<p>I don’t really have an argument for or against holistic review, however, I think you guys should take a look at the 5-year trend for ucla.</p>
<p>2009 - 5,457 admits (32.50%) / 3.62 gpa
2010 - 5,505 admits (28.98%) / 3.69 gpa
2011 - 5,492 admits (27.46%) / 3.70 gpa
2012 - 5,451 admits (28.54%) / 3.71 gpa
2013 - 5,104 admits (26.48%) / 3.72 gpa
2014 - 5,296 admits (27.14%) / 3.70 gpa</p>
<p>Percent Change
2009->2010 - +0.88%
2010->2011 - -0.24%
2011->2012 - -0.69%
2012->2013 - -6.37%
2013->2014 - +3.76%</p>
<p>I believe I did the math right, but take the above data as you will. I personally interpret the data that ucla has clearly an upward trend on how difficult it is to get accepted into ucla. The gpa differences are very minimal (aside for 2009 -> 2010) and the more significant changes are the number of admits. Observing the trend of number of admits per year, we can clearly see there is a significant change in 2012. I believe 2012 was an exclusive one off thing. Not sure what happened that year, but they couldn’t admit as many students as they use to. Saying that ucla has become more holistic by just only comparing the previous year I think is jumping to conclusion. Again, I’m not sure what happened in 2013, but I think that’s and exception to the overall trend for ucla.</p>