Berkeley (Industrial ) vs Northwestern (BS in applied mathematics)

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
61

<p>
[quote]

while the definition of what is a "top" student may be in flux, and it may very well be true by one definition that only "top" students apply to cal, the fact that the average SAT score at the school is lower while they also have a lower acceptance rate implies (actually by necessity denotes, as long as we are operating on the assumption that schools are attempting to maximize class strength) that the pool of students that is applying to cal delves significantly deeper into the lower percentile of student quality, as measured by the SAT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Excuse me. </p>

<p>Some high schools have different curricula and concentrations. Let’s accept it that some high schools do better prepare their students for SATs, but that does not mean their smarter students unless you're telling me that SATs are the ONLY measure of intelligence. If you do then what about my cousin who took A-Levels which is not a SAT oriented program???? If he scored lower than a New Yorker who's in the middle of his class standing, does that mean the New Yorker kid is smarter and should be the one to go to NU??? That does not make any sense. That is why, the best gauge is the student’s class standing which top public schools follow or seen as more important. </p>

<p>I know where veering away from the topic but I had to comment on your false assumption that it's harder to get into NU than into Cal.</p>

62

<p>i am obviously not going to convince you, i just wanted to set the record straight from the misunderstandings of the college application system you publicly espoused in this forum so that you would not misguide or confuse others</p>

63

<p>ok, guys, i don't see how admit rate is even relevant. by the time you got in, who cares whether you are one of five or ten applicants that got in? uchicago has even higher admit rate but its student body is as strong as the some of the ivies.</p>

<p>kyledavid,
superscore doesn't jack up SAT by 50 points. you have claimed that in other threads and the consensus is that your claim is a stretch. please look at this: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/438346-comprehensive-ivy-league-v-non-ivy-league-thread-33.html#post5188178%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/438346-comprehensive-ivy-league-v-non-ivy-league-thread-33.html#post5188178&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>the reason why berkeley, or ucla or some other publics, has high % of students in the top-10 (berkeley/ucla have higher % than even harvard) but relatively low SAT is because as public schools, they put more emphasis on GPA and class rank and take students that finish in the top-10% or whatever in any HS, unless they score ridiculously low on SATs. i recall seeing a foumula which UC admission is based on few years ago and if i remember correctly, the formula said 100-point drop in SAT is still better than 0.15 drop in GPA. So a big drop in SAT isn't nearly as bad as just a slight drop in GPA. high schools in california, like anywhere else, varies a lot in quality. in some bad ones, you don't need to be that smart to get high GPA whereas in the very competitve ones, you can be pretty bright but still finish outside the top-10% or even top-20%. it creates a more diverse pool in the sense that the elite high schools don't dominate UC admission so top students coming from poor schools in bad neighborhoods can still go to UCs. NU, on the other hand, takes the quality of schools or your bad freshmen year because of the death of a family member or whatever into account and let you make up those with high AP or SAT I/II scores. the person that finishes in the top-10% in a bad school and has mediocre test scores would have an easier time to get into berkeley whereas the one that has great test scores but has lower class rank in a competitve school would have an easier time to get into NU. i am oversimplifying a little of course but that's what it is in the nutshell. the two have such fundamental difference in admission and that's why it's difficult to say which one is harder to get in. the end result though, is that NU student body is generally more consistent and has less of a range.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]

it's funny you can make that claim although there is no factual basis for evaluating this since cal doesn't release it's admissions figures specifically for out of state students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is not fair. Cal released its acceptance rate for OOS and international students. </p>

<p>It is not fair because you don't accept those as facts which would suppose to give you a better idea of Cal's admissions. It is not fair that you don't believe it when USNEWS has declared that Cal is more difficult to get into than NU, but you believe it when it ranked NU higher than Cal overall. So, meaning, you pick and quote rankings that only favours NU. And when it does not, you disregard them and call them questionable. I think that’s not fair at all.</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
This is not fair. Cal released its acceptance rate for OOS and international students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>for literally the fourth time acceptance rate has nothing to do with selectivity of student strength</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is not fair that you don't believe it when USNEWS has declared

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i said the USNEWS selectivity ranking was not credible because it uses... you guess it... ACCEPTANCE RATE as one of its critera</p>

66

<p>
[quote]

i am obviously not going to convince you, i just wanted to set the record straight from the misunderstandings of the college application system you publicly espoused in this forum so that you would not misguide or confuse others

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I would love to do the same for other here. I was rejected at Cal in 2000 but got into several top private schools. So, how would you explain that??? </p>

<p>I would wager what I have just to prove to you that Cal is more selective than NU. USNews even ranked it higher than NU in selectivity ranking. I have many friends who got rejected at Cal but who would otherwise get into NU for their stat. And since my cousin is British, how sure are you that NU would be harder for him to get into when he said NU accepted 3 students from his school and no one got an offer from Cal.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]

for literally the fourth time acceptance rate has nothing to do with selectivity of student strength

[/quote]
</p>

<p>REALLY??! So it's just by coincidence that Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford and MIT -- the top 5 schools for undergrad education in the US have acceptance rates lower than NU's?</p>

68

<p>if you had taken a statistics or econometrics class at one of those top privates you were accepted to, i wouldn't have to explain this to you</p>

69

<p>^ I understand what you're trying to say, elsijfdl. I really do. But I see where the problem is coming from. </p>

<p>You seem to put emphasis on Cal’s lenient nature to in-state students and you neglected the part that it is mean and condescending to both OOS and international students. Yes, you have a plus if you’re a Cali resident that’s why majority of Cal’s applicants are Cali residents. But for people like you, me and my cousin, it’s not going to be easy to get into Cal for any of us. And I think you terribly missed this part in your equation.</p>

70

<p>i have a feeling this thread is about to be closed. ;)</p>

71

<p>^ That would be my fear too. So can we just stick the topic please? </p>

<p>I think it's more helpful if we just list down the advantages of going to Cal than to NU and vice versa. Let's just concentrate on each school's strength. </p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
But for people like you, me and my cousin, it’s not going to be easy to get into Cal for any of us.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>yes i know cal is selective for oos and international applicants. more selective than northwestern in this regard? we cannot know since they don't publish data.</p>

<p>my point was to dispute what you said about northwestern not being as "competitive" (i assume you meant in selectivity) as cal overall, to which i said northwestern is actually more selective than cal, and boasts a stronger student body.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
you're not arguing with me here, you're arguing with the premise of using the SAT to guage the caliber of students, and thus are arguing with the paradigm of american college admissions in general

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But you're bringing that whole paradigm in with your argument based on test scores -- "statistically superior" and whatnot.</p>

<p>
[quote]
admission to top public schools has not, to this point, approached the selectivity of admissions to top private schools, and in fact the difference is becoming more pronounced.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I highly disagree. One of the reasons that Berkeley competes well with top privates is that its admissions--and also its difficulty--is very, very similar to those of top privates. (I think you, like many other people on this site, underestimate the difficulty of getting into Berkeley.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
SAT has a much better chance of getting into berkeley because they are in berkeley's top 25th percentile of SAT scores, while they are exactly average at northwestern.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. The fact that one superscores the SAT (being private) and the other doesn't (being public) makes a difference. The difference can mean up to 50 or so points to the average. Generally, the 25th-75th percentiles are 100 points apart; Berkeley's, since it doesn't superscore, end up a bit more than 100. As I first saw it, the superscored 25th-75th percentiles are something like: CR: 630-730; M: 680-780; W: 630-730. This would put the average score and the 50th percentile at about the same, as it should be, and supports the additional 50 points to the average score (I believe Berkeley's current average score is 2040, so an additional 50 points would be a 2090; the 50th percentile, based on the 25th-75th, is a 2090 -- so you can see how nicely it matches up). I believe NU's is 1410 (CR+M), and Berkeley's would then be 1410. And that seems to support my own perception of their selectivity. They're really neck-and-neck.</p>

<p>It seems many, perhaps not you, seem to have what a call a "US News mentality" -- NU is ranked above Berkeley, and it's private, so it must be more selective. Far from the truth. In fact, even counselors, colleges, etc. acknowledge that schools of NU and Berkeley's caliber tend to be much more alike than people think.</p>

<p>
[quote]
we can only conclude since berkeley does in fact have a higher % than northwestern that the high schools that berkeley students are matriculating from are of a more modest competitive level than those of students matriculating to northwestern, since the scores of northwestern students on a reasoning (IQ) test are higher.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For one, that you attempt to make such a leaping conclusion flabbergasts me. It's also pretty funny to me that as soon as a statistic comes up that puts Berkeley in a better light, you dismiss it with an unsupported assumption. For another, what in the world are you talking about IQ? I've never seen any IQ test results collected on either school. And if you mean the SAT, then you'd be sadly mistaken to think that the SAT is a definitive measure of intelligence, or even a useful one. And as you can see from above, their SATs are much, much more comparable than you would like to think.</p>

<p>
[quote]
therefore we can assume that since northwestern students are overall more capable, that the reason there are fewer of them in the top 10% is because their high schools were more competitive overall than the high school of berkeley matriculants

[/quote]
</p>

<p>........</p>

<p>
[quote]
i think this can partially be explained by the fact that 93% of berkeley students are in-state and the california public school system (from what i've heard and read) is in abysmal shape.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really think that's shaky logic, too. Sure, overall the CA public school isn't comparatively one of the best (for high schools), but just look at the average # of honors/AP courses that Berkeley's admits took: they're very high (20+ semesters), so I don't think you can say that the students that Berkeley matriculates reflect the caliber of CA schools.</p>

<p>Sam Lee:</p>

<p>
[quote]
you have claimed that in other threads and the consensus is that your claim is a stretch.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I find your support against that to be rather weak (comparing SAT and ACT scores when the scales don't quite match up, comparing schools with drastically different SAT/ACT ratios in terms of students' submissions, no support for the claims that neither superscores the ACT, etc.), and I really don't see any "concensus." All the logic I provided matched up perfectly in numbers to the original claim (an additional 50 points or so). But heck, that wasn't even my doing. An entire study was done on it that showed how much superscoring can jack up scores; if I find it, I'll be sure to send it your way. =)</p>

<p>
[quote]
they put more emphasis on GPA and class rank

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, Berkeley doesn't consider class rank, only GPA and rigor of course load to determine where the student might place.</p>

<p>
[quote]
your bad freshmen year because of the death of a family member or whatever into account

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So does Berkeley. It places an emphasis on holistic admissions, especially for adversity overcome.</p>

74

<p>kyledavid80,</p>

<p>what study? you've been the only one talking about that phantom study. if there's such credible study, how come you couldn't bring it? </p>

<p>i don't know what it is that's so hard for you to understand. you think there are bunch of high scoring students in EVERY single california high school? you think this is singapore? berkeley emphasizes on gpa and they take people with good class rank, regardless of the quality of high schools (maybe i am oversimplifying a little here) and in the process, taking larger fraction of people with lower test scores than private peers. there've been quite a few CC members who wanted to transfer out of berkeley and one common reason they had was the "range" they've been seeing. why don't we see this happening in other top privates? because berkeley somehow has more people that like whining about it? the admission puts different emphasis and that's the end result. you think berkeley has like 1400 on SAT and 99% in the top-10% at the same time? you want it both ways and want to claim your school is more selective than stanford?</p>

<p>you don't even seem to understand what i said on <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/438346-comprehensive-ivy-league-v-non-ivy-league-thread-33.html#post5188178%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/438346-comprehensive-ivy-league-v-non-ivy-league-thread-33.html#post5188178&lt;/a> yes, most people agree with my analysis. the schools i listed have lots of applicants submitting ACT and SAT scores. i wasn't matching ACT with SAT; i was comparing the difference in ACT vs difference in SAT across different schools and found them to be more or less consistent. big difference! no wonder you didn't get it. you are the only one that's in denial and keeps bringing up that 50-pt BS. also, nu DOES not superscore ACT, hence the validity of the comparison. how do I know that? well, look up northwestern common data set and also official ACT site showing breakdown of applicants to northwestern and those other three schools. if you don't understand it, then i guess it's clear why you don't understand my analysis.</p>

75

<p>The only thing I will add is that the "so-called" ranking of colleges should remove the top 10 percent as a component of admissions selectivity. Knowing that 99 percent of students at Mich or Berk are in the top 10 percent of their high school classes means little. I am sure that the majority of universities are more concerned with having a smart student body as measured by both sat scores and academics. However, if they had to choose the one that is more important to them, I venture to say that SATs would be chosen. It is still the only way to compare colleges on apples to apples level. </p>

<p>If this component (top 10 percent) was removed from the rankings, a number of schools would see their selectivity rankings jump up or down. Some include:</p>

<p>Michigan, Berk would go way down. Berk only has a relatively high selectivity rank b/c of this measure.</p>

<p>UChicago and NU would go up along with JHU. Chicago and NU, and JHU to some extent, have historically enrolled very talented student bodies measured by SAT scores. They, however, have traditionally hovered around the 80 percent mark when it comes to students in the top 10 percent.</p>

76

<p>Sam Lee:</p>

<p>Now your comments are starting to break the courtesy rule of CC.</p>

<p>
[quote]
you've been the only one talking about that phantom study. if there's such credible study, how come you couldn't bring it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think you need to be insinuating that I'm lying. I don't have it at the moment; I would have to try to search for it. Though you'll have to forgive me if I can't pull it out immediately, since I'm extremely busy as it is and am only on CC for brief times.</p>

<p>
[quote]
i don't know what it is that's so hard for you to understand. larger fraction of people with lower test scores than private peers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not disagreeing with that. But the ultimate result--when superscored--is not as wide as people seem to think. That's what you seem to have difficulty understanding. Perhaps I simply haven't been clear enough.</p>

<p>
[quote]
there've been quite a few CC members who wanted to transfer out of berkeley

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There's no real point in drawing from the base here on CC; just look at graduation rates.</p>

<p>
[quote]
why don't we see this happening in other top privates?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you're assuming that we don't. I have -- many, many times. (Even students who want to transfer out of Harvard -- perish the thought.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
you want it both ways and want to claim your school is more selective than stanford?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For one, you assume that it's "my" school. It isn't. Though, from your past posts, I believe NU is your alma mater.</p>

<p>For another, that wouldn't be saying that Berkeley is more selective than Stanford. Why? Because that would be tantamount to saying that admissions are all about test scores, GPA, and rank. This is not true. I would say that Stanford is more selective than Berkeley -- I don't think anyone can deny that. However, we're talking statistics.</p>

<p>Not to mention Berkeley's average superscored SAT is still 50+ points below Stanford's. So no, you're drawing conclusions from things I didn't say or imply.</p>

<p>
[quote]
you don't even seem to understand what i said on

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I do. I don't agree with it. You compare schools in a region that's heavily ACT-oriented and try to extend that to a school thousands of miles away, with different admissions, and you don't seem to substantiate your claim that NU doesn't superscore the ACT. Not to mention the differences in difficulty of the ACT and SAT are not so clear-cut. Your feeble analysis shows just a few schools, not nearly enough of a sample size to make any reasonable conclusions. Not to mention that even if you could justifiably reach a conclusion, it may or may not be applicable to Berkeley, or Northwestern, or to other universities. You would need to solicit the actual information for that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
yes, most people agree with my analysis.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How is this "most"? I see two people (DunninLA and tokenadult).</p>

<p>
[quote]
i was comparing the difference in ACT vs difference in SAT across different schools and found them to be more or less consistent. big difference! no wonder you didn't get it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm well aware; what I said above ("comparing SAT and ACT scores when the scales don't quite match up...") was an attempt to compress this into a parenthetical element, you see.</p>

<p>
[quote]
you are the only one that's in denial and keeps bringing up that 50-pt BS.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now what you're saying is just bordering on asinine.</p>

<p>
[quote]
how do I know that? well, look up northwestern common data set

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think it's more appropriate for you to provide support for your claims.</p>

<p>
[quote]
if you don't understand it, then i guess it's clear why you don't understand my analysis.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please forgive me if I don't take your analysis seriously *when you didn't even read my entire post.<a href="%22i%20didn't%20really%20read%20your%20long%20posts%20but%20if%20your%20point%20was%20to%20say...%22">/I</a></p>

<p>I think we can end this discussion here. I would expect more courtesy (and maturity) on such a relatively light topic, especially from those who have theoretically graduated from a "top private university," but I suppose not.</p>

<p>Thanks for the stimulating debate, anyway.</p>

77

<p>^this isn't the first time you mentioned such study. you brought that up a while back and you kept bringing it up without showing us a copy or a link with it. mine was a legitimate question; don't blame others for doubting you or even calling you a liar (which i didn't; it could be that you were misinformed or mistaken but now honestly believe in its existence) in such situation. i didn't break any courtesy rule; you just didn't distinguish what i did and didn't say and then over-reacted.

[quote]
I'm not disagreeing with that. But the ultimate result--when superscored--is not as wide as people seem to think.

[/quote]

Now you are changing your position. Please look back your last post, you were saying the SAT between Northwesten and Berkeley should be about the same using your strange theory that nobody seems to agree with.<br>

[quote]
Not to mention Berkeley's average superscored SAT is still 50+ points below Stanford's.

[/quote]

No, when Berkeley's SAT should be 1410 like you claimed, it's not 50+ below Stanford. Stanford's SAT isn't 1460+, it's more like 1430 or so. Yes, at 1410 AND 99% in top-10%, it's pretty close to Stanford's stats since Stanford has ~86% in the top-10%.

[quote]
You compare schools in a region that's heavily ACT-oriented and try to extend that to a school thousands of miles away, with different admissions

[/quote]

This made me just think you had no idea what my analysis was. Let me try that again. Michigan doesn't superscore SAT and it has almost the same SAT as Berkeley. So according to your theory, Michigan's SAT should be about the same as NU if it's superscored. If that's the case, then the ACT should be nearly the same since both institutions don't superscore ACT. But no, Michigan and Northwestern's ACT average is separated by 2 points, an equivalent to about 80-point difference on SAT (based on published conversion table).<br>

[quote]
I think it's more appropriate for you to provide support for your claims.

[/quote]

Here you go:
<a href="http://www.act.org/news/data/07/pdf/states/Illinois.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.act.org/news/data/07/pdf/states/Illinois.pdf&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.act.org/news/data/07/pdf/states/Michigan.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.act.org/news/data/07/pdf/states/Michigan.pdf&lt;/a>
% of applicants (from their respective state) with 28-36:
NU: 45%
Michigan: 26%</p>

<p>Stats from other states aren't available because the number of oos students sending ACT to these two schools aren't large enough to make the list of their own states. but I don't think that's necessary. After all, those from Michigan make up the majority of Michigan applicant pool.<br>
It's clear that there's a noticeable difference in ACT score and if there's a noticeable difference in ACT, why should SAT be somehow magically similar?</p>

<p>By the way, the number for Berkeley (from California) is 24% and while California ACT isn't as popular as SAT, still over 6000 students sent ACT to Berkeley. In case you haven't notice, 24% and 46% are fairly different. That seems suggest a gap in SAT between NU and Berkeley is expected. If you think the otherwise is less of a stretch, I don't know what else to say. </p>

<p>2006-07</a> First-time, first-year (freshman) admission, Common Data Set - Northwestern University
if NU superscored ACT, the percentage with composite 30-36 should be higher than those for Math and English alone. But that's not the case.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I would expect more courtesy (and maturity) on such a relatively light topic, especially from those who have theoretically graduated from a "top private university," but I suppose not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now, you are calling me discourteous and immature. At least I didn't attack you. Perhaps you should be the one that needs to watch for breaking courtesy rule.</p>

78

<p>I'd just like to add, once again, that the conventional wisdom on this point is actually that NU does NOT superscore. I'm not touching on this debate otherwise.</p>

79

<p>^thanks for pointing that out. i forgot about that. my illustration shows the difference in SAT should be the true difference. so it follows that "if " northwestern superscores, then superscoring doesn't make a significant difference. the thing is we don't know if nu actually superscores for their published data. that's just what some people claim. in fact, i've never seen any school explicitly saying they superscore for their published data. some may say they superscore upon evaluating applicants. but the two are not the same thing. superscoring may have significant impact, but if that's the case, my illustration suggests northwestern does not actually superscore <em>for their published data</em> (they may do so when evaluating/comparing applicants). that most privates superscore for their published data may well be just a myth.</p>

80

<p>It's funny, for Berkeley to raise its USNWR ranking, all it needs to do is only admit the students with the highest SAT scores and GPAs (although I wonder what this would do to class composition and meet Cal's public mission?)...Surely, out of the nearly 50,000 applications Berkeley receives, it can find 4,000 applicants with standards that would push it near the top of the selectivity ranking with about half the class size it normally enrolls.</p>