…Okay, but you said there were NO exceptions, full stop. Clearly there are “a couple hundred” of them.
ETA: Glad I put quotes around that because 17000*(.3/100) = 51.
@fallenchemist, yes “UC’s are not the only schools worth looking at.” Exceptions are the exceptions and not the rule where the majority of applicants fall.
The “couple hundred” are by far too insignificant to account for the tens of thousands of applicants.
51 students is far too insignificant compared to the rest of the large application pool.
Those are accepted students. A couple hundred out of how many that applied with a GPA less than the guideline, not how many that applied in total. If only 1000 applied with a GPA between 2.5 and 3.0, which is possible, then a couple of hundred is huge. But I don’t think they reveal that kind of number.
And actually, I have understated it. Those 51 for UCLA are only the accepted applicants with GPAs between 2.5-3.0 who enrolled. There have to be some with that GPA that got accepted that decided to go elsewhere, even if some were athletes that took other offers. And the OP talked about UCLA as AN example, not the only school being asked about. The statement in post #6 said it was supposedly for all UC campuses. And since UC Davis reported 1.7% of the actual freshman class with that GPA range, and had about 5350 in the class, that is about 91 students at the minimum that were accepted from all the applicants. But as I said, of course there were more since not all that were accepted enrolled.
So I would have to say the evidence weighs against the absolute statement
Are the odds of being accepted exceedingly small? No doubt yes. But not zero. The application is clearly not going straight into the trash can, they appear to be at least giving every application a cursory look for some factor that might result in a different decision.
You make some very strong points. Also, it is 510 for UCLA, 17,000(0.03). They say it is supposed to be a holistic process, so what might make those students have a chance despite heir poor grades?
I just feel like with so many applications rising every year, not every application can be reviewed, or even glanced at.
I assume part of what you are wondering is how does the rejected group look compared to the accepted group. For example two schools could have an acceptance rate of 18% and a middle 50 ACT of 29-32. But you you compare the two schools, the rejected pool at the truly more selective school would have a middle 50 ACT of ~29-32 (i.e. more mirroring of the accepted pool) while the rejected pool at the true less selective school would have a middle 50 ACT of ~25-28 (i.e. significantly lower than the accepted pool). I do wish that colleges posted stats of who they did not accept as well.
An applicant with a GPA of 2.0 is wasting his time and money applying to a school like UCLA, unless his application is expected and admissions team has been tipped off: a recruited athlete (likeliest for football or basketball), or a developmental case (dad gave millions to school). Big state universities are admitting primarily, if not nearly exclusively, on numbers like SAT/GPA/class rank. And even if an unhooked student with a very low GPA gets in to a top school, what kind of academic support would he have unless he were a big-sport athlete? (Special tutoring and even fake classes at some schools, i.e., UNC.)
Even at LACs with holistic admissions, does anybody think each application gets the exact same read? There are 3 broad categories: the automatic admits (unless some safety-seeking applicants are wait-listed for yield protection), the ones that are argued and debated by the admissions team, and the ones seriously not considered. As @StressedOutKid1 says, thrown in the trash.
Most (maybe not all) HS grads with GPAs of 2.0 or lower should consider community college, to prove they can do post-HS work and get remedial help if needed. That’s better than wasting money at a college with a freshman retention rate of 56%.
Exactly Petula, I do not understand why applicants with sub-2.0 GPAś even apply to UCLA and Berkeley. Their applications would be a waste and go straight to the trash pile. Maybe they have a stunning personal statement or a special talent, but that is rare considering the many perfect students that do apply there.
A 2.0 GPA student will apply to UCLA etc. because someone told him that he knows someone who was admitted with that GPA. And the kid believes it.
Dude… 0.3% (given) divided by 100% (what you do to get decimal numbers out of percents) = 0.003.
Well, now you are changing the conversation to 2.0, which is not what we were talking about. In fact the UCLA CDS says that no students were enrolled with a GPA of 2.0-2.49. Perhaps those are not reviewed at all, no one except a UCLA admissions officer or similar person can say 100% for sure.
But clearly for those between 2.5-2.99, some do get in at various UCs. And one would only be guessing that all those accepted with that GPA had an obvious hook such as athletics, although certainly there is something that made them reconsider. Could be ethnic status, could be donations, could be some odd situation regarding a personal story… The point is that it is rare, so it isn’t unfair to say that it is highly likely such an applicant would be wasting their time. It is unfair to say that such an applicant has their application automatically thrown in the trash. I have demonstrated beyond doubt that is not true, so please stop saying it.
Also, @StressedOutKid1, IIRC UCLA’s percentage for 2.5-2.99 was 0.3%, not 3%. If that is right, then 0.3/100=0.003x17,000=51. But again, not the point and not even the relevant statistic. We cannot know the relevant statistic because we have no idea how many of the 2.5-2.99 applicants were accepted in total, some of who attended (51) and some of who did not (??? number).
You’re getting me confused haha.
Thanks for clarifying. Still that is still a insignificant number for the overall applicants.
I thought you all said 3 percent.
What is relevant is that there are exceptions, so if you can afford to waste the $70 fee/campus, then apply and hope for the best but realize your chances are slim to none.
Yeah, I think that’s a good summurization of all the points.
In 2012, UCLA issued this statement (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-statement-on-athletic-scholarships-234528) that says: “Each year, UCLA awards the equivalent of approximately 285 full athletic scholarships to outstanding student athletes. The scholarships are used by the UCLA Department of Intercollegiate Athletics to pay students’ tuition and fees, as well as room and board. In this respect, UCLA is no different from the overwhelming majority of Division I institutions.”
Having 51 of those students not have a 2.0 is entirely possible. We have a family friend who is at UCLA for track/cross country. They were entirely ready to bend whatever GPA/score standards in order to admit him, and were shocked to find out that he was already above their 75th percentile of regular admits.
@fallenchemist said “… Could be ethnic status…” Note that would be illegal for UCLA. Could be low-income or 1st generation to college status. Though, there are plenty of low-income, 1st gen students with medium and high stats also.