to be more forgiving. Was Berkeley your #1 school?</p>
<p>In any case, congrats on getting into UCLA. </p>
<p>I did read somewhere around here that UCLA has moved into the holistic approach this year and will continue to do so. So if that’s the case, count your blessings.</p>
<p>There could of been SOME sort of EC you could of put in there. Do you have any hobbies at all?? They just want to see something in the box man lol. </p>
<p>Thanks everyone for your replies. I was sure that you all would say that I got rejected because I didn’t have any ECs and to be fair, that is probably a very reasonable response. I guess I just wanted to get this off my chest and relay some information to people who have been down the same road. </p>
<p>I’ve always thought that UCLA was more holistic and that Berkeley was looking for more studious people - hence the stereotype that Berkeley students are the intellectual, book-worm, “genius” type. But according to the posts here, I guess that I was incorrect in my assumption. </p>
<p>And don’t get me wrong, I am happy to be a Bruin, but the curiosity was just getting to me. </p>
<p>And I did have 50 hours at an animal shelter that I wrote down, but with all the great ECs that I see people participate in on these forums, I doubt they even batted an eye at those hours.</p>
<p>@sarahchun Thank you for the detailed response and for looking into my other threads to find a reason for why I was not admitted. For my personal statement, I followed the prompt and wrote only about one of my majors and how my trials/tribulations/successes molded me into an individual who could excel and bring a new perspective to the field of History. I did not write at all about Animal Science or my interest in animals so it is weird that Davis accepted me for that major.</p>
<p>“The stereotype that Berkeley students are the intellectual, book-worm, “genius” type” is mostly a by product of accepting people with high GPAs and lots of ECs (and the same goes for UCLA). The people who spend their free time partying, getting drunk and not studying tend to be a lot more social. </p>
<p>UCD doesn’t read PS for transfer admission. </p>
<p>@sarahchun Yeah, I thought that if I had a high enough GPA - high enough that my GPA was well above the average for students applying with my major, I would have a good shot at being admitted. I also read a few stories here where people with no ECs were admitted, because their GPA was very high. I guess basing one’s life decision on a sample size less than 10 is a bad idea. You also were an EECS major, and from what I understand, having a 4.0 GPA in a field as difficult as Engineering already makes you a very strong applicant. You didn’t specify what major your friend applied as, but it would be really strange if he got rejected from both UCLA and UCB with those numbers and something Engineering related as his intended major.</p>
<p>@cayton Yeah, Berkeley was my #1 choice, but UCLA is a fantastic school and I’m more than happy to be a Bruin. I skimmed over a thread where it was implied that there was a possiblity of your admission being rescinded, how did that turn out? Hopefully, for the best. </p>
</p>