<p>actually, it can't enroll about half the current class size without raising the tuition by a lot. such a tuition hike would decrease the number of applicants for sure. that would sound a lot like a private. when that happens and with its graduate programs as good as stanford's graduate ones, it's gonna be another stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
collegebound9696 </p>
<p>Posts: 68 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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>*There are factors that can influence the score of a student in a single exam other than stored knowledge. *</p>
<p>The SATs is just a half-day activity. During this half-day, there are factors other than intellectual capability that may affect the student's performance in the exam, e.g. health condition, emotional or psychological state. Hence, there is the possibility of excluding good students if admission is based only on the results of one set of exams. Also, the existence of review classes can create a false picture of a student's preparedness and allow the admission of students who, in reality, may not be ivy league material. </p>
<p>It is for this reason that I would not make the SATs scores more important than the students' high school grades.</p>
<p>Agreed powergrid. Besides, Cal and Michigan de-emphasize the SAT and do not superscore. That alone knocks off dozens of points from their SAT ranges and averages. If Cal or Michigan were to weigh the SAT as heavily as private universities did and if they superscored, their SAT range would actually rise by 70-100 points, as would their mean SAT scores.</p>
<p>^ Yes, that's my point exactly. Should these top public schools such as Berkeley, Michigan, UVa and the like change their admission requirements (e.g. declare SATs as extremely important), they can very much afford to do that and that would increase their positions in league tables. But that's not how public schools are, fortunately.</p>
<p>
[quote]
their SAT range would actually rise by 70-100 points, as would their mean SAT scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol, is this a scientific opinion</p>
<p>No, it is not scientific, it is an estimation. However, the estimation is based on scientific It has been established that superscoring adds an average of 40 points (30-50 points depending on the study). Furthermore, most private universities assign a lot more weight to the SAT/ACT than do public universities. For example, Michigan used to assign more points to an applicant with a 3.9 GPA with a 1200/1600 SAT score than to an applicant with a 3.8 GPA with a 1600/1600 SAT score. Applicants knew that since Michigan made its then-used formula known to all. </p>
<p>For the above reasons, once can scientifically assume that Michigan's SAT/ACT ranges and averages would increase significantly if it were to assign more weight to the SAT and if it were to superscore. The assumption i scientifically grounded, the actual increase is merely an estimate.</p>
<p>Ok for the last time: I challenge anyone to produce a study proving the score increase of super scoring. You say "it has been established"- I challenge you to show me where, since no one on CC has to this point actually given any proof to back this claim.</p>
<p>^ Forget the superscoring. How about proving to us that those students with higher SATs scores are smarter than those students who were top 10 in high school?</p>
<p>impossible to prove....however, it is also impossible to prove that those in the top 10 are smarter than students with higher sat scores</p>
<p>There is no causality here</p>
<p>However, since everyone takes the test, it provides a good method of comparison.</p>
<p>Every high school is different for the most part. Some are more competitive than others.</p>
<p>The point is that a student who goes to a super competitive high school and is in the top 20 percent as opposed to the top 10 percent but scores at 1400+/1600 on their SAT is probably "smarter" than a student who is in the top 10 pecent at a less competitive school and scored a 1200/1600. What do you think?</p>
<p>Or more indicative a real world example I have: A friend of mine in HS was in the top 10, 3.94 GPA (that was REALLY high). I was not, with a 3.81. I scored a 2310 (2290 single sitting). Her highest score was 1940. I am smarter than her. No one at the school, including her, would argue that. My high school is one of the top publics in the country. </p>
<p>She goes to Quinnipiac. I go to Northwestern. By your reasoning, she's the superior student and it should be the other way around.</p>
<p>
[quote]
collegebound9696 </p>
<p>impossible to prove....however, it is also impossible to prove that those in the top 10 are smarter than students with higher sat scores</p>
<p>There is no causality here</p>
<p>However, since everyone takes the test, it provides a good method of comparison.</p>
<p>Every high school is different for the most part. Some are more competitive than others.</p>
<p>The point is that a student who goes to a super competitive high school and is in the top 20 percent as opposed to the top 10 percent but scores at 1400+/1600 on their SAT is probably "smarter" than a student who is in the top 10 pecent at a less competitive school and scored a 1200/1600. *What do you think? *
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll tell you what do I think.</p>
<p>In general, smart students are very capable of scoring high in SATs if they review for the exams very well. One excellent technique for scoring high in SATs is having a thorough review. </p>
<p>If a smart student did not get a high SAT score due to having spent college preparation years in a less competitive high school environment, then that’s the fault of the school and that would definitely NOT make the smart student unintelligent, because if you’re smart and dedicated, you will excel wherever you are and whatever is being fed at you. In your given scenario, it happens that the smart student was not fed with more information. That student would probably not get a high SAT score, but his potential is there and you don’t have any idea how capable the student is if you judge him based on a single, half-day exam. </p>
<p>When one is to measure intelligence and/or aptitude, you measure it based on the student’s CAPABILITY and POTENTIAL. And that can be best determined through years of school preparation, not through a single set of exams which can be affected by certain factors. </p>
<p>Let me give you an example.</p>
<p>When a bright young British chap would take the SATs, you can’t really expect him to score as high as his American counterparts would because the information fed to him could be different. In other words, some of the things he was studying were not exactly the things that would come out on SATs questions. So, naturally, the young bright British chap would find the SATs a huge a challenged. Now, here you are telling me that this British chap is inferior to his American counterparts. I think that’s wrong. Why? Because the moment you start feeding this British chap the complete and relevant information, he would be a big challenger to his American counterparts because he has the capability, potential, passion, the dedication, and now, the right tools to answer the SATs.</p>
<p>Some people are just really hard-working and take forever to memorize/understand certain concepts. They still manage to do well on tests and earn a high GPA, since exams in HS are relatively easy and oftentimes rely on just memorization and only require a somewhat low level of understanding... They may not perform as well in college, since those exams actually check for a deeper level of understanding. GPA is not that indicative after a certain point.</p>
<p>powergrid-What I take away from your post is that you scored poorly on the SATs, and therefore they are a flawed test in your eyes.</p>
<p>Aquamarinee- excellently put.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or more indicative a real world example I have: A friend of mine in HS was in the top 10, 3.94 GPA (that was REALLY high). I was not, with a 3.81. I scored a 2310 (2290 single sitting). Her highest score was 1940. I am smarter than her. No one at the school, including her, would argue that. My high school is one of the top publics in the country. </p>
<p>She goes to Quinnipiac. I go to Northwestern. By your reasoning, she's the superior student and it should be the other way around.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is actually a different case. </p>
<p>I think you're telling me that Berkeley was not doing its job in determining and in classifying the different standard levels of high schools in California. If you think NU classifies high schools according to their academic standard, so should have Cal and all the other elite public schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some people are just really hard-working and take forever to memorize/understand certain concepts. They still manage to do well on tests and earn a high GPA, since exams in HS are relatively easy and oftentimes rely on just memorization and only require a somewhat low level of understanding... They may not perform as well in college, since those exams actually check for a deeper level of understanding. GPA is not that indicative after a certain point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know what you're trying to say. But for five years? How can an academically challenged student survive being an honor student for five or so years? That's not likely to happen all the time if indeed it does. And even if we say it does, in what percentage are these kind of students have miraculously landed in the top 10% of his class? And take note too that there are subjects that can't be memorized -- maths and several sciences. Even the study of languages would require deep thinking and good logic. You can't memorize calculus. You can’t just memorize literature too. </p>
<p>Look, I'm not saying my method was perfect. Not at all. All I'm saying is, a student's potential is better measured through longer time than a mere half-day test.</p>
<p>And BTW, there's absolutely no problem being a hard-working student. In fact, if I am a teacher, I would prefer students who are hard-worker than students who are brilliant but lazy. What good would your high IQ do for you if you're not hard worker? The best intellectuals of then and now are hard worker. Most if not all successful people are hard worker.</p>
<p>
[quote]
powergrid-What I take away from your post is that you scored poorly on the SATs, and therefore they are a flawed test in your eyes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you misunderstood my point. I'm simply saying that it's better to measure smartness (being smart) based on one's potential and CAPABILITIES and even the student's line of thinking because questions asked in SATs do vary. If you think SATs questions are definite measures of one's intelligence, then you are wrong. Imagine there are hundreds of millions of people across the world who cannot get a SAT score of 1500/1600 and you're calling them less competitive. If you go to Nigeria, for example, you'd find out that only a handful of students there can get a SAT score of 1500/1600. Maybe only 10 Nigerian students can actually get that score. If we follow your logic, then all the rest of Nigerian students are less competitive because their SATs scores are below 1,500. Isn't that absurd? It actually is. That is why, when you measure smartness (or whatever name you wanna call it), you based it on the student’s potential to learn and absorb more, capabilities of the students to learn more and the students’ line of thinking. If SAT scores are that definitive measures, how come many of them drop out of college even when they are properly guided in schools?</p>
<p>I actually know quite a few people who are not all that brilliant and who spend hours upon hours studying and stressing out about the next test. And yes, they have been in the honors sequence for all 4 years of HS. Nothing wrong with being hard-working, but they're certainly going to extremes to achieve at the same level as the more intelligent individuals who have time for things outside of school. </p>
<p>Math and science at the HS level can be done by memorization, especially if the teacher is not willing to put any "challenge" problems on the tests. In the sciences, biology, chemistry, and physics are pretty easy to deal with. Biology consists of mostly memorization and chem/physics require knowing what to do with the numbers you're given. If the teacher doesn't change the structure of the problem, students can just memorize what the steps are. No real thinking takes place. Same thing with math. Even in AP Calc BC, it's not that hard to just memorize the numerous variations of a few problems and just remember what to do. You don't have to know WHY you're doing something; you just do it. This is all based on the assumption that the teachers don't make huge variations between the tests and the homework problems. College is not so easy, so students who go through HS using this method are in for a rude awakening... </p>
<p>These students will still land in or pretty near the top 10%. It's not that hard, unless you go to an extremely competitive HS. Most are not going to have a huge problem getting a somewhat high rank through lots of studying, but colleges want people who can do more than just study and maybe 1 EC.
Also, no one said that brilliant people are lazy. I would agree with you that it's probably better to be slightly more hard-working than smart, but most who go to top schools are brilliant and hard-working. Anyhow, my point was just that GPA is not really that indicative of brilliance in many cases.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I actually know quite a few people who are not all that brilliant and who spend hours upon hours studying and stressing out about the next test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And are you trying to tell me that this is not a normal scenario for SATs?
What about if I'll tell you that I personally know of 3 people from high school who were NOT smart at all but scored above 1450/1600... See? it goes for both ways. So, we have to identify now which one between the two is a stronger measure. My answer would be the high school success rank because, again, it's harder to become an honor student for a longer period of time than to score high in a half-day test.</p>
<p>I have a slightly above average GPA, and received a 240 on the PSAT and 2360 on the SAT.</p>
<p>I'm barely in the top 25%. I think I'm smarter than my grades indicate, and that grades don't always provide the answer. But grades are a more accurate indicator of future success/focus.</p>
<p>i think what's lost in all these exchanges is already shown by the official ACT site: the applicant pool for northwestern has significantly higher percentage of high scoring students. i don't think it's too much of a stretch to think the SAT distribution would be fairly similar. given this, there's also no reason to think northwestern pool somehow has lower GPA than berkeley's pool. so if both schools put the same weight on all criteria, chances are northwestern is going to have higher SAT and GPA (note how superscoring is totally irrelevant here). one can say all he wants what berkeley's SAT may become if it puts more weight on it than GPA but keep in mind high scoring students usually do have high GPA and the top privates are the ones that reject higher percentage of students with high SAT and GPA while taking ECs, teachers' recommendation (not considered at berkeley) and essays heavily into consideration.</p>