<h1>1 for UCLA</h1>
<p>All of them?</p>
<p>Even if person 2 got into stanford, will he/she be able to succeed at Stanford? Whats the point of going to Stanford for a 3.0 gpa? Can’t get into any grad schools with that…</p>
<p>What makes you doubt his qualifications? He seems to have succeeded in high school.</p>
<p>^^ a 2080 and a 3.8 unweighted is not in stanford’s area. Most kids who go to stanford have a 2200+ with a really high gpa, 4.0+, or an awesome class rank, 1-3…thats for the “unhooked” applicant…</p>
<p>i’d say number 2 because of his low income :D</p>
<p>That’s incorrect, clutch01. Most students at Stanford do not have a 4.0 UW.</p>
<p>clutch01: That’s very offensive to me, as a 3.8 UW student.</p>
<p>Just because you got 1 or 2 B’s doesn’t mean you’re not Stanford material. At that point, those B’s are often just a “fluke.”</p>
<p>Seriously, I’m sick of people second guessing admissions departments and assuming you won’t be able to succeed.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t see how you can have a “4.0+” — the typical cutoff is a 4.0. Your critique is filled with hyperbole and misinformation.</p>
<p>Whoa, chill out guys. Didn’t mean to provoke anything (overly) nasty. But personally, I think clutch01 has a point. In relation to the other two, #2’s grades aren’t as stellar, plus he’s taken/taking fewer honors classes, so the UW GPA is a little skewed.</p>
<p>Any last thoughts on UCLA before disclosure?</p>
<p>LOL, would you really define 55k a year as low income?</p>
<p>Yes, it is slightly low income. Not much, but at top schools it’s enough.</p>
<p>It’s low income enough that Harvard doesn’t charge tuition for <60k.</p>
<p>Even better, #2 is from a divorced family, with 4 kids. does 55k seem like a lot then?</p>
<p>3 because she’s a woman.
No but seriously.</p>
<h1>1 for UCLA</h1>
<p>high gpa, athletic, ucla loves those :)</p>
<p>PM me the answer!!! LOL</p>
<h1>2 hands down.</h1>
<p>
I’d just like to comment on this. What I’ve observed in the admit threads for highly selective schools is that they are looking for individual achievement outside school. Note that Dream Builders is (apparently) local, takes kids from multiple schools in the locality, and that the work is done on a group basis. TASP, on the other hand, is a highly selective nationwide program; see [Telluride</a> Association: Our Programs: For High School Students: Summer Program for Juniors (TASP): General Information](<a href=“http://www.tellurideassociation.org/programs/high_school_students/tasp/tasp_general_info.html]Telluride”>Telluride Association Summer Seminar (TASS) - Telluride Association). Kids who have gotten into this are essentially pre-screened for top schools.</p>
<p>Yes, apparently TASP is a lot more prestigious, just because it is a national program, which I think is a shame. A six week program versus a yearlong one, while school is in session and on top of other ECs? TASP does groupwork too. #2 told me that they worked on a research project, I think it had to do with Caribbean literature or something like that. So my question is this, is doing this program really so amazing that it would make up for the differences between applicants?</p>
<p>Also, #1 and #3 got into UCLA, #2 did not.</p>
<p>It’s not so much what the TASP program does, but the extreme selectivity that it has. It only takes a small number of highly-qualified students. (This may mean that #2 had some other positives that don’t appear in the summary.) When a college sees TASP on the resume, they know that the student has already passed through a very fine screen.</p>