<p>^ Not true - GS recruits from about 50 core undergrad schools and about 15 core b-schools.</p>
<p>Goldman recruits at ........................................................USC :eek:</p>
<p>
[quote]
You keep using USC as an example and their SAT scores. The following is a fact. We don't know the average SAT scores of USC students. That information is not public. </p>
<p>Another example, if take I take SAT scores at face value, USC's is higher than Berkeley's. However, look at average gpas. The average gpa for Berkeley students is 3.9 unweighted. USC's is 3.7. Berkeley's is higher. I don't know the average amount of AP courses taken by Berkeley students but I believe UCLA's is around 16. How many does the average USC student take? I'll bet you it's less.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In arguing about "facts" aren't you swinging your pendulum from splitting hairs when arguing about the lack of public availability of the average SAT scores when most schools report the 25%-75% percentiles all the way to claiming an average number of AP taken by UCLA applicants as high as SIXTEEN? </p>
<p>Fwiw, do you really believe that the GPA differences between USC and the UC flagship schools are so hard to explain? Now, it may be harder to explain how the discussion moves from the PA to GS recruiting. </p>
<p>Oh, please tell us where does GS recruit again?</p>
<p>bluebayou,</p>
<p>I don't think Hawkette or others who question the value of PA as a major contributor to the USN ranking system are arguing that PA does not accurately reflect long-held prejudices--including those recruiting for GS and the like. They (we) are arguing that those prejudices do not reflect the overall quality of an institution's undergraduate program well enough to contribute 25% to overall score.</p>
<p>Very few students take sixteen AP exams. No school has an average applicant pool that has taken 16 AP exams. The number is ludicrous.</p>
<p>I didn't say 16 exams. It is probably 16 semesters. (It might be 17). It's online somewhere. One of UCLA's magazines.</p>
<p>Dstark, yes, it's probably online ... somewhere. For a frame of reference, another piece of information that is online somewhere is that the average number of AP's courses taken by Stanford applicants is 4 to 5.</p>
<p>This is probably the type of "information" you saw in a prior year:</p>
<p>
[quote]
- UCLA receives more applications from students with a 4.0 GPA than the university can admit.
- UCLA's admit ratio is approximately 27%, one of the lowest in the country. The only other state university with a similar ratio is the University of Virginia.
- The academic caliber of admitted UCLA students is at an all-time high. The average GPA of admitted students is 4.23, up from 4.16 last year. The average SAT score is 1,328, up from 1,327 last fall. Admitted students took an average of 17.8 honors and Advanced Placement courses, an increase from 16 in the fall of 2000. About 400 freshmen will come in technically as sophomores because of the honors and AP courses they've taken.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In a world (or state) where everything gets labeled Honors this or Honors that, such information loses its appeal. This said, Honors Basketweaving and Honors Baton Twirling are quite popular in Central Texas.</p>
<p>I may have misspoke. I no longer have the link.</p>
<p>So here is a different link. May not be as good as 16 or 17 AP courses. (Not bad though).</p>
<p>"Students took an average of 19 honors and AP courses and completed an average of 50.6 college preparatory semester courses, far above the minimum of 30 that is required."</p>
<p>Xiggi, do you think USC's numbers are higher?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In arguing about "facts" aren't you swinging your pendulum from splitting hairs when arguing about the lack of public availability of the average SAT scores when most schools report the 25%-75% percentiles
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is a NACAC principle of good practice </p>
<p>that requests colleges NOT to report median or mean SAT scores, but rather only interquartile ranges (which are really more informative anyway). So the standard reporting for IPEDS, the federal survey of college data, and for the Common Data Set Initiative is to report interquartile ranges. Those vary quite a bit from college to college. Some colleges have no overlap in score interquartile range at all with other colleges.</p>
<p>dstartk,
Re how your comments on how PA is measured, let’s hope that the PA voters have some standard way of evaluating colleges, but we really don’t know. Furthermore, on at least some of these measures, some colleges have shown great improvement without a corresponding increase in their PA. In fact, Rice has actually seen a DECLINE in its PA over the last ten years. </p>
<p>As for your comment, “if you are not measuring the same thing it is hard to get the same results” truer words were never spoken. So, given the complete absence of standardization, why in the world are we giving any credence at all to PA scores???</p>
<p>As for the whole USC-UC Berkeley discussion, I’m not sure if I am correctly interpreting your words. I think you are saying that USC’s data (as reported by USNWR, collegeboard.com, etc) is false. Is that why you don’t want to accept their numbers or is it the historical impression you have had of the USC student and your belief that he/she was almost definitely a notch or two behind the average UCB student? For the record, I accept the USNWR numbers for all schools and I also believe the student profile at USC has improved far beyond the historical stereotype. </p>
<p>As for GPAs and class ranks, goodness knows what these numbers mean. With these as our guide, the top five national universities in America by Top 10% scorers are UCB, UCSD, UCLA, MIT, UC Santa Barbara and UC Irvine (tie) and the top five national universities in America by GPA are Stanford, UC Berkeley, U North Carolina, UCLA and USC. If your position is that these measures have great validity as national measuring sticks, well…..you might want to inform the Ivy League colleges that not a single one of them ranks in the Top 5. And fwiw, only 1 ranked in the Top 10 (Harvard tied for # 7 in Top 10% and Princeton was # 9 in GPA). </p>
<p>As for the recruiting issue and the importance (or more accurately the lack thereof) placed by a highly competitive recruiter like Goldman Sachs on the PA measure, I completely agree. They DON’T care. And I would say that is true for the vast majority of employers with the possible exception of those looking for jobs in technical fields. </p>
<p>I also agree (we are on a roll here, huh?? :) ) that students will do just fine coming from Rice, Georgetown et al. You and I know that, the students know that, the employers know that, maybe even the Ivy League fans know that. But somehow the PA scorers don’t. </p>
<p>As for the NYSE, I don’t think you’ll find too many Ivy Leaguers getting their hands soiled down there. John Thain may be as blue blood as there is on Wall Street (MIT, HBS, GS CFO), but the people that work at the exchange today and historically come from a much less prestigious circle of colleges. And you’re right-their days are numbered as technology and non-US markets are taking away their jobs and some of their volume. </p>
<p>bluebayou,
I didn’t say that I want to censor or dictate the opinions of employers. Heck, if they individually and collectively decide that Tufts is inferior to the Ivies, then I can accept that and so probably too can the folks at Tufts. But to consider the enormous discounting of that school by academics (3.6 PA) is just so out of whack with how I believe most employers would score the school. My personal guess is that if Harvard is a 5.0, then Tufts is something like a 4.4-4.6. Lower for sure, but no where near the current 1.3 point spread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also agree (we are on a roll here, huh?? ) that students will do just fine coming from Rice, Georgetown et al. You and I know that, the students know that, the employers know that, maybe even the Ivy League fans know that. But somehow the PA scorers don’t.
(...)
But to consider the enormous discounting of that school by academics (3.6 PA) is just so out of whack with how I believe most employers would score the school. My personal guess is that if Harvard is a 5.0, then Tufts is something like a 4.4-4.6. Lower for sure, but no where near the current 1.3 point spread.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely agree with you, Hawkette. Bravo.</p>
<p>"So, given the complete absence of standardization, why in the world are we giving any credence at all to PA scores???"</p>
<p>You are giving credence to PA scores by talking about them all the time.
The same with USNWR.</p>
<p>I think the real world gives less credence to PA and USNWR than you do.
The way to stop giving credence to these scores is for you to stop giving credence to these scores. There. Done. No more PA. It doesn't exist. I didn't buy the USNWR issue this year. I don't know where Vanderbilt, Tufts, most other schools are rated. Who cares? I know they are good schools. Others know they are good schools.</p>
<p>My points about Berkeley and USC...
The SAT scores for USC are incomplete. I don't know what the average SAT scores for USC are. If I take the published numbers for granted and use them as the way to measure students, compared to Berkeley's SATs, that macro data says USC has stronger students.</p>
<p>If I use grades, which are also objective data ;), Berkeley's students are better. If I interpret the grades and say they don't mean anything, I'm being subjective now, aren't I? Unless you have objective data that says otherwise, which you don't. </p>
<p>My thoughts about USC and Berkeley are not based on historical data. From my micro world, the students that go to Berkeley are on average stronger than USC's. I think Kluge, and Bluebayou see the same thing. </p>
<p>So, macro wise, grades favor Berkeley. (I'm sure I can find other macro data that supports Berkeley too). Micro world, what I see favors Berkeley. If my kid wanted to go to USC instead of Berkeley would I say no? I'd say sure, after I gagged about the cost. :)</p>
<p>For the record, I don't think the "education" is better at Stanford than Berkeley either. I know people at both schools and I don't see it. And the people I know that go to either school don't see it either. ;)</p>
<p>Anyway, my real point is why let PA get under your skin? I have never met one person that talked about PA with me in real life. And I used to work with quite a few people. ;). </p>
<p>If your kids goes to Vandy, Rice, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Emory, Wash U, Tulane, Fordham, USC, Tufts, and plenty of other schools they will have the opportunity to get a great education. That's what counts, not PA or USNWR. </p>
<p>Are your kids planning on living in the NE? A friend of mine moved there and one of the first questions she was asked when she arrived was what ship did her ancestors arrive on? You don't get that question in the West. :)</p>
<p>Do people talk about PA in your world? If they do, do they actually use this metric to decide on schools?</p>
<p>Heck no, they don't talk about PA in my world. In fact, the only ones that I know who talk about PA are USNWR and a couple of posters who bleat constantly about how their school provides a better education because their PA is higher or that PA is the true measure of a school's value. What a crock!</p>
<p>I (and probably 99% of us who post here in opposition) would completely ignore PA but for the unfortunate and inaccurate influence that it has on the rankings which, rightly or wrongly, DO play a role in shaping student, family, media, and national perceptions about colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the record, I don't think the "education" is better at Stanford than Berkeley either. I know people at both schools and I don't see it. And the people I know that go to either school don't see it either.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dstark, while I don't really care for the discussions about which school is better for [blank], I remember your affinity for QA games. So, here it goes:</p>
<p>What do you think the percentage of the students from Berkeley would answer these questions with a YES:</p>
<ol>
<li>Do you think Berkeley is better than Stanford?</li>
<li> Do you think Stanford is better than Berkeley?</li>
<li>Given the chance to switch tomorrow without spending a dime more, would you switch to Stanford?</li>
<li>Had you been accepted to Stanford, would you have gone?**</li>
</ol>
<p>What do you think the percentage of the students from Stanford would answer these questions with a YES:</p>
<ol>
<li>Do you think Stanford is better than Berkeley?</li>
<li>Do you think Berkeley is better than Stanford?</li>
<li>Given the chance to switch tomorrow without spending a dime less, would you switch to Berkeley?</li>
<li>Had you not been accepted to Stanford, would you have gone to Berkeley?</li>
</ol>
<p>** I know the questions 4 and 8 are NOT the same. Sometimes, we have to incorporate a dose of realism in such games.</p>
<p>PS My guesstimates would read 75,25,95,98 and 95,5,0.2,30</p>
<p>sorry, xiggi, but underwater basketweaving is not approved for honors status at UC. Unlike some Lake Wobegone states where it seems like everyone is a Val (know any?) and honors PE abounds, the Univ of Calif is rigorous in their review of honors courses for UC purposes.</p>
<p>hawkette: I'm not sure I can follow your logic. On this thread you posit that perhaps [unamed Wall Street banker(s)] only recruit at Ivy institutions and not Tufts. On other threads you suggest that surveying employers would be a good addition to 'rankings'. Thus, how/why would such WSbanker even rate Tufts? It would seem to me that such banker already 'rates' Tufts (to use your example) lower than anyone in the Ivy League. Such bankers just don't care about your version of a PA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sorry, xiggi, but underwater basketweaving is not approved for honors status at UC. Unlike some Lake Wobegone states where it seems like everyone is a Val (know any?) and honors PE abounds, the Univ of Calif is rigorous in their review of honors courses for UC purposes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>BB, are you saying that the high schools in California ONLY offer honors courses that have been deemed acceptable by the UC system for ADMISSION purposes? Would it be the first time that a school uses one set of statistics for admission purposes and another one for ... marketing purposes? </p>
<p>Fwiw, there are indeed a good number of schools that have decided that anyone with a 4.0 GPA should be elected valedictorian. I happen to dislike the practice, but recognize that others "lake" residents love that little plaque. On the other hand, I do not look with a kinder eye to states which aren't finding much wrong in having the overwhelming majority of their students being able to apply to their flagship state universities with FANTASTIC GPA's of well above 4.0. Know any? :)</p>
<p>Of course, we also live in a country where --should we trust the College Board asinine survey-- more than 40% of our students graduate with a 4.0 or better while our percentage of functionally illiterate is roughly the same, if not higher.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I don't know how much rankings play a role. I think it can play no role if you choose to ignore them.</p>
<p>But like I said, if you are really concerned about them, your kid wants to work on Wall Street, then just play the game. It's not like you can't get a great education at Dartmouth or Brown either. :)</p>
<p>If your kids go to one of the schools mentioned in an earlier post, I promise I won't think they receive an inferior education to those who go to an Ivy League school. :)</p>
<p>Xiggi, I have no idea what the answers are to those questions. I know students that have chosen Berkeley over Stanford after getting into both schools. I know students that are very happy at both schools. I know students that go to either school and are friends of students at the other school. They respect each other and don't think one is smarter than the other or getting a better education than the other. At my kids' high school the valedictorians do sometimes choose Berkeley. :eek:.</p>
<p>And I'm not blind or deaf. Some people dislike Berkeley, both the school and the town. I took a friend of mine to visit Berkeley and all he could see was the graffiti all over the city. :)</p>
<p>holy crap, imagine what these statistics will be in 2018, like 1% acceptance rate for Harvard Yale and Princeton lol</p>
<p>
[quote]
BB, are you saying that the high schools in California ONLY offer honors courses that have been deemed acceptable by the UC system for ADMISSION purposes?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heck no, but I am saying that UCLA and others only report UC-approved honors courses, if for no other reason, it is the only data they have.</p>
<p>btw: I have posted frequently that the top 10% UC is manufactured -- even UC admits it.</p>