<p>@bomerr </p>
<p>You make it sound as if working in student government is less valuable than working in a paying job.</p>
<p>Putting aside the quantification of the value of a job by how much it pays, I see no reason why the UCs should value one or the other, or even that they do just that, despite what you believe based on anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>Besides, lots of qualified applicants are rejected every year. Don’t try to insinuate that because UCLA has gotten less selective in regards to average admitted GPA, it has unfairly rejected more applicants who were better qualified. That doesn’t really make sense and you’ve no proof to substantiate that claim. Not every qualified applicant will be accepted and the UCs are upfront in stating that and they’ve been upfront about it for years, if not decades.</p>
<p>I’ve also seen for myself the great public service that the holistic process at UCLA has done for many applicants this year. Some were admitted with mediocre GPAs into highly selective majors because of their extracurriculars or life circumstances. I’m not going to pretend that this process is perfect, but I believe that the benefits vastly outweigh the drawbacks and despite your anecdotes of qualified applicants getting rejected, you haven’t really shown that this holistic admission process isn’t working the way it should or that it’s more harmful than helpful. It’d be advisable not to try and extrapolate general conclusions about the fairness and efficacy of this method of admitting students from a few applicant profiles. That isn’t a persuasive kind of argument.</p>