Berkeley vs. Stanford

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
181

<p>
[quote]
Those students aren't going to take any SAT prep courses and they are probably only going to prepare superficially for the SAT, taking it once or twice at the most. That's because they know that they can get a 1350-1400 on the test and that along with their class rank and GPA, will enough to get them into their #1 choice school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While I can't speak for Michigan, I think this is a mischaracterization of Cal. </p>

<p>First off, I personally don't know anybody who was so blase about the SAT that he just "knew" he could get a 1350/1400 such that he would prepare only superficially. That's fairly arrogant and short-sighted on anybody's part, to just "know" that you will get a certain SAT score. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In reality, students who apply to the Ivies and other private elites approach the SAT very strategically, and that further enhances the artifical advantage. For example, roughly 50% of Michigan's or Cal's students know that they will definitely be going to Michigan or Cal since they are Sophomores in High School. They don't think they may end up there...they KNOW. Those students are your typical Michigan or Cal students. They are 3.9-4.0 students (unweighed GPA), ranked in the top 5% in a relatively competitive high school class and come from middle-uppermiddle income families.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Secondly, I know very few people who "knew" that they were going to Cal. That's pretty presumptuous. I know in-state people who have even higher stats than what you mentioned, and didn't get into Cal. Cal admissions are not quite as formulaic as you seem to be implying. UC guarantees that you will get into at least one of the UC's if you have a certain academic index score, but not necessarily the specific UC you want. </p>

<p>Secondly, while some people may like Berkeley (and probably Michigan too), that's not to say that they won't see what other options are out there. For example, my brother knows one guy who you could say 'bled Blue', in the sense that much of his family went to Berkeley, he was a fan of the sports teams, and so forth. So if anybody could have been said to have had Berkeley to be his top choice, it would have been this guy. Instead, Caltech offered him a full merit ride + stipend. You have to admit - that's pretty hard to turn down, particularly because Cal didn't offer him any meaningful money (he got a Regent scholarship, but because he didn't have any financial need, he only got $500 out of the Regent scholarship). So his choice was to go to Berkeley and pay, or go to Caltech and GET PAID. So he ended up going to Caltech. Honestly, can you blame him? Sure, he liked Berkeley, but that's a lot of money we're talking about here.</p>

<p>So my point is, I think a lot of people who like Berkeley or Michigan are still going to want to see what their options are. Hence they would still want to maximize their SAT score. You may get a full ride from somewhere else. You may get an outside scholarship. </p>

<p>Now, I can agree that there are some people who don't do this, and so end up at Cal/Michigan. But that tends to indicate a certain lack of ambition. Seriously, if you're not willing to prepare properly for the SAT, then you're probably not going to aggressively pursue other goals in your life. For example, if your attitude is such that you've resigned yourself to ending up at Cal/Michigan such that you're not willing to maximize your SAT score so you can see what your other options are, then I have to say that that's an attitude that is not going to serve you well in life.</p>

182

<p>
[quote]
Seriously, if you're not willing to prepare properly for the SAT, then you're probably not going to aggressively pursue other goals in your life.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know that I agree with this for all cases. I'm sure you'll agree that some people can't necessarily afford the time/money to really prepare for the SAT on an even footing, no?</p>

183

<p>UCLAri with all due respect, everyone has the opportunity of taking SAT prep. My parents paid lots of money for me to attend Princeton Review's class more than once and in each class there were several kids there "on scholarship." Just like the fancy camps and summer programs. Plenty of "needs based scholarships" for those also. The opportunities are there for the underpriviledged if you look for them.</p>

184

<p>CA2006,</p>

<p>There's the issue of time, as well. I wanted to take prep, but with work and outside obligations didn't have time. Plus you get a lot of students who can't stick around for the classes because of the long commute home.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that this is necessarily the rule, but to say that EVERYONE is on a level playing field as far as prep goes is a bit presumptuous based on my experiences.</p>

185

<p>When your family is poor SAT's are not exactly the highest priority. Me and my siblings all worked full time. My family had one car between 7 of us so it would be pretty dificult to shuttle one kid or the other to SAT prep. Not to mention I don't think my parents wanted to get our hopes up of going to a good college straight out of high school when they knew not only did they not have the money but they wouldn't qualify for loans. There are circumstances that can make these tests to far out of reach for some students. Like UCLAri was pointing out money is not the only issue.</p>

<p>My sister is the only one that actually took the SAT's and that was only because she was basically promised a full ride to UCSB which she received. She was the first born and way older than the rest of us so it was less difficult.</p>

186

<p>
[quote]
Not to mention I don't think my parents wanted to get our hopes up of going to a good college straight out of high school when they knew not only did they not have the money but they wouldn't qualify for loans. There are circumstances that can make these tests to far out of reach for some students. Like UCLAri was pointing out money is not the only issue.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a gigantic red herring. The truth is, if you don't have money, if anything, you should REALLY care about the SAT's. That's because if your family doesn't have money, then the most cost-effective school for you to go to, without a doubt, are the top private schools because they are extremely prodigal with their financial aid. </p>

<p>For example, I know 2 guys who grew up without much money. But they did extremely well academically, and got into a bunch of UC's, including Berkeley, and they also got into Harvard. They then found out that it was actually CHEAPER for them to go to Harvard than to any of the public schools. Basically, the public schools wanted them to take out loans, whereas Harvard offered them completely full rides, including stipends. So their choice boiled down to going to paying to go to a public school, or GETTING PAID to go to Harvard. What would you do? </p>

<p>I will always remember one of them stating deadpannedly that he always dreamed of going to Berkeley but he couldn't afford it, so he had "no choice" but to go to Harvard. He had a wickedly acidic sense of humor. </p>

<p>The point is, if you're poor yet you're an academic superstar, you can go to a top college gratis. Hence, the notion that won't be able to go to a top college because you think you're too poor to afford it is a huge red herring. </p>

<p>Now, I agree that a lot of poor people simply don't know that the top colleges are so aggressive when it comes to financial aid, but again, not to be overly harsh, but that gets back to the notion of proper preparedness. It is difficult to conceive of somebody who really is an academic superstar, but who isn't aware of how generous the financial aid at the private schools can be. This is something you should know. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not saying that this is necessarily the rule, but to say that EVERYONE is on a level playing field as far as prep goes is a bit presumptuous based on my experiences.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said anything about prep classes. I personally never took a prep class for any standardized test, and neither have many of my colleagues. Yet we've all done fairly well for ourselves academically. I'm talking about simply putting in some minimal effort to get yourself ready for the SAT. Come on, really, it's not THAT hard to borrow some SAT books from the library. You can do that even if you're poor. If you're not even willing to do that, well, I don't know what to tell you.</p>

<p>As a case in point, I know a Vietnamese-American guy whose family immigrated to the country with little more than the shirts on their back, fleeing the chaos of the Vietnam War. They had no money, they spoke no English, and had to live some rough ghetto neighborhoods, and all of the kids had to work to help support the family as soon as they were able. Yet this guy still performed extremely well academically, going to undergrad at Harvard, then Harvard Business School, and is now a successful investment banker. His brother went to MIT, where he got his bachelor's, master's, and PhD (hence becoming "MIT-cubed"), and then became a successful tech entrepreneur. His sister also went to MIT, then went to a top tier business school (I believe it was Wharton). This is from a family that was scarcely scraping by and whose parents still can't speak much English.</p>

187

<p>So my parents were supposed to bank on the fact that we would all get into an ivy? Sounds kind of silly to me...Sakky, you are assuming that the world revolves around high school and the SAT's. I guess it is hard for someone to understand when they have never been through it. Priorities change to food and shelter when things get really bad. The SAT becomes a luxury. I guess I must agree to disagree with you.</p>

188

<p>Just one more thing I want to put out. I do realize my analysis has its limit and I was just trying to show the difference in reported SAT is <em>likely</em> very small (like around 10 or so) between two practices. Alexandre and vicissitudes are probably not gonna agree anyway. But I want to point out once again that the difference between reported average ACT (~2-3 points) of Mich and, say, Northwestern is consistent with the difference between their reported SAT averages (~60 points). Since publics and privates treat the ACT the same, the consistency is a strong indication that the difference in reported SAT from the two practices is likely very small.</p>

189

<p>
[quote]
So my parents were supposed to bank on the fact that we would all get into an ivy? Sounds kind of silly to me...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, you could also have banked on going to a lower-tier school that would have given you a full merit scholarship.</p>

<p>My take is this. EVERYBODY who is highly academically competent can get a full ride somewhere. If you are poor, you can get that full at a top private school via financial aid. If you are not poor, you can get a full ride at a lower level school. Of course if you are really really good, you can get a full merit ride from a top private school that gives them out (i.e. Caltech). </p>

<p>My point is simple that defeatism is the biggest problem you can face. The easiest way to fail at anything is to convince yourself that you can't do it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you are assuming that the world revolves around high school and the SAT's

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not saying that the world "revolves" around what you do in high school. But the world does "revolve" around your education. I know other people who went to no-name low-tier schools, kicked butt there, then went to top-line graduate programs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Priorities change to food and shelter when things get really bad. The SAT becomes a luxury. I guess I must agree to disagree with you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really bad, huh? And how bad is that? Have you seen your own family members beaten by advancing Communist soldiers? Do you still not know what happened to some members of your family? Were you then forced as a youth to come to a strange country where none of your family, including you, spoke any of the language, where you were forced to live in ghetto conditions filled with marauding gangbangers that hated you because they thought all Vietnamese people were Communists? Were you and your brother and sister forced to work in local jobs after school in conditions that would almost certainly violate child labor laws because you had to help your family pay the rent? </p>

<p>That's a pretty fair description of the childhood that my Vietnamese friend experienced. He didn't speak any English at all until he was about 10 or 11. Yet he ended up getting 2 degrees from Harvard. </p>

<p>The point is, you can succeed even if you start off in terrible conditions. You can do it. But the first thing you need is to believe you can do it. My friend always believed that he could succeed even though he and his family arrived in the US with literally nothing. </p>

<p>Self-defeatism is the most pernicious problem I see in society - the feeling of some people that they just can't succeed, so they don't even try.</p>

190

<p>sakky is so inspiring, don't you think?</p>

191

<p>I am not going to share poor me stories to prove a point. Did your friend have it horrible? Yes. Is that the only possible scenario that could be devastating? No. Honestly I am surprised your friend cared about the SAT's but that is him and not me. My family had a plan for our education but it did not include taking the SAT's. We had bigger things to worry about even if there was not a national scale war happening to us. We all (except for my sister) started at community college. My oldest brother is now a lawyer with his own firm and my other brother is in law school at the moment. My sister received her masters and is a teacher. I plan on getting my MBA. By not taking the SAT's we were not selling ourselves short or thinking we weren't capable. We just knew that was not a possible path for us. We have been successful anyway. :)</p>

192

<p>Sweetny007 is so inspiring, don't you think?</p>

193

<p>Vicissitudes is so deliciously cruel! Don't you think?</p>

194

<p>
[quote]
I am not going to share poor me stories to prove a point. Did your friend have it horrible? Yes. Is that the only possible scenario that could be devastating? No. Honestly I am surprised your friend cared about the SAT's but that is him and not me. My family had a plan for our education but it did not include taking the SAT's. We had bigger things to worry about even if there was not a national scale war happening to us. We all (except for my sister) started at community college. My oldest brother is now a lawyer with his own firm and my other brother is in law school at the moment. My sister received her masters and is a teacher. I plan on getting my MBA. By not taking the SAT's we were not selling ourselves short or thinking we weren't capable. We just knew that was not a possible path for us. We have been successful anyway

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then you're not really the target demographic of which I was referring. </p>

<p>I am simply saying that not caring about the SAT is part of a larger problem that I see in a lot of Americans in that they just don't believe that they can succeed educationally. That doesn't mean that all people who don't care about the SAT don't have ambition and confidence. But it does mean that quite a few people who don't care about the SAT don't have ambition and confidence. </p>

<p>But my point is not to key on the SAT specifically. I know plenty of people who never took the SAT. For example, I know plenty of people who took the ACT instead, and went to places like Harvard or MIT. Whether you happen to care about a specific standardized test is not the issue. </p>

<p>The issue is that it is the easiest way to fail at anything is to convince yourself that you can't succeed. For example, when somebody has the mentality that their parents can't afford to send them to a good school, so they're not even going to try to achieve academic success - that kind of attitude is a problem. I'm not saying that you necessarily had this attitude, but I am saying that there many people who have this attitude. And that is a problem.</p>

195

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>I don't disagree with you. However, I do believe that it's hard to really key in on singe anecdotal datum points and say, "see, here's a trend!" For some, prep is a necessary component to success, and the playing field is made less-than-level by those economic factors. </p>

<p>Of course, anyone can succeed if they don't let defeatism get in the way. But to say that there's a level playing field (as I hear suggested by some) is a bit unfair as well. I just think that we should be aware of all the potential issues facing us at game time.</p>

196

<p>I also think many people here are forgetting that SAT prep-courses are more of a cultural norm than an indicator of socio-economic status or ambition. At the University of Michigan, 80% of the students could afford taking a prep course. 60% of Michigan students come from households with 6 figure+ incomes. And half of the remaining students from from families that are relatively well off anyway, certainly capable of shelling out $2,000 for a prep course. And there is no questioning the ambition of Michigan students. 35% of them go straight to graduate school upon graduation and another 25% or end up going to graduate school 2-5 years after earning their undergraduate degrees. According to the WSJ feeder school survey, Michigan was ranked #18 in nation among research universities. </p>

<p>And yet, despite the fact that students at the university of Michigan are among the wealthiest and clearly ambitious, very few of them actually take SAT prep courses. </p>

<p>Clearly, the SAT prep course is a cultural phenomenon that is far more prominent in the East Coast than anywhere else in the nation.</p>

197

<p>I'd actually be interested in seeing a demographic map showing where prep courses sell, just for the sake of figuring out who affords them and where they end up at.</p>

198

<p>*And yet, despite the fact that students at the university of Michigan are among the wealthiest and clearly ambitious, very few of them actually take SAT prep courses. *</p>

<p>And who would blame the students whose target was Michigan? </p>

<p><a href="http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.asp?ID=7906%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.asp?ID=7906&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Michigan Education Report - Fall 2006 Issue State: juniors must take ACT
National test replaces MEAP </p>

<p>Add one more test to the alphabet soup that makes up a high school student’s regimen.</p>

<p>Beginning with the class of 2008, all students will take the ACT in the spring of their junior year. This year’s juniors will take the test this coming spring as part of a two-day battery that also includes an ACT Work Keys job skills test, along with a portion of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program test for science and social studies.</p>

<p>"The state didn’t think the science portion of the ACT was strong enough," Catherine Meyer, a counselor at Bath High School, told Michigan Education Report. "And the ACT doesn’t cover social studies."</p>

<p>Meyer thinks making the ACT mandatory for juniors has its advantages and disadvantages.</p>

<p>"If it will help encourage some kids to go to college, maybe have a better career step, then it will be a good thing," Meyer said. "But there are other kids, who may be struggling a bit, who might go to community college, who will be disheartened by their score." </p>

<p>"It still holds true that if you’re planning on going to school in state, you should take the ACT," Meyer said. "If you’re going out of state, especially on either coast, then you should take the SAT."

[/quote]
</p>

199

<p>
[quote]
However, I do believe that it's hard to really key in on singe anecdotal datum points and say, "see, here's a trend!" For some, prep is a necessary component to success, and the playing field is made less-than-level by those economic factors. </p>

<p>Of course, anyone can succeed if they don't let defeatism get in the way. But to say that there's a level playing field (as I hear suggested by some) is a bit unfair as well. I just think that we should be aware of all the potential issues facing us at game time.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, nobody is saying that life is fair. If you want to talk about unfairness, you can talk about my friend's missing family members who almost certainly died at the hands of the North Vietnamese Army. Life was CLEARLY unfair to them. Not to sound trite, but whatever unfairness may exist, at least you and your family members are alive and accounted for. Not everybody in the world can say that. </p>

<p>Look, life is unfair. Nobody disputes that. But just because life is unfair doesn't mean that people should just give up. You can talk about how rich people have SAT prep courses and other such advantages, but the fact of the matter is, there are poor and underprivileged people who still manage to get into Harvard and other top schools. Being born poor is not an excuse for not putting in a proper effort to succeed. </p>

<p>Hence, I stand by what I said before - it is poor people that ideally should want to succeed academically if, for no other reason, because they need to be hunting for a full ride. There are many full rides out there. Like I said, I believe any academically strong student can get a full-ride from at least a no-name school. Now of course we don't live in an ideal world and it is obviously true that many poor kids don't value academic success. But this tends to get down to cultural attitudes - that their own family doesn't value academic success, that their peer group doesn't value academic success, so as a result they internalize these attitudes so that they don't achieve. They have the POTENTIAL to achieve, but not the desire. </p>

<p>Note, I am not blaming them for not having the desire. There's nobody to "blame" here. But it does mean that these attitudes have to change. The biggest obstacle to achieving higher academic success rates is simply changing people's attitudes regarding academics. </p>

<p>It's not simple socioeconomics at play, nor is it a matter of looking only at isolated data points. Poor Asian immigrants have shown remarkably higher academic success rates whether these Asians are in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, or most other countries. Back when Hong Kong was still a British colony, Chinese students in Hong Kong have tended to perform better historically in standardized math tests compared to white British students in Hong Kong despite the average white student in Hong Kong being significantly wealthier than the average Chinese student. Jewish-Americans have also historically performed extremely well academically despite having historically lived in the depths of poverty. The Lower East Side of Manhattan of the early 1900's, for example, was one of the poorest and crime-ridden ghettos in the Western world at the time, packed with poverty-stricken Eastern European Jewish immigrants fleeing Russian pogroms, yet the educational accomplishments of these immigrants was nothing short of remarkable. </p>

<p>Here is a link in which Thomas Sowell talks about the remarkable history of Dunbar High School, the only public black high school for blacks in Washington DC for many years. Blacks have obviously suffered from a long history of poverty and discrimination, yet Dunbar students enjoyed unusual success.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The point of all this is that attitudes toward education matter. That's not to say that you (sweetny007) have a bad attitude, as you probably don't, but it is to say that there are a lot of poor people out there with bad attitudes towards education, and that goes a long way to explaining why they don't succeed academically, but poverty-stricken immigrants do succeed academically. In the case of my Vietnamese friend, his family had no money but they had something more important - a deep respect for education as well as an excellent work ethic. </p>

<p>In fact, I think that is the greatest 'unfairness' of all when it comes to academic success - that some kids are raised with attitudes that value academic success (regardless of how monetarily rich or poor they are), and other kids are not. But that just makes it all the more important to change the attitudes of those people who don't value education.</p>

200

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>I think you're kind of arguing something different. You just suggested that the playing field for standardized tests was more level than I believe it is. I'm not really decrying it, as I don't think the system is bad. I'm just pointing out that some do have advantages over others. It doesn't bother me, however.</p>