Admission to UCLA and Berkeley

[quote author="PANDA" date=1234395576][quote author="awgee" date=1234394983]



Although GPA and SAT are important at UCLA, my understanding is that another factor is being heavily considered. UCLA wants to know what else besides academics has the applicant excelled at. Not just what extracurricular activites or community works have they been involved with, but what have they excelled at, and national recognition is a big plus. UCLA has found that a student with a 4.3 GPA is impressive, but their success may be limited to academia or some other field which does not give UCLA exposure. A student with a 4.0 who has also been recognized for excellance in ballet, or science, or surfing, or gymnastics, or architectural model building will be more likely to attain visible success after graduating UCLA and put UCLA in a positive spotlight.



It may seem anecdotal, but I can not count the number of parents who have expressed their surprise that their child got accepted to Stanford or Harvard or Columbia, but got rejected from UCLA.</blockquote>


Wow! I didn't think it is possible for a child to get accepted to Stanford or Harvard or Columbia, and still get rejected from UCLA. Are you serious?</blockquote>


I'm also very surprised to hear of students that got into Stanford or Harvard (note that I did not mention Columbia) but got rejected from UCLA. I've never heard of that situation but maybe times have changed in the past 15 or so years.



Also, what you describe about UCLA's selection process is something that many other top schools do as well.
 
[quote author="PANDA" date=1234395576][quote author="awgee" date=1234394983][quote author="skek" date=1234325986][quote author="WINEX" date=1234325272][quote author="skek" date=1234315941]I'm with WINEX and awgee, if I understand them correctly. Diversity for diversity's sake is racism in another form. If you treat everyone equally, you shouldn't have a problem interacting with folks of any ethnicity. I favor diversity of economic advantage. I'd be happy if schools made GPA and SAT allowances for people who grew up in deep poverty, without regard to race or ethnicity.</blockquote>


Except for that last sentence, we are in agreement. I grew up in a rough environment, but I think merit should determine everything. If someone can't keep pace with the rest of the group, does it really matter what the cause is? They still slow everyone else down and require additional attention.</blockquote>


I disagree. Imagine Kid #1. He or she grew up in the ghetto to a crack addict mother, no father, on public assistance, attended a crime ridden public school with no music, art or AP programs, lived on gang-infested streets and saw his little brother shot in a drive-by shooting, but somehow managed to earn a 3.5 GPA with no extracurriculars because he worked two jobs to keep the lights on. Imagine Kid #2. Upper middle class family, two parents, loads of opportunities, well funded public school with all the activities. Never had a job so he or she was able to load up on extracurriculars. GPA inflated by taking AP courses. Result, a GPA of 4.1 and tons of extracurriculars.



Let's say you are the admissions officer at the college. You'd take Kid #2? I'd take Kid #1. In my view, what he or she did in their environment is more meritorious than what Kid #2 did. There are plenty of Kid #2s in college, but very few Kid #1s. Kid #1 deserves a chance to succeed and break the cycle of poverty for his family. Note that I'm not talking about quotas or formulae.



It is an extreme example, sure, but if you define merit strictly by the numbers, you'd have to take Kid #2 over Kid #1. To me, it doesn't matter whether Kid #1 is white or black or otherwise, nor Kid #2. Kid #1 deserves the chance. America is a better place when we take kids like #1 and give them a seat at the table.</blockquote>


Agree 95% with skek on this one. If I am admissions, I really do not care which kid "deserves" admission more. I care which kid will make my school look better in the end. And many times, a kid who excells through adversity is much more likely to excell throughout life.



Although GPA and SAT are important at UCLA, my understanding is that another factor is being heavily considered. UCLA wants to know what else besides academics has the applicant excelled at. Not just what extracurricular activites or community works have they been involved with, but what have they excelled at, and national recognition is a big plus. UCLA has found that a student with a 4.3 GPA is impressive, but their success may be limited to academia or some other field which does not give UCLA exposure. A student with a 4.0 who has also been recognized for excellance in ballet, or science, or surfing, or gymnastics, or architectural model building will be more likely to attain visible success after graduating UCLA and put UCLA in a positive spotlight.



It may seem anecdotal, but I can not count the number of parents who have expressed their surprise that their child got accepted to Stanford or Harvard or Columbia, but got rejected from UCLA.</blockquote>


Wow! I didn't think it is possible for a child to get accepted to Stanford or Harvard or Columbia, and still get rejected from UCLA. Are you serious?</blockquote>
Yes
 
when i used to interview applicants for my alma mater, the admissions officers routinely told me, "remember, we're not merely looking for well-rounded <em>students</em>, we're looking for a well-rounded <em>student body</em>."



that's why you routinely hear about the straight A honors student with 1400 SAT and few hrs of volunteer work a week getting rejected from X university. quite frankly those kids are clones, esp coming out of strong school districts. slightly lower scores but any particular talent or interesting life story is far more compelling. diversity, not just in ethnicity, but of experience and culture is what makes a dynamic collegiate environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top