<p>What do you guys think about this statement? (I didn’t write it, I pulled it off the comments section of the link posted above me.) </p>
<p>"I can understand using a holistic approach in considering students who want to major in the social sciences. Leadership skills may be important for those who want to major in political science or business, but for STEM majors? Their true aptitude in math and science should be top criteria for admission above all else. </p>
<p>Thanks to Harvard for starting this whole “holistic admissions” nonsense to look for “Well-rounded” applicants, our colleges are now looking to develop Jack of all trades, expert of nothing. And so it is that if Einstein or Thomas Edison were to apply to college today, they’d be rejected for not being well-rounded. What utter nonsense! And then we wonder why 50% of college grads are unemployed or underemployed, while we keep importing the foreign engineers and programmers to work in IT. Yeah I’m sure those college grads pouring latte at Starbucks or folding t-shirts at the Gap are all perfectly “well-rounded”!</p>
<hr>
<p>Obviously I do not agree with this guy completely as I have known plenty of students who were very well-rounded, and are accomplishing great things at their respective universities, but I still think he raises an interesting point and seeing as how this thread somewhat relates to the statement above, I wanted to bring it up.</p>
<p>Yeah @lindyk8 I just cited it in my previous post (I’m really, really, really sorry about my attitude. I know tone can exaggerate my hostility, but if you see me typing, you’d probably laugh at the thought that I could even hurt anyone.) I am sorry for the unnecessary negativity. It’s just that … sometimes … I go OC with sentences, and trace truth values of each statement and hidden assumption. I do get what you mean, wholeheartedly, and I am possibly underestimating the prospective UC applicant (like candles said) of his/her agency to decide which to believe. “Have ECs” is simple enough, and I shouldn’t have turned it into a fruitless semiotic circus. I’m really, really, truly sorry. I’m sorry @pragmatic23 for slightly derailing the thread and casting a hostility spell in it.</p>
<p>I don’t think you did anything wrong except maybe upsetting a few members of CC. I think prospective UC transfer students will refer to this thread and give everyone’s response a thought and will ultimately be helped by the varying viewpoints, rather than a monopoly over one stance. Overall, I do regret not participating in at least a few ECs, if only for the personal development I may have experienced if I had joined a few clubs, volunteered, had a job, etc, but hey, what can ya do.</p>
<p>@calbro They probably could sense the imminent whining that would take place from the rejection. It’s pretty bad when someone can’t find the time to fit in some sort of passion/job/hobby etc and put it down an app, and I bet Berkeley saw right through that. </p>
<p>Oops @lindyk8 semantics d: and yeah, I did have a stressful workload thank you (it’s not PMS, as the myth claims). See, I’m not cut out for law at all @DrGoogle I’m interested in semantic analysis (machine learning), but I am also interested in signal processing. So EECS is the best route for me.</p>
<p>@csb111 Most everyone on this thread was very helpful and non condescending whatsoever despite my shortcomings on my application.</p>
<p>When I made the thread, I knew it was inevitable that someone would bash me for my less than stellar application. Fortunately, everyone in the thread was more or less constructive, rational, and helpful without also coming off as arrogant and/or egotistical. I’ll consider it a positive that it had to come to page 6 to have someone chime in with a condescending statement.</p>
<p>Anyway, to all of you (including csb111) thank you for your feedback and I hope you have a great time at whatever institution you choose to attend.</p>
<p>I have no qualms about going to UCLA as it is an exceptional school. I just wanted a change in scenery as I have been in socal all my life. </p>
<p>It seems that people are getting the vibe that I’m complaining. I am not complaining at all. There is nothing to complain about. I got rejected and that’s that. I just wanted to have a discussion and maybe even possibly help out future UC students. </p>
<p>It’s worth noting that UCLA will move to a more holistic admissions process next year and so it will be a lot more like Cal. It’ll be harder to get into that school now.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to be condescending, but it is pretty obvious to why you were rejected. I guarantee if you are a 4.0 student, you were proactive/pretty well informed about the application process, and knew, no matter how unreasonable it may be, Berkeley relies heavily on ECs. Did you really think a 4.0 was enough to get you into Berkeley? </p>
<p>I don’t know, really. UCLA always seems to follow Cal’s lead; they implemented more holistic admissions for freshman applicants about 7 years back while Berkeley had been doing holistic admissions since about 2002 if I’m not mistaken.</p>
(I’m really, really, really sorry about my attitude. I know tone can exaggerate my hostility, but if you see me typing, you’d probably laugh at the thought that I could even hurt anyone.) I am sorry for the unnecessary negativity. It’s just that … sometimes … I go OC with sentences, and trace truth values of each statement and hidden assumption. I do get what you mean, wholeheartedly, and I am possibly underestimating the prospective UC applicant (like candles said) of his/her agency to decide which to believe. “Have ECs” is simple enough, and I shouldn’t have turned it into a fruitless semiotic circus. I’m really, really, truly sorry. I’m sorry 
</p>