<p>Well that’s because it doesn’t make sense…most people are interested in some celebrity whether it be a musician, actor, athlete, or (sadly) a reality star… if someone wanted to bump into celebrities, then yes it would make sense to stay in LA rather than go up north. like i said though, it’d be ridiculous to make a decision based on that factor.</p>
<p>my fair nymph Evan speakeaths now!</p>
<p>@ vintij yes…</p>
<p>Actually, the only reason I’m going to UCLA is because I hope to bump in to Heidi Montag. You know, she might be wandering around UCLA, right? H for Heidi!</p>
<p>hahaha. if she was lost maybe. or does the UCLA hospital provide plastic surgery?</p>
<p>Okay, so you said yes it is fitting to enroll at UCLA if one is even mildly interested in celebrity due to the proximity. </p>
<p>Now, out of those 50 some odd thousand applicants, if one happens to be very much into celebrity (like James Franco for example), would the idea of celebrity not affect their decision more than it would someone who is indifferent toward celebrity. In other words, if someone is very much into celebrity vs. someone who is not, would UCLA seem more or less appealing to the former, even if slightly? And if yes, if it would seem more appealing, would not the idea of celebrity be the factor in that particular category of appeal, if one counts that category of appeal, as those who like celebrity might do?</p>
<p>Heidi + Evan + Chest Bump + Top of Janss steps = Evan being launched backwards and plummeting to his death?</p>
<p>That’s so ridiculous! Unless someone is deeply obsessed with celebrity and has a severe need and want to be around them, then I don’t see how that would play into someone’s decision… how would that go:</p>
<p>Hmmm. I want to be a lawyer… I got into Harvard and UCLA. BUT I LOVE CELEBRITIES UCLA IT IS!</p>
<p>@evan…hahahha i could totally see that happening.</p>
<p>bwahahahaha i would pay to see that. and then i would take a pencil and pop those *****es for launching you to your death!
lol</p>
<p>You’re not seeing the question clearly. Even if one wants to be a lawyer, or whatever, and one only slightly likes celebrity, but is not obsessed with it…would the idea of celebrity not appeal if even for a brief second, to the person who slightly likes celebrity? </p>
<p>Let me put it this way. If someone likes a celebrity, yet has in mind a different reason to go to a school, tell me now that the person would not even entertain the idea of celebrity if they knew they had a chance to see the person they admire at some point. Tell me now that if even one single person entertains the thought of seeing their favorite celebrity, that it wouldn’t have the slightest affect on where they go to school. Even if that affect is so small and insignificant that it would not be the deciding factor at all. And if this is true of one person, would it not be true of several? If this is true of several, would it not mean that more than one person went to UCLA, with the slightest appeal of getting to see a celebrity, perhaps not the reason, but the idea of celebrity was still in their thought process when making a decision?</p>
<p>I definitely liked the idea of seeing celebrities at UCLA. I’d say that idea alone would go about 2-3% into my admission decision (too bad I was rejected :().</p>
<p>Obviously it would be a plus. Just like Broadway may be a plus for someone who is thinking about NYU, but if you seriously think that UC applicants are dumb/naive enough to be swayed into choosing LA over any other school because of the possibility of encountering a celebrity, then I find that pretty sad.</p>
<p>Well you just insulted Cali trumpet because he said it was 2-3% the reason. </p>
<p>Aside from that, the very fact that they entertained the idea of letting James Franco talk at graduation, is proof that someone in the upper management of UCLA is under the impression that their student body would enjoy someone like james franco. Thus, UCLA’s own administrators think the campus has some affinity toward celebrity if even just a little. Therefore, if someone likes celebrity just a little, they will fit perfectly in at UCLA. Where if someone does not like celebrity, or the idea of celebrity was not enough to persuade them, then that particular school must be full of people who have slightly less interest in celebrity. Is this true?</p>
<p>I didn’t insult anyone, if anyone is insulting here it’s you. The fact that the students protested against Franco contradicts your argument btw. How is UCLA any different from the rest of the nation’s universities who more often than not have a well known celebrity give the commencement speech. If anything, their choice may have had the intention to show students how successful they could be.</p>
<p>So you disagree that letting an undistinguished graduate like James Franco, who was obviously picked for the very reason of his celebrity, was a misunderstanding by the faculty who believe their student body to be interested in his type of work? </p>
<p>In other words, picture james franco not as an actor, no movies, no nothing, just working like everyone else…do you think they would have even entertained the idea of letting him speak if he had not been a celebrity? And if he graduated without any true academic accomplishments beyond a degree, there must have been some type of faith in the fact that he was simply a celebrity for the faculty to choose him correct?</p>
<p>Of course they chose him for his celebrity. That’s what I said in my previous post, so how is UCLA any different from any other universities? Ellen Degeneres gave the commencement speech at University of Louisiana and she never even went to college.</p>
<p>berkeley had chris pine.
nuff said.</p>
<p>i forgot about that. he too, is SO HOT. btw sorry for hijacking your thread lol</p>
<p>i love both vintij and karol…cant we just all get along :(</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>yeah feel free to highjack…the messiah gives you permission.</p>
<p>I thought we were talking about UC’s? </p>
<p>Did Ellen give the big speech at any other UC? Did any other celebrity give the big speech at a UC? </p>
<p>Now, if the faculty has faith in celebrity itself, this must mean that they assume that celebrity was a slight factor in choosing UCLA for their undergrads. And if they assume this, they must have some type of evidence that led them to believe this. And if the evidence is in the fact that people here often look like, or dress like celebrities…that would indicate that some respect for celebrity is present. Therefore, if one is interested in celebrity at all, one will not only fit in at UCLA, but their faculty will recognize their interest in celebrity as enough to book a pure celebrity to give the commencement speech. Where as, at Cal, that faith in celebrity is not present. There is no evidence to suggest to the faculty at Cal, that booking a pure celebrity would go over well with students. Correct?</p>