An Objective College Ranking

College Search & Selection
21

<p>
[quote]
Actually, he did. thethoughtprocess appears to have used the collegeboard.com numbers, which are the middle-50% ranges for enrolled first-year students, as opposed to the US News ranges which are for accepted (and not actually enrolled) students. As such, the collegeboard.com numbers more accurately reflect the scores of the various schools. And thethoughtprocess' ranking accurately reflects the collegeboard.com numbers.

[/quote]

US News uses numbers for enrolled students - from its description of its methodology (<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/07rank.php)%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/07rank.php)&lt;/a>, "We therefore factor in test scores of enrollees on the SAT or ACT tests (50 percent of the selectivity score)." Note the use of the term "enrollee."</p>

22

<p>Incidentally, you are right that collegeboard also claims to use numbers for enrolled students, which makes the rather large differences between US News and collegeboard somewhat surprising (it's too large just to be different years, someone is factually wrong). For instance, according to CB, MIT's score range is 1380-1560, while according to US News, it's 1430-1570, a disconcertingly large difference at the 25th percentile level.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
MIT's score range is 1380-1560, while according to US News, it's 1430-1570, a disconcertingly large difference at the 25th percentile level.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>then again its hard to believe anything that came out of MIT during the "impostor years".</p>

24

<p>I'd tend to trust the numbers the College Board provides over those provided by US News, as the College Board also provides the percentage of students who submitted scores (which indicates a certain attention to detail).</p>

<p>In any event, the ranking provided by thethoughtprocess appears to be accurate based on the collegeboard.com numbers.</p>

25

<p>collegeboard and USNWR are presently measuring different years. The new USNWR report in August will have the same data as collegeboard which all comes from the most recently available CDS. The CDS is typically published in late October or November. As USNWR updates its numbers in August, it is always a little later than collegeboard (which I think updates the numbers in the 1st quarter of the calendar year.</p>

26

<p>svalbardlutefisk,
I was using numbers from collegeboard, and was putting them in general ranges (ie Dartmouth Duke and Brown are all within 10 points, as are Penn and Columbia, Harvard and MIT). I usually use collegeboard for data, I like it better than other sources and all the data is in one spot. </p>

<p>Regarding MIT, I'm surprised with the difference between CB and US News - CB is usually a year ahead (or two) of US News but a 60 point gap makes no sense. Lets agree to blame that MIT lady with a fake resume for the SAT discrepancy. </p>

<p>unalove - of course SATs aren't the only thing that get you into college, but its one of the only standardized ways to compare student bodies. Class rank, NMS, feeder rankings, prof:student ratios are some others, but none as useful as SATs in my opinion.</p>

<p>I think SATs are one of the best indicator of student strength aside from actual post-graduation placement. The SATs are standardized. Almost everyone takes them. The higher the score, the better. </p>

<p>Intangibles are great, but can't be measured. Saying a certain college values intangibles more than scores is usually bunk when talking about top schools, as all top schools look for well rounded students.</p>

27

<p>"topofthegame, when comparing brandeis and uc berkeley, you need to take into account that berkeley, as a state school, is forced to take students, who if they did not reside in California, would not be admitted. the fact that a state school and a private school have similar SAT scores speaks volumes about the strength of uc berkeley. </p>

<p>same is true when comparing public (ucla) with private (lehigh). of course, public schools have a higher admit rate. it's because they must give an advantage to in-state applicants (who fund them) while private universities have no such constraints."</p>

<p>Yes, you're precisely right, burnedout; because state schools are obliged to take in a percentage of applicants who are not as qualified as its top students, the overall quality of the student body is inevitably compromised or perhaps academically diversified, a mixture of top and mediocre students. But even so, that diversity in itself is part of what a state school stands for and, therefore, when estimating the strength of the student body, we not only consider a state school's top students but also the students they were "obliged" to take in; after all, they are a large portion of the student body. While at private schools, since there are no such obligations, perhaps, a student body that meets somewhat of a common academic standard is formed, a homogeneous student body in terms of quantifiable academic measures such as test scores and GPA. Whatever the case, when viewing the student body of two schools, we take into consideration all students of a school, not just the top students at a state school or a private school.</p>

<p>I understand SATs are not a good measurement of the academic quality of the student body, and I, in fact, made sure it was known in my response, but people seem to hate the fact that I mentioned it. Very well, if we disregard SAT scores, how will you prove to me that the undergraduates at Berkeley are far ahead of being on par with the students at Brandeis? Why is it so out of question for Brandeis and Berkeley to be compared, likewise with UCLA and Lehigh? I would like to know where this logic comes from; we all know Cal and UCLA have a higher profile nationally, but the only objective figures that can characterize the academic profile of a student body, test scores and percentage of 10% in high school, indicate they are, in fact, similar in the students comprised. Prove to me that Cal and UCLA offer better a undergraduate education than Brandeis and Lehigh.</p>

<p>"how does % of classes under 20/over 50 correlate to ranking a college?"</p>

<p>Gator, it correlates very much in ranking the undergraduate experience at a university. The percentage of classes under 20 and the percentage of classes over 50 give an estimation of the class sizes at a university. For example, the average student-faculty ratio at a small private university like Columbia and even at a large private university like Northwestern is 7:1, while at UC Berkeley the ratio is 15:1. Hence, I can assure you, you will have a easier time spending an afternoon session with your professor here at Columbia than at Cal.</p>

<p>When a school has more classes that have 50+ students, it is also an indication that more of the classes will be taught and graded by TAs, graduate student instructors, a trend that is more common in large state schools. As an undergraduate, I can tell you these things matter very much in characterizing the undergraduate education at a university. I don't pay all my tuition to be graded and taught by students who are at the very most four years ahead of me.</p>

<p>"State universities will never be in top 15."</p>

<p>State schools usually have a heavier emphasis on its grad students, most of its resources and even faculty are geared towards its PhD programs, which is precisely why state schools rank in the top 5-10 in NUMEROUS PhD programs, more so than most top private universities. So the fact that state universities are not in the top 15 is an indication that their main emphasis is not on their undergraduates but postgraduates.</p>

28

<p>"you are simply reformulating rankings to make them reach the conclusion you wish."</p>

<p>For the record, the conclusion I'm trying to reach is not to undermine the quality of state schools, although that seems to be the problem for a few posters who don't like to see the UCs drop in rankings; the point of this is to merely remove subjective criteria, particularly peer assessment, which often times unjustly brings down the rating of universities that deserve more credit than they get due to things such as location and low profile.</p>

<p>If I were just trying to "simply reformulate the rankings to reach the conclusion I wish," as you stated, I wouldn't be supporting a set of rankings that ranks my school a few spots down.</p>

<p>"unalove - of course SATs aren't the only thing that get you into college, but its one of the only standardized ways to compare student bodies. Class rank, NMS, feeder rankings, prof:student ratios are some others, but none as useful as SATs in my opinion.</p>

<p>I think SATs are one of the best indicator of student strength aside from actual post-graduation placement. The SATs are standardized. Almost everyone takes them. The higher the score, the better. </p>

<p>Intangibles are great, but can't be measured. Saying a certain college values intangibles more than scores is usually bunk when talking about top schools, as all top schools look for well rounded students."</p>

<p>Agreed.</p>

29

<p>SAT is definitely a way to compare student bodies, but it should never be asserted that a school with a higher avg SAT is just always better than one with a lower avg. Comparing colleges in that manner greatly undermines the diversity schools exhibit.</p>

30

<p>"Saying a certain college values intangibles more than scores is usually bunk when talking about top schools, as all top schools look for well rounded students."</p>

<p>-This is, to me, where using SATs to compare colleges falls short. What happens with the colleges that have schools like schools of Music, that may (and probably do) value actual musical skill over higher SAT scores? </p>

<p>Sure most top schools could have only colleges of engineering and arts and sciences, and maintain fairly high avg SATs, but they shouldn't be seen as inferior when they don't.</p>

31

<p>Agreed, such as Cornell, which has an architecture school (best of its kind if I recall) but that drags its average SATs down</p>

32

<p>thethoughtprocess,
I apologize for accusing you of not using real numbers. I was quite familiar with the US News numbers, and immediately recognized the ranking you provided as different. I should have though to check other sources.
Sadly, I don't think Marilee Jones explains the MIT thing. She may have falsified her resume, but it seems extremely unlikely that she was manipulating admissions stats. It will be interesting to see if the US News rankings that come out in August contain the same data as the current collegeboard numbers in regards to MIT's SAT average. If so, it would imply a significant (and unexplained) drop off in MIT's SAT scores.</p>

33

<p>A couple of added factors: Schools which superscore will report higher SAT scores than schools which take the highest score from a single sitting - probably twenty or more points for selective schools with applicants who typically take the tests more than once. (That's why I said there was a dearth of "consistent" data.) Second, some schools consciously weight GPA more heavily than SAT's in their admissions decisions. UC is one - and it shows in the profile of admitted students - a ridiculously high percentage of top 10% HS graduates and relatively lower test scores than otherwise comparable Universities. Other schools will go for the higher scores and lesser GPA's all else being equal. That's why I suggest that a combinations of consistent test results and consistent grade results would be a valid basis for comparison - but it's currently unobtainable.</p>

34

<p>Sorry, I have to dispute this...</p>

<p>"For example, the average student-faculty ratio at a small private university like Columbia and even at a large private university like Northwestern is 7:1, while at UC Berkeley the ratio is 15:1. Hence, I can assure you, you will have a easier time spending an afternoon session with your professor here at Columbia than at Cal."</p>

<p>This is such a hugely common misunderstanding. I know for a fact that you can get to know your professors at Berkeley -- many students just don't, or they don't think they can because people like you perpetuate such a myth. There are over 2000 teaching faculty; there are countless more lecturers, visiting scholars, grad student instructors (which are at times arguably better at teaching than a professor), and some undergraduates who conduct some electives (decals). While the pure student:faculty ratios are higher, all of the above helps to keep class sizes small, without compromising the quality of education. Compare Stanford (just for comparison) and Berkeley class sizes, from the latest Common Data Sets:</p>

<h1>students - % classes in that range</h1>

<p>Stanford:
2-9 - 38%
10-19 - 35%
20-29 - 8%
30-39 - 5%
40-49 - 4%
50-99 - 6%
100+ - 4%</p>

<p>Berkeley:
2-9 - 34%
10-19 - 27%
20-29 - 15%
30-39 - 6%
40-49 - 4%
50-99 - 8%
100+ - 6%</p>

<p>These are undergraduate classes only, by the way. As you can see, Berkeley's class sizes really aren't drastically different. And believe me, it isn't difficult to spend lunch with a professor and such, nor is it drastically more difficult (if at all) than at a private.</p>

<p>"because state schools are obliged to take in a percentage of applicants who are not as qualified as its top students, the overall quality of the student body is inevitably compromised or perhaps academically diversified, a mixture of top and mediocre students"</p>

<p>I'll admit, there are some students who flat-out shouldn't be at a given school (e.g. Berkeley, UCLA, and even top schools like Stanford). But I'll add that they are very few in number, and the vast majority of the students are far from mediocre. You'll hear from students that at a school like Berkeley, basically everyone is very smart/opinionated/brilliant/genius. Sure, many of these students may not have had a 2300 on the SAT, or raised $6,000 at a charity auction, or won first place in a national competition. But I'd find it extremely elitist and arrogant to say that they aren't comparable to, say, a Harvard student. ('Course, I'll probably be flamed for asserting this, since so many people around here are firmly set in their belief that better numbers = better students, or that more selectivity = better students absolutely, but whatever.)</p>

35

<p>Kyledavid, I have no intentions of perpetuating a myth. Let me provide you with facts:</p>

<p>Yes, Berkeley has 1,950 faculty members, but also 23,482 undergraduates and 10,076 postgraduates who also take classes and usually receive more attention from the faculty at Cal.</p>

<p>I've no doubt, if a student at Cal tried to be receive individual attention in class, he/she could, but relatively speaking, it's not as easy as it is at a private university.</p>

<p>Columbia, for example, has 3,476 faculty members, almost twice the size of Cal's faculty, with an undergraduate population almost a fourth of Cal's, 6,854. It's no "myth" to say you'll have an easier time spending an afternoon session with your professor at a private university like Columbia than at a state university like Cal, at the UNDERGRADUATE level.</p>

<p>And I'm not just going off on figures, I come from California and the precise reason I turned down Cal despite of instate tuition was due to the fact that almost everyone I know at Cal told me that it's easy to become just a figure because of the school's size; this is not to say, they were not content with their education, but they didn't hide the fact that it is somewhat hard to receive one-on-one time with their professors.</p>

<p>"I'll probably be flamed for asserting this, since so many people around here are firmly set in their belief that better numbers = better students, or that more selectivity = better students absolutely, but whatever."</p>

<p>No, really, I agree with you in the sense that it is hard to constitute what makes a better student body, but if you so firmly believe that better numbers =/= better students, you still haven't answered my question by the way, what makes Cal students so better than students at Brandeis that you find it ridiculous to view the two schools as peers as you stated earlier? Brandeis has an edge in the numbers, but numbers don't mean anything according to you, so what is it about Cal students that make them beyond comparison to Brandeis students?</p>

36

<p>"Yes, Berkeley has 1,950 faculty members..."</p>

<p>Please don't rely on Wikipedia for information when the Common Data Set is easily accessible.</p>

<p><a href="http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2006-07.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2006-07.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"I've no doubt, if a student at Cal tried to be receive individual attention in class, he/she could, but relatively speaking, it's not as easy as it is at a private university."</p>

<p>Perhaps not as easy, but very far from difficult. I'd still classify it as 'easy.' And furthermore, oftentimes individual attention in class isn't necessary -- when it's a lecture, just a lecture, you don't discuss. The professor simply teaches the material. Sure, there are plenty of opportunities where you do discuss, but in many cases, discussion just doesn't happen. And as I showed you in the class size breakdowns, it's pretty easy to get individual attention at Berkeley, barely "harder" than at a school like Stanford.</p>

<p>"at the UNDERGRADUATE level."</p>

<p>Yes, I'm talking about undergrads.</p>

<p>"almost everyone I know at Cal told me that it's easy to become just a figure because of the school's size"</p>

<p>They either didn't say it right, or you misinterpreted what they said. You become just a number if you don't try to be active, because Cal isn't going to hold your hand -- you're forced to be independent. If you don't try to make friends, if you don't try to get involved, nobody is going to stop you. In that sense, you just become someone who's going to classes and getting a degree. (The professors won't know your name, your peers won't know your name, nobody will really know your name. Thus you're a number. And by the way, this can happen at any university, whether it's Brandeis, Berkeley, or Harvard.)</p>

<p>"what makes Cal students so better than students at Brandeis that you find it ridiculous to view the two schools as peers as you stated earlier?"</p>

<p>Do point out to me where I said Cal students =/= Brandeis students. Did I ever say that? No, I didn't. I said Berkeley (the school) =/= Brandeis (the school). By quality, I'm talking about not only student quality, but also faculty quality, course variety, research opportunities, student activity, library quality, and much more. I'm talking about the institutions overall. (Note, however, that I did not say that Berkeley is better for all the items listed -- I'm simply defining what "institutions overall" means to me.)</p>

37

<p>"Please don't rely on Wikipedia for information when the Common Data Set is easily accessible."</p>

<p>Oh whoops, I'm sorry, let me correct myself with the data you posted: NOT 1,950 faculty members but 1,928 faculty members as clearly outlined in the document you provided under I-2 Student to Faculty Ratio:</p>

<p>"15.3 to 1 (based on 29,445 students and 1,928 faculty)."</p>

<p>Nice move.</p>

<p>"Sure, there are plenty of opportunities where you do discuss, but in many cases, discussion just doesn't happen."</p>

<p>In almost ALL of my classes, excluding my core math classes, discussion just happens, probably because I haven't sat in a class that was over 30 students.</p>

<p>"They either didn't say it right, or you misinterpreted what they said."</p>

<p>They made it quite clear that when you get a paper handed back graded by a TA and you go ask why it was graded a certain way, all they will do is show you the mark scheme. No misinterpretations.</p>

<p>"Do point out to me where I said Cal students =/= Brandeis students. Did I ever say that? No, I didn't. I said Berkeley (the school) =/= Brandeis (the school)."</p>

<p>Would you not agree that a large portion of how the quality of a university is defined is by the aptitude/quality of its students? It's a paradox to say, Brandeis students may do better than Cal students on the SATs and are just as good as Cal students, but Cal is just a better school. That's going completely off name recognition.</p>

<p>"By quality, I'm talking about not only student quality, but also faculty quality, course variety, research opportunities, student activity, library quality, and much more. I'm talking about the institutions overall. (Note, however, that I did not say that Berkeley is better for all the items listed -- I'm simply defining what "institutions overall" means to me.)"</p>

<p>So give some facts of quality. Measure faculty quality objectively, show me proof that Berkeley offers more courses to its undergrads than Brandeis, more research opportunities for its undergrads NOT its postgrads, explain to me how student activity is better at Cal than at Brandeis.</p>

<p>"(Note, however, that I did not say that Berkeley is better for all the items listed -- I'm simply defining what "institutions overall" means to me.)"</p>

<p>Undergrad rankings are not comparing "the institutions overall." They're comparing the undergraduate education and experience offered at these institution. I'd like to hear how the undergraduate education at Brandeis does not live up to Berkeley's, not "the institution overall is JUST better."</p>

38

<p>"Oh whoops, I'm sorry, let me correct myself with the data you posted: NOT 1,950 faculty members but 1,928 faculty members as clearly outlined in the document you provided under I-2 Student to Faculty Ratio"</p>

<p>Keep scrolling down and you'll see the # faculty members in detail.</p>

<p>"They made it quite clear that when you get a paper handed back graded by a TA and you go ask why it was graded a certain way, all they will do is show you the mark scheme. No misinterpretations."</p>

<p>As if this doesn't happen at other institutions, including beloved Columbia? And on top of that, you're honestly trying to judge an entire university based on anecdotal evidence?</p>

<p>"Would you not agree that a large portion of how the quality of a university is defined is by the aptitude/quality of its students?"</p>

<p>I'd say part of the quality is defined by that. But not all. You keep relying on one factor to judge an entire thing: SAT scores, student quality, anecdotal evidence... really, it's just weakening your argument.</p>

<p>"That's going completely off name recognition."</p>

<p>No, that isn't the case. In fact, I barely knew anything about Berkeley before, and only vaguely heard of the name (because I spent years of my childhood in the Midwest). Further, I actually was more familiar with Brandeis because of US history years ago, when we studied Brandeis's famous Muller v. Oregon case (which was when I found out about more about Brandeis University, which my Jewish friend at the time went on and on about). So no, that isn't true. I'd suggest you refrain from assuming too much.</p>

<p>"So give some facts of quality. Measure faculty quality objectively, show me proof that Berkeley offers more courses to its undergrads than Brandeis, more research opportunities for its undergrads NOT its postgrads, explain to me how student activity is better at Cal than at Brandeis."</p>

<p>Oh, honestly, you don't think this has been discussed 10 million times? The data has been spouted thousands of times on these boards, and frankly, I don't want to go through it all again. I usually stay out of rankings discussions, but I had to say that your "rankings" are downright ridiculous. But here are a few easily-accessed facts (and I'm using Wikipedia here because it's accurate):</p>

<p>
[quote]
The campus offers approximately 7,000 courses annually in 347 degree programs in 14 schools and colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://calparents.berkeley.edu/visiting/about.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://calparents.berkeley.edu/visiting/about.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I highly doubt Brandeis comes close to that (though I don't see the # courses it offers).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's current faculty includes 221 American Academy of Arts and Sciences Fellows, 2 Fields Medal winners, 83 Fulbright Scholars, 139 Guggenheim Fellows, 87 members of the National Academy of Engineering, 132 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 8 Nobel Prize winners, 3 Pulitzer Prize winners, 84 Sloan Fellows, and 7 Wolf Prize winners. 61 Nobel Laureates are associated with the university, the sixth most of any university in the world; twenty have served on its faculty.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley#Academics%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley#Academics&lt;/a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_California%2C_Berkeley_faculty%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_California%2C_Berkeley_faculty&lt;/a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_associated_with_University_of_California%2C_Berkeley%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_associated_with_University_of_California%2C_Berkeley&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis_University#Notable_faculty_and_staff%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis_University#Notable_faculty_and_staff&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
The Undergraduate Research Apprentice Program (URAP) is designed to involve Berkeley undergraduates more deeply in the research life of the University. The Program provides opportunities for you to work with faculty on the cutting edge research projects for which Berkeley is world-renowned.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://research.berkeley.edu/urap/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://research.berkeley.edu/urap/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
UC Berkeley has over 700 established student groups.

[/quote]

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley#Student_groups%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley#Student_groups&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Brandeis can’t compare with these objective numbers (although I can’t seem to find as much data on Brandeis, it’s pretty easy to assume that Brandeis, with a student body of about 5,000, lags behind Berkeley, a major research university with a student body of over 30,000).</p>

<p>And those are just the obvious facts. Of course, comparison of the two -- and indeed of any two universities -- goes far beyond what I've just shown. But I have neither the time nor the desire to really go that far.</p>

<p>"I'd like to hear how the undergraduate education at Brandeis does not live up to Berkeley's"</p>

<p>Again, you show a very narrow view of this. I'm not judging based any one area (in this case, undergrad education). Overall institution is what I'm looking at. That includes not only the education, but the experience, spanning from courses to library to activities to events to research to everything. Overall, I would say Berkeley is better. I wouldn't say, though, that it's hugely insanely better (I'd say Berkeley is a tier-1 university (top 25 or so), whereas Brandeis is a tier-2 university (top 25-50 or so)), as Brandeis is a very different environment.</p>

<p>But again, you can disagree with me all you want on these two, and I'm not going to say you're wrong. Why? Because this is still all subjective. 'Course, I'll say I think your ranking/ideas are ridiculous, but that's because they're drastically different from my own -- but it's all very arbitrary. Some would think 30,000 students is too high and that 5,000 students is perfect; I think 5,000 students is too low, and 30,000 students is just fine. I can say that Berkeley is better by numerous metrics and non-quantifiable comparisons, but that would be my opinion that said comparisons matter, or that one is better than the other based on our measurements.</p>

39

<p>svalbardlutefisk - no worries, its important to double check other people's info</p>

40

<p>Yanking this thread back in a different direction-- reasons the SAT (any standardized test, really) is flawed:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Rich kids have a major, major leg up on it that poor kids do, or, more specifically, some kids can afford to hire private tutors that go for hundreds of dollars an hour; these tutors are able to bump 700's into 750's with an intimate understanding of how to take the test. For the upper-middle class, there is Princeton Review and Kaplan, which, while not as deluxe, is pretty instrumental too. </p></li>
<li><p>The SAT is crooked; the test is not really testing material as much as it is interpreting the loopholey questions and answers that they give. If you walk into the test cold, if you don't know that they might ask you a question that seems complex but give you half of a slip of information that makes it utterly easy, then you'll perform much, much worse. Also, the essay topics-- I forget what they are exactly-- are vapid and unclear, something like "Every cloud has a silver lining. Agree or Disagree." and are not really supposed to be developed, argumentative essays but rather.... I don't know.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Because the test is somewhat lopsided, I have friends who didn't take calc in high school and got an 800 on the exam, and friends who were AIME qualifiers and got 720's. Does this mean that my 800 friends are better at math than my 720 friends? No. They're better at taking this test.</p>

<ol>
<li> When I took the ACT, my scores was entirely different, furthering the idea that the SAT is far from "objective" if there is another measure of aptitude that aproaches similar material with different questions, and that I would get a different read.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>When I took the SAT, my highest section was math (720), and my lowest was writing (couldn't break a 650) despite that I regularly edited my friends' papers for grammar. At my high school, 650 put my writing score at about the 45th percentile, but when I took my high school's grammar test, I got a 97/100 where most students scored in the low 80s. </p>

<p>When I took the ACT, my lowest was math (26), and my highest was writing (36).</p>

<p>I have specific reasons I think my scores turned out the way they did, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to explain that I think using SAT as an evaluation is unfair, however easy it may be to make comparisons.</p>