<p>
[quote]
The people who get in with 1050 or less on their SAT at Berkeley makes up 2% of the student body. And there are 6-8% of the student body with 1100 or less SAT at all East Coast Ivy leagues. Why should Berkeley be punished for giving those extra positions to disadvantaged teens who study uber hard, instead of the rich dumb legacies at the Ivies? Berkeley has 800-900 students with 1500+ on the SAT every year.
<p>nymph,
I agree with what you said about applicants from out of state. What makes out-of-state harder is the restricted quota placed on them (~90% are cal residents). It's only fair to speak for overall though. After all, I thought we were talking about "overall". Looking at 10% of it (out-of-state) is almost no different from looking at honors program in private schools.</p>
<p>well of course, but our point is that the sat doesn't necessarily correlate to how well a student can cope with college work.
i have friends who got into oxbridge but got less 1150s for their sats!!!</p>
<p>well for ucla, the acceptance rate for out of state was roughly 21% and internationals was 19%...in state was about 28%
im not sure about n/w tho</p>
<p>One fact that really matters--Berkeley has by far a better faculty than Northwestern. 201 members of the National Academy of Science versus 37. Having such superstars on board attracts the best up and coming professors too.</p>
<p>barrons,
I agree. The faculty team is exactly one of the major reasons why Berkeley depts are ranked high. </p>
<p>nymph,
NU's last year admit rate is 29%. It looks high but the applicant pool is rather self-selected and strong because it doesn't use "common application" (weeds out those who think they don't have much chance and hence not worth the extra effort (writing 2 additional essays + short responses to 4 questions) to apply). The SAT/ACT stats I posted earlier is comparable to Brown's even though Brown's admit rate is a lot lower (16%).</p>
<p>Again, going back to the original post, I think it's not worth the extra 100k to go to NU. I'd go with Berkeley.</p>
<p>I have to do this over and over and over again. (sorry, but this is like the 10th time I am saying this in the past two weeks... bleh)</p>
<p>There is a HUGE difference between best one sitting SAT score, and best verbal + best math SAT score. </p>
<p>Take your own SAT score for example. Most people who apply to top schools take the SAT 2 or 3 times. Berkeley and most public schools use the best one sitting SAT score. Most privates use best verbal+best math. The difference is usually 30-50 points on the SAT. That is how I came up with the 1500 SAT as the 75th percentile for Berkeley classes. 25 % of a 3500 class means that 800-900 students got 1500+ according to the private school SAT methodology.</p>
<p>You cannot simply adjust the data by an amount you feel is correct. Try doing that in statistics class and see what the professor says. Sure it may end up being more, but you cannot just make a number up.</p>
<p>Most people I ask say 50. I said 30-50 just to be on the safe side. Whats yours UC Benz? BTW, if u didn't even apply to any UC, why is your name UC_Benz?</p>
<p>It isn't any number; I don't see the point in coming up with an artificial number. I know it's higher than 350 or whatever and that's all that matters. I've never once championed SAT scores on this thread because once you get into a top 25 school then SAT's are impossible to differentiate between each person. Of course if you have a 1600 and an 1100 then that's another story, but there are hardly ever those kinds of discrepancies. </p>
<p>And who cares what my user name means. It doesn't mean University of California. I don't know if you have looked a dictionary lately, but there are many many many more words that start with "u" and "c" besides "University" and "California". I hope you enjoy your seat up in the ivory tower where everyone is dying to get into the UC's, but if you've ever been outside of California (especially the east coast), then you'll see that is FAR from the case.</p>
<p>Well your disregard for other colleges makes me think that. I know people who were accepted to every one of the Ivies and several other top 20 colleges. Coincidentally, none of them applied to Berkeley.</p>
<p>I don't deny that Berkeley is a good school, but you seem to have an unusually inflated view of it.</p>
<p>^ Thats cool. I know people from NYC that turned down Columbia just to go to UCSD engineering. You'll never hear anyone in California give nothing but GENUINE accounts of the east coast. Thats the difference. Loyalty to your region is one thing, engaging in blatant lies and misinformation is quite another.</p>
<p>I happen to think that going to Berkeley was one of the best decisions of my life. I lived an ordinary life before I went... and it changed me forever. I'll tell you one thing, if Bush went to Berkeley for school, there is no way he would have turned out the way he did, and this world would be a much better place.</p>
<p>LOL! If Bush were at Berkeley, he would just simply flunk out and still be the very same spoiled cowboy. He would graduate from U of Texas instead but still got into Harvard's MBA because of his DADDY (LOL! He couldn't even run a baseball club with that mba even after daddies and friends threw in $$$$ to it). I think he would be just the same dummy he is today.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Take your own SAT score for example. Most people who apply to top schools take the SAT 2 or 3 times. Berkeley and most public schools use the best one sitting SAT score. Most privates use best verbal+best math. The difference is usually 30-50 points on the SAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Many people do take it only once. Most people improve in BOTH verbal and math the second time, that is, the best one sitting = best verbal + best math. So even if most privates use best verbal + best math like you claim (what's the basis of this claim? I've never heard of it), it shouldn't really make much of the difference.</p>
<p>well my verbal went down when my maths went up. i also know people who retook and went down. i know it's a lot higher for a lot of people when they use their best two, it is common to have one improve while the other decrease. furthermore, most people applying to private universities would have taken it a couple times. and yes, private universities do use the two best. university websites state this claim.</p>
<p>Show me their websites where that's the way they tabulate and present their own statistics. Even if some of their websites say that's how what they do when evaluating students behind the closed door, that doesn't necessarily mean that's how they actually present their data to the public.</p>
<p>Regardless, "common data set" sets the SAME format for all universities.</p>
<p>It shows Northwestern's SAT scores 25-75 percentile range is 1310-1480 while Berkeley's is 1190-1440 (note the higher variance in Berkeley's set) which are both consistent with those shown on US News. Therefore, I highly doubt the claim that Berkeley is somehow disadvantaged while others manipulate their data in the way Westside described to make them look higher ON US NEWS; maybe on their own little website, but very unlikely on US News. You'd think US News would know and stop such practice anyway. Now I think of it, that probably explains why sometime I see stats are higher on some schools' own website than those on US News. Note how Berkeley has better class rank because its admission is quite a bit more numbers (you almost always have to have certain class rank regardless of your test scores) driven.</p>
<p>ACTUALLY the data US news receives is data submitted by the colleges/universities. so if NU looks at SAT scores of the two best, then yes, that would be the stats they would submit to US news...
secondly, what about the schools that don't rank...many schools don't rank. of course it's not just about ranks, but also about gpa, the courses you take...etc.</p>
<p>and class rank is probably a better factor to look at than sat scores anyways...that is if the school ranks. since class rank does take into account of gpa and stuff?! and unless a student takes **** easy subjects, it's harder to get a high gpa than high sat scores. especially if a student retake their sats</p>
<p>Well, Northwestern is submitting what's on their common data set to US News and the point of common data is to have uniform format and universities are supposed to abide by the same definitions (therefore shouldn't manipulate). Therefore, what's on US News for NU should be the best sitting, not "best V + best M".</p>
<p>The problem of class rank is the disparity of high schools--someone from one of the top schools and ranked in the middle can be a valedictorian in a crappy school. I actually went to one of the best high school in Hong Kong and my math was considered mediocre there; after I transferred to a boarding school in Mass, I was considered one of the best students the math teachers ever had.</p>
<p>^ Yes it should be for best one sitting, but its not. Most privates don't do this, and send in best verbal + best math which in the end makes their students and people who don't know look uninformed later on when such discussions happen in forums or in real life. This is a huge criticism of the US News rankings, and in the end they don't care about the data discrepancy because it fits in with their private school bias, along with their inaccurate and incomplete reporting and emphasis on resources over academic excellence. </p>
<p>And when most people tell their SAT scores, they use their best verbal + best math. People usually do this in their resumes for investment banking and management consulting as well. Either way, the methodology should be uniform.</p>