<p>BedHead,</p>
<p>True. No argument there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, and I would not consider it a foregone conclusion that UCSD is inferior to UNC. It is a chosen alternative for a lot of people, particularly in the sciences
[/quote]
</p>
<p>AHEM. UCSD also has a top 5 poli sci dept. thank you very much.</p>
<p>"What all the different parts of CA have in common is some of the worst public schools in the Country. I think UNC would have a better educated peer group. "
well california has Stanford,UCLA,UCBERKELEY,UCSD, caltech what about NC?silence.......i wonder why?Don't even go that road!!!Ohh and about diversity...L.A or Raleigh , Charlotte? you need to hit the books</p>
<p>pateta,</p>
<p>Stanford and Cal Tech aren't public.</p>
<p>I think what suze was referring to was secondary education. In that case, California does not rank so highly, but I've already addressed that to an extent.</p>
<p>Calm down and be careful before you attack people.</p>
<p>My cousins live in Palo Alto and left that high school for prep school, something their parents really couldn't afford but felt necessary. California is broke and it shows in the schools.</p>
<p>Just look at how low the average SAT scores are at Cal and LA against top schools, these are the top students in CA. And let's keep in mind a HUGE percentage are recent immigrants who were educated in Asia for most of their lives.</p>
<p>suze:</p>
<p>I don't doubt you, and I'm sure they had their reasons. But the fact is, the average SAT score at PA High was 1264 last year, which would be pretty good even for most magnet schools. Do you suppose the high school in Henderson, NC has those sorts of scores.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that the voters of CA haven't hit their schools hard. I believe they have, and I believe that's short-sighted of them. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that CA is a very large place, and NC has many, many rural areas that have perfectly horrid schools.</p>
<p>pateta-- ever heard of duke? or for those that are aware of the highly impressive colleges outside the world of CA-- wake forest? It's academics rival those of nearly any school, which is an almost unknown fact because of their amazing sports teams.</p>
<p>suze,</p>
<p>Compared to the top schools?</p>
<p>UCLA's average SAT was 2006 (I don't know the range of one standard deviation left and right, but it's probably around 1950-2100 or so), and Cal's was around 2050 or so with a similar range.</p>
<p>That's not too shabby. Compare that to Michigan with an SAT average of 1900–2160.</p>
<p>Columbia's average was around 2100-2150.</p>
<p>So I don't really see your point.</p>
<p>That is an impressive SAT average. I have a feeling though that not all students take the test. I think there's a pretty wide range of students. I know one of my cousins couldn't get into an AP class and ended up in a class with few english speakers.</p>
<p>My point is that many people will compare Cal to top 10 schools as if it were anywhere near as hard to get into. It's not.</p>
<p>Every student admitted as a freshman to UCLA or Cal took either the SAT or ACT. No ifs, ands, or buts.</p>
<p>So if the average SAT score at UCLA and Cal is on par with Columbia and Michigan, I think it demonstrates that the student body at top UCs isn't too shabby.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is that many people will compare Cal to top 10 schools as if it were anywhere near as hard to get into. It's not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. But don't forget that the top students at UCs will compare favorably to the top students at top schools. UCs suffer at the bottom 25th percentiles, but not at the top 25th percentile.</p>
<p>suze:</p>
<p>Gunn in PA is one of the top schools in the state and sends dozens of kids to HYPSM et al (and Cal and UCLA) every year. I trust your cousins didn't leave it?</p>
<p>You last clause helps partially explain the SAT scores (ELL students score low in CR & W), but, also you need to remember that the UCs give big admissions tips to low income students. Approx 33% of the students at each campus are Pell Grantees. According to CB's own data, income and SAT scores are highly correlated.</p>
<p>Add that to the fact that the UCs only accept scores from one sitting, in contrast to privates which mix and match scores from multiple sittings, and its no surprise Cal and UCLA have a wider range of scores than private schools or even the other flagships. UVa for example has less than 10% Pell Grantees. </p>
<p>If the HS products were so poor, Cal and UCLA would lose their luster quickly. Don't forget that nearly half of Stanford's student body is comprised of Calif residents as well. Hasn't seem to hurt its rep too much, huh?</p>
<p>I guess we run in different circles. :) I've lived in Calif for a long time, and I've never heard anyone say that admission to Cal is as hard as HYPSM et al. There are those that beleive that the education at Cal can be just as good (or better) than those, but not selectivity.</p>
<p>Suze: Go to UNC because California high schools are falling apart, their students never leave the State and are parochial, and UNC is as good as any school and especially as good as Cal and UCLA. Uh, that seems to pretty much sum up your logic. Except then you said of many of those students who never leave the state were born in other countries. And then your evidence regarding that schools in Palo Alto and the rest of the state suck is that your cousin went to private school and that the SATs of publics Cal/UCLA don't match, what Harvard? Uh, did you compare the SATs of Cal/UCLA students to UNC students? Wouldn't that be germane for answering the question at hand? And, no, there is no equation between the best students in California and those who choose to attend Cal/UCLA/UCSD. Those are distinct categories of people, though there is undoubtedly significant overlap. It seems maybe you just hate California. By the way, I'm the only person in my family who didn't go to my Dad's prep school and the consensus in my family is I was better educated at my Cali public school, which I chose to go to instead.</p>
<p>suze:</p>
<p>Well, their website says that 87% of students took the SAT, which is well above the national average which, as I recall, is around 2/3. They also claim 30 NMS semi-finalists and 418 students taking 813 AP tests with 94% scoring 3 or higher. 90% go on to college. Here's a link.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.paly.net/info/profile.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.paly.net/info/profile.pdf</a></p>
<p>I'm not saying Palo Alto High is the typical high school in CA. It couldn't be. It's just that large cities tend to have poor schools, and large cities in CA don't appear to buck the trend. But there are still many, many good schools there.</p>
<p>I can only offer opinions and observations. Last year I visited the top 3 UCs. I was shocked. Most shocking was I what I saw as apathetic, not too happy student bodies. I liked UNC a lot better.</p>
<p>That's good for you. I'm glad you found a good fit.</p>
<p>But opinions should be, as much as possible, based on facts and figures. Your storming in and saying that the UCs' average SAT scores are low is not exactly going to endear you to many around here...</p>
<p>"pateta-- ever heard of duke? or for those that are aware of the highly impressive colleges outside the world of CA-- wake forest? It's academics rival those of nearly any school, which is an almost unknown fact because of their amazing sports teams."
hello yes i have heard..but humm stanford..UNC-chapel hill..hummm UCLA..wake forest hummm..UCSD.
"pateta,</p>
<p>Stanford and Cal Tech aren't public.</p>
<p>I think what suze was referring to was secondary education. In that case, California does not rank so highly, but I've already addressed that to an extent.</p>
<p>Calm down and be careful before you attack people"i was just giving an exemple ..i know stanford and caltech are not public."</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I didn't choose UNC. I'm going to Dartmouth.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to endear myself here, just trying to tell the truth as I see it. I had some real misconceptions about the quality of UCs undergrad. I do believe they have many great grad schools.</p>
<p>When you compare average SAT scores, keep in mind that UCs don't give legacy preference and don't have too many development kids trying to buy their way in. The average SAT scores of the unhooked at top schools are considerably higher then the overall average.</p>
<p>well, it depends, ucberkeley is bettetr academiacaly tahn unc, ucla is proably equal. Hwever, perhaps S jsut wants to et away form home, to a better sports school, or campus environment. I wpersoanlly woudl choose Unc</p>
<p>footballyus2345,</p>
<p>Err... a better sports school than UCLA?</p>
<p>That's a pretty tall order. </p>
<p>pateta,</p>
<p>I have no idea what's your post and what's everyone else's. Try again, maybe with quote tags?</p>
<p>Uh, a better sports school than UCLA? Than Berkeley for that matter? UCLA speaks for itself. And Cal won the Director's Cup ranking for best overall college sports program nationally for fall sports and this past year has had a football team that shared Pac-10 honors in football, won varsity crew nationally, perenially wins rugby, won water polo nationally, etc. </p>
<p>I happen to agree that UNC would be a great destination, but you're sports argument against powerhouse UCLA (football, basketball, etc.) and lesser powerhouse Cal is, well, goofy.</p>