Why are the SAT stats for really great UCs (like Berkeley and -LA) lower than would be expected?
I live on the East Coast (in the SOUTH-east, at that) and even I know how great the UCs are, three thousand miles away. And I always hear how UC kids are so intelligent, competitive and talented. So why are Berkeley and UCLA kids’ avg. SATs like in the 1200s? USC’s avg. SAT this year was about 1400, and people (and not always just UC kids) are often ripping Southern Cal. as having, to put it bluntly, “dumber” students.
Yes, I know SATs are far from being considered “everything”, but they are STILL, generally, a fair indicator of the quality of students. So what gives, UCs?
<p>The average might be low, something like 1330 and 1340 for UCLA and UCB. However, the schools are so large that they probably have more 1500's and 1600's than any other school in the nation. Not to mention, nobel laureate professors...</p>
<p>Because of how bad CA public schools are. We simply have some of the worst schools in the Country and the grads compete against each other for the UCs as they take very few out of staters and very few CA private school kids apply.</p>
<p>Well, in principle my stats were right, but the actual numbers are different.</p>
<p>From princetonreivew.com, avg. SAT scores:</p>
<p>UC-Berkeley: 1300
UC-Los Angeles: 1289
UC- San Diego: 1239
University of Southern California: 1350</p>
<p>The University of Florida, for instance, as an avg. SAT of 1340. And you don't see U of F being spoken about in the same league as Berkeley.</p>
<p>"However, the schools are so large that they probably have more 1500's and 1600's than any other school in the nation." </p>
<p>Thanks for the reply, dru2k, I totally understand your points. But back to, say, U of F-- it has around 10,000 MORE students than UC-B, along with it's higher SAT average.</p>
<p>I know the UCs are stellar, but how are they so competitive when the SAT averages are so low? I was scared off from attempting to apply to Berkeley, but my SAT was almost 100 points higher than their average. </p>
<p>So what makes the UCs exactly so competitive when, say, half of UCLA's kids make below a 1289 on their SATs?</p>
<p>The UCs are known for trying to move away from placing much weight on SATs. They value Sat2s much more because it shows actual learned knowledge. The way the UCs started to consider sats differently was part of creating the new Sat because they have so much control. Grades are way more important in UC admission so gpas tend to reflect the intelligence of students more than sat scores.</p>
<p>being a UC applicant myself, i feel i know a lot about the UC system. the UC's are very competitive because first of all, they get SO many applicants. california is the most populous state in the country! about 1 in 5 americans live in california!</p>
<p>the UC's employ comprehensive review. they look at the whole picture, not just the SAT. they want to allow disadvantaged applicants to get an opportunity. a student from a poor, disadvantaged high school, who has a low SAT score because of lack of resources, but yet shows promise and potential through the essays and the application in general, will be given a chance.</p>
<p>the UCs don't generally look at SAT score as being important, especially the old ones. From what I have heard, one major reason why there is the new SAT is because the UCs hated the way old SATs measured a student's intelligence. Had the system not been changed, the UCs considered dropping SAT scores as one of the requirement. I think the UCs are trying to gear student more towards the knowing how to write well. That's one thing (I think) half of the incoming students lack.</p>
<p>The UCs before new SAT (don't know how they do it now) added together your SAT IIs, multiplied them by two, and added that to your regular SAT score, getting one big total score. They did this because evidence showed SAT II scores predicted college success better than SAT 1 scores. Thus SAT II scores counted twice as much for you as your SAT scores. </p>
<p>Combine this fact with the fact that the UCs only count one sitting at a time (which'll the average person with a score probably 20-50 points lower) and it's amazing that Berkeley's average SAT score last year was 1340.</p>
<p>Regardless, admission to Cal or UCLA is much harder than UF; a 1600 won't even get you into UCSD, if you don't have the GPA to match.</p>
<p>High GPA is very important. You'll see that the averages are over 4.0. SAT II's are even more important than the SAT I, and EC's carry a lot of weight. The pool is huge and therefore extremeley competitive. Not everyone admitted is an Ivy caliber person, there are plenty of dummies, but the academics are so good in a place like Berkeley that many students are either weeded out or smartened up.</p>
<p>in recent years, it appears that USC is letting in a ton of high scoring students simply to bolster their own stats and become "more competitive." a lot of these students prob. won't end up going to USC because they will be accepted to much better colleges. but USC can still use these stats to their advantage. also, the UC admissions process is more than just SAT scores. i think that many people with stellar SAT's are rejected from ucla and cal because of poor ec's/essays/etc, but are accepted to USC b/c of their scores alone. in addition, because USC is private, they receive applications from all over the world and can choose the best scores from a variety of applicants while UC's cater to california students--their goal is to accept as many cali kids as they can</p>
<p>"A lot of these students prob. won't end up going to USC because they will be accepted to much better colleges. but USC can still use these stats to their advantage. also, the UC admissions process is more than just SAT scores."</p>
<p>Breakaway, if this were true, then USC would be raising it's % admitted statistic, thereby hurting its prestige. That doesn't make sense. Also, of course USC is going to admit the students who are way above their target class. Since when do schools reject people for being over-qualified - except in extreme instances???</p>
<p>Interesting that you brought this up. In today's LA Times California section, there is an article about the UCs and their "low-SAT acceptance problem."</p>
<p>EDIT: whoops, a minute off...TODAY as in MONDAY</p>
<p>"In recent years, it appears that USC is letting in a ton of high scoring students simply to bolster their own stats and become "more competitive." a lot of these students prob. won't end up going to USC because they will be accepted to much better colleges. but USC can still use these stats to their advantage. also, the UC admissions process is more than just SAT scores. i think that many people with stellar SAT's are rejected from ucla and cal because of poor ec's/essays/etc, but are accepted to USC b/c of their scores alone. in addition, because USC is private, they receive applications from all over the world and can choose the best scores from a variety of applicants while UC's cater to california students--their goal is to accept as many cali kids as they can."</p>
<p>I agree, I know USC accepted this kid in my school with a 1500 either 1 or 2 in class, but had no strong EC's(if any), and was rejected by UCLA and UCB.</p>
<p>"Regardless, admission to Cal or UCLA is much harder than UF; a 1600 won't even get you into UCSD, if you don't have the GPA to match."</p>
<p>Er, this isn't exactly true, with myself as an example. I had an SAT1 of 1530 but my unweighted GPA was barely 3.2 and UC weighted somewhere around 3.5-3.6, and I got into UCSD/UCLA.</p>
<p>It was interesting, I saw a chart, that for my GPA UCLA had around a 5% acceptance rate, but for my SAT1 and SAT2 scores, UCLA had over 60% acceptance rate. So it does balance out.</p>