<p>Ok, so I have heard a lot of people on here talking about their UCLA rejection though they are clearly qualified, if not overqualified, Ex: (2200+ SAT, near-perfect GPA, great EC’s, etc.) and I decided that this needs more “looking into”. So here is my analysis of the situation.</p>
<p>UCLA is a university like any other, they want to fill seats. They don’t want to accept too many students, nor too little. So, based up their previous working data, they formulate new acceptance policies. So, in theory, if this year UCLA accepts 200 students with 2200+ SAT scores, and only 20 decided to matriculate, causing a slight void in the class size, UCLA would therefore accept less of the same type of student next year because they would expect them to go elsewhere (Berkeley, Stanford, etc.) This process happens every year. UCLA compares trends and previous data to decide what type of students they should let in. </p>
<p>However, in all these great students that they deny, there are some that truly want to go to UCLA, and are not using it as a backup for Berkeley or some other top tier college. These people, are essentially screwed because they are collateral damage to an admissions policy. My only suggestion would be to appeal and show true interest to matriculate, then UCLA should not have a reason to deny you. </p>
<p>Since UCLA accepts certain types of students, with certain types of scores and grades, they tend to look for similar students every year. So, the 2200+ students are actually at a DISADVANTAGE because UCLA has less of them matriculate, therefore they hold less spots for them. So, there is one case where getting a better SAT score can hurt you. In most college admissions processes, this sounds crazy, I know, but in cases like this, it can be true.</p>
<p>Certain types of students go to certain types of schools, just by nature of competition and “fitting in” to an academic scene. A majority of students who are considered “top tier” go to top tier colleges because that is usually what they want from a college experience. Not that UCLA isn’t a great school, but it is on the lower end of the top tier, if not second tier (depending who you ask).</p>
<p>In conclusion, UCLA may have rejected you because you were underqualified (majority of rejects) or overqualified (collateral damage). This is the nature of the admissions process. Tell me what you think.</p>