<p>“But if, for example, an engineering major gets a 3.3 GPA but happens to be a parent who works 30 hours a week to support his family, I believe he should get admitted to UCLA/Berkeley, and from the looks of how holistic admissions work, UCLA/Berkeley admissions officers will agree. A 3.3 GPA in such a major in such circumstances is impressive no matter how you spin it”</p>
<p>Too bad they won’t get in. I’m not sure if you remember this guy but he got rejected.
<a href=“Wanna play a game? - #37 by UCLABounded - UC Transfers - College Confidential Forums”>Wanna play a game? - #37 by UCLABounded - UC Transfers - College Confidential Forums;
UCLA: “Engineering major with 27 units in a semester, working full time with engineering experience? No, no reject. We’ll take the 4.0 guy who served on honors council instead.” That’s the reality of holistic review. I don’t think there are a lot (if any?) people more qualified than him. </p>
<p>As for the people with 3.3s and what not getting in, from what i have seen a lot are sobers. </p>
<p>like i said, the reality of who gets in is VERY different what you want to believe. FYI I haven’t listed all the other BS critia evaluations, I just picked two, school involvement which is HIGHLY overemphasized and work experience which is HIGHLY underemphasized and possibly even harmful. </p>
<p>Hollistic review is a misnomer because it’s more like affirmative action review or stereotyping review. It was only implemented because they Cal wanted to get around the ban on ethnicity in evaluating applications. I would prefer a system that is actually fair instead of one that claims to be fair. </p>