<p>Sam - yeah, the differences are probably small... but I could see it potentially making a difference between 50 - 100 points in the overall average... That's significant enough!</p>
<p>
[quote]
ED and waitlists are used heavily by top private universities - this ultimately skews the admit percentages and yield ratios for those universities (making those universities appear to have lower admit percentages and higher yields). On another note, the same goes with SAT scores. Instead of the best score in one sitting, many private schools utilize the best scores for each section, regardless of which sittings they were taken in. Their overall SAT averages therefore appear to be higher than if they had only considered the best total SAT score in one sitting (like Berkeley does). Again, another area where Berkeley doesn't "play the game."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heck, even UVa does these things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
With that said, I admit that even if Berkeley were to do all these things (ED, waitlists, and take the best SAT scores from multiple sittings), that doesn't address the cross admit issue. We would still lose many of the cross admit battles with HYPSM... so there is still a lot of work to be done there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To tell you the truth, I'm more concerned about matchups like Berkeley vs. Cornell, Brown, Northwestern, WUSTL, UVa, Rice, U Penn, JHU, UCLA, and Chicago. I think when it comes to not only HYPSM, but even schools like Cal Tech, Duke, Columbia, and Dartmouth, it is usually a "no-brainer" for students. First I want to see Berkeley beat those schools I mentioned before it wants to seriously compete against the likes of HYPSM.</p>
<p>Now, reporting SAT scores differently and using ED (which I don't see happening) might bump Berkeley up the rankings 1 or 2 spots at most, but to rise above the level of Cornell/Brown/JHU/Chicago/Rice/NU and even start to compete with HYPSM Berkeley has to do much more. It has to straighten up and seriously improve the undergrad education at the school.</p>
<p>vicissitudes... I know UVa does these things - and its current rankings are probably boosted a few notches than it otherwise would be because of this. My point is, Berkeley can play the same game and get boosted a few notches itself! I never said that by doing these things, Berkeley is going to rise to the level of HYPSM. I never said that. What I said was, why not play the game, and while at it, get boosted a little bit in the rankings? </p>
<p>Regarding matchups like Berkeley vs. Cornell, Brown, etc... I don't think we do that badly actually. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but my impression is that Berkeley fairs pretty well compared to these other schools you mentioned. Many seem to choose Berkeley over those schools (more true for in-staters though). Where we lose I think is the out-of-staters... Why go to Berkeley when they can pay about the same or maybe slightly more for a private school closer by? These things we need to address... I agree we have many things to work on to improve undergrad education at the school.</p>
<p>khan,</p>
<p>The difference may be huge for some individuals but I think you make a mistake of extrapolating that to the whole population.</p>
<p>Most people improve in both sections upon retake. Also many have only one sitting. These two groups significantly <em>dilute</em> the difference you were thinking of.</p>
<p>Below is my little hypothetical case with candidates scoring 1400 at the first sitting. I have heard someone said the difference could be 40 so I am using my example to show the difference is likely much less than that. </p>
<p>Consider the following hypothetical scenarios: (the last is the difference between the two practices)</p>
<ol>
<li>1st tiem M700, V 7000 (1 sitting only; no difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 740, V 740 (no difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 740, V 700 (no difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 700, V 740 (no difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 620, V 800 (80 points difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 800, V 620 (80 points difference)
6 1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 740, V 680 (20 points difference) </li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 700, V 660 (no difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 660, V 660 (no difference)</li>
</ol>
<p>First of all, for every case of #1/2, we will have to have a case of #4/5 just to result overall difference of 40 points. The thing is #4 and #5 are just much more unlikely than #0/1/2/3! Most people fall in the first 4 categories. The ones that do see a drop in one of the section are most likely close to case #6, instead of #4/5. But even if ALL applicants are in case 6, the difference is only 20! When most people are in #1, 2, 3, and to lesser extent #0 and 6, there have to be difference of much much more than 80 points (like 200/300 points or whatever) for those minority cases to result in a the difference of 40 points in overall average between two different practices. But those cases are EXTREMELY rare. In our example, it's actually numerically impossible since the maximum possible difference between two practices is just 100 points if the score at the first sitting is 1400.</p>
<p>Another note - regarding grad schools - in grad schools, money is really not as big a factor as in undergrad. Most grad students get fellowships, research grants, etc. and have their tuition + more paid for while they attend school. Therefore, being an out-of-stater, does not play as big a role in attracting student's to Berkeley's grad school. Also, by the shear nature of grad school (in most research universities), students work in a lab or get paired with supporting faculty - so the getting lost in a "big school" issue does really apply as much. Regardless of if you go to a big or small university, you will still be interacting closely with a professor and fellow graduate students. By nature, grad school (wherever you go) is a smaller population, so school size, is much less a factor in choosing grad school (thus, Berkeley grad doesn't lose cross admits due to being TOO big)- faculty, resources, and reputation will be more a factor for grad school. (Now that I think about it some more, a bigger school might actually be a boon for grad students - since they have access to more resources... more professors for inter-disciplinary collaborations... etc..)</p>
<p>I'm just rambling off some thoughts here... Everyone keeps pointing out the disparity between Berkeley's grad and undergrad... I'm just trying to point out that grad school in general, by nature, is a different ball game... Grad school is not plagued by many things plagued by undergrad (regardless of where one goes).</p>
<p>Hope I made sense there.</p>
<p>khan,</p>
<p>Some good points. </p>
<p>Everyone else,</p>
<p>Can we stop celebrating "Cal vs. ______" month now?</p>
<p>Ok Sam - you win! The SAT score averages probably don't differ significantly enough regardless of methodology used. </p>
<p>Why do one method over the other then? If it's an arbitrary decision, why not choose to go with a method that will increase the overall SAT score averages somewhat (although admittedly, probably a very small amount)? Any reason why you wouldn't? Just to say that you don't "play that game"? If this causes too much administrative overhead (to figure out the best scores from multiple sittings), then ok, fine - we probably shouldn't do it. But if it doesn't cause additional overhead, why not? :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
vicissitudes... I know UVa does these things - and its current rankings are probably boosted a few notches than it otherwise would be because of this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good. I just wanted to point it out since it hasn't been mentioned in this thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is, Berkeley can play the same game and get boosted a few notches itself! I never said that by doing these things, Berkeley is going to rise to the level of HYPSM. I never said that. What I said was, why not play the game, and while at it, get boosted a little bit in the rankings?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never claimed that you said that. Don't get me wrong. I agree that Berkeley should probably stop being stubborn and start doing what the other universities are doing in terms of reporting stats. But I also think Berkeley need to do other things to improve. I think we are on the same page, but I just wanted to bring up some things that while you are aware of, did not mention in this thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Regarding matchups like Berkeley vs. Cornell, Brown, etc... I don't think we do that badly actually. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but my impression is that Berkeley fairs pretty well compared to these other schools you mentioned. Many seem to choose Berkeley over those schools (more true for in-staters though).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From my experience, many of those schools are actually beating Berkeley, even in California. Most of the people I know who got into schools like Brown, U Penn, Northwestern, and JHU went there instead of Berkeley. Now granted, I'm basing it off of a small sample pool, but even from the rankings and general CC perception you can get a sense of where Berkeley is. In fact, if you'd like, you can start a thread on CC saying something like "given the choice between Berkeley and Brown/U Penn/Northwestern, not considering tuition, which one would you attend?" I think the majority would prefer the latter.</p>
<p>Sam Lee - I think it's general consensus that combined SAT scores are, on average, about 30-50 points higher than single-sitting scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Everyone else,</p>
<p>Can we stop celebrating "Cal vs. ______" month now?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey it's only the 12th! :p Feel free to start another thread to discuss something better, but until then this is all we have to talk about. You certainly have the choice to not read any of these threads should you feel inclined.</p>
<p>I have no idea. I think some schools think taking highest from each section means people would literally have nothing to lose by taking as many times as they want. They probably think it is unfair to those taking only once and those that improve on both sections.</p>
<p>vicissitudes,</p>
<p>Read my analysis I posted earlier on the difference in <em>overall average</em> between two practices. My hypothetical example doesn't contradict with what you said about combined SAT scores being, on average, about 30-50 points higher than single-sitting scores. See scenario #1, 2, and 3 in my example. But in those 3 scenarios, there's 0 difference between the two practices. I know what you mean by "general consensus". I think Alexandre was the one that said that in various threads and people just somehow just took it as fact. I actually posted my analysis to counter his statement on another thread but he didn't respond to my analysis (but to other posts instead).</p>
<p>Alexandre said the same thing about Michigan. But my take on this is very consistent with the difference in ACT where publics and privates don't treat differently.</p>
<p>General consensus as in I have heard it from various sources, not just Alexandre, who could have been one of them (I don't remember).</p>
<p>
[quote]
My hypothetical example doesn't contradict with what you said about combined SAT scores being, on average, about 30-50 points higher than single-sitting scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I didn't bother reading your post because it was too long. I just wrote that because it wasn't mentioned. But I'm glad we don't contradict each other.</p>
<p>Well, then you need to differentiate what those "sources" mean. Are they talking about average improvement from the first sitting? In that case, yes, I can easily see people improving by 30-50 points on average (scenario #1, 2, 3). But if they are talking about difference in the overall average between using two different practices, my analysis shows that the difference is likely a lot less than that (I'd bet its less than 10 points).</p>
<p>Sam Lee, it is not less than 10 points. There was a pretty reliable study made 6-8 years ago between the way private universities and state schools consider SAT scores. The average score was roughly 40 points higher. You are using hypothetical situations, but those aren't real. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>On the other hand, students who are aiming for the private elites aren't smarter, harder working or more capable. They just know that those schools place more important on higher SAT scores. Those students will typically take SAT prep courses and prepare for the SAT a great deal, taking it on average 2-3 times, focusing on different sections each time because the private elites mix and match. I know this because I attended a private high school in the DC area and all my classmates and myself were forced to prepare for the SAT starting our Sophomore year and we were always reminded that we should focus on one section in each sitting. </p>
<p>Trust me, the mid 50% SAT ranges of 1250-1450 (a little higher this year) that Cal, Michigan and UVa report are closer to the 1300-1500 range that most private elites report.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, then you need to differentiate what those "sources" mean. Are they talking about average improvement from the first sitting? In that case, yes, I can easily see people improving by 30-50 points on average (scenario #1, 2, 3). But if they are talking about difference in the overall average between using two different practices, my analysis shows that the difference is likely a lot less than that (I'd bet its less than 10 points).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We are taking about the difference between one's best composite score (best section scores from multiple tests) and one's best single-sitting score (best one-time score). I think it's often cited to be about 30-50 points higher on average. Heck my best composite score was 80 points higher than my best single-sitting score.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>You need to show us the source. Sorry, I don't trust you on this. If it's such a reliable and one of a kind, why isn't it available on the internet? My example is pretty realistic. Let me bring up those scenarios I used again:</p>
<ol>
<li>1st tiem M700, V 7000 (1 sitting only; no difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 740, V 740 (no difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 740, V 700 (no difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 700, V 740 (no difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 620, V 800 (80 points difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 800, V 620 (80 points difference)
6 1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 740, V 680 (20 points difference) </li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 700, V 660 (no difference)</li>
<li>1st time M 700, V 700, 2nd time M 660, V 660 (no difference)</li>
</ol>
<p>40 points higher would mean you have the same number of people in #0-#3 as those that are #4 and #5 (because for every 0 difference, you need a 80- point difference so the average difference of the two become 40). That to me is very hard to believe. SAT and ACT are roughtly correlated. The difference in average ACT between Mich and Northwestern is about 2-3 points, which roughly equal to 50-60 points on SAT and the reported SAT averages show just that. But when you say the reported average of Mich should be 40 points higher after "adjustment", it deviates way too much from the difference in ACT average! </p>
<p>As for privates applicants being more strategic about it and focusing on one section at a time, well, I don't really see any evidence on that. Everybody wants to do well on both sections at the same time. People just don't know for sure if admission officers really do mix and match. For people who are top-school material, SAT isn't hard to begin with. We are not talking about some IB/A-level exam. LOL! Why would they need to focus on one section at a time when they can easily manage both at the same time. Typical students applying to schools like UCB and UCLA don't do prep course? Well, one of my best friends is teaching a SAT schools full of Koreans and Chinese and most of them ended up at UCB and UCLA this year. These kids attend the school every Saturday since their sophomore or beginning of junior year. There are lots of SAT schools in LA attended by mostly Asians who apply to UCB/UCLA; in fact, that's the reason they are sitting in those classes--to get into one of the top UC schools. After all, you went to HS like more than 15 years ago, didn't you? Things have changed. Just go to any bookstore here and there are tons of different prep books with CD roms. Taking SAT prep guides or even courses is pretty much expected and nothing particularly strategic these days. Students who apply to Michigan/Cal/UVA usually have privates on their list anyway.</p>
<p>vicissitudes,</p>
<p>Your experience just means you were like #4 or #5 in my example. I never said that never happen. Do you mind sharing what your scores are for those multiple sittings? Since you take multiple sittings, I guess you are not what Alexandre considers "typical" public school candidate. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since you take multiple sittings, I guess you are not what Alexandre considers "typical" public school candidate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>:confused:</p>
<p>Sam Lee, there will be a very accurate and in-depth study coming out on this in the next couple of years. Until then, you'll just have to not believe me! hehe!</p>
<p>Sam Lee, most people fall in #4, #5, #6, or #1.</p>
<h1>0 is unrealistic because almost no one takes it once.</h1>
<h1>2, #3, and #7 are unrealistic because almost no one gets the exact same score on one section in two takes.</h1>
<h1>8 is rare although it does happen (happened to me)</h1>
<p>Also, you forget that many students take the test 3 times or more, resulting in even more chances for higher SAT scores through combining from different sittings.</p>
<p>Your statistical fallacy lies in that you try to present every single possibility yet neglect to consider how often each of these possibilities actually occur.</p>
<p>I do not like to divulge specific personal information so I won't reveal my SAT scores here.</p>
<p>vicissitudes,</p>
<h1>0 does happen in minority but not "almost no one". It's not that rare that people score well the first time. SAT I is just one of the many tests for many top-school candidates. There are people who are fine with the first sitting's result, get that out of the way, and move to focus on other tests like SAT II, and APs.</h1>
<p>I don't have to make #2 and #3 to have the exact same score in one section while improving in another section upon retake. I could have easily made it 740/710 instead of 740/700 but I used the latter so it's clearer because of the "40". The point is most people have both sections improved, some improve more in one section but not much in another while others improve equally in both.</p>
<h1>4, 5, 6 all illustrate where the two practices have differences. While #6 is easily identified, #4 and #5 are there just to show how much one has to improve in one section while having a big drop in another <em>at the same time</em> to just get 80 point difference between two practices (it doesn't have to be 80..it could be 75..etc but the point is in this case, there's a big gain in one section and a big drop in another which I think rather uncommon for top students--skilled test takers). Note that #6, like #0-#4, "dilutes" the difference from #4 and #5.</h1>
<p>So let me assume that you took 3 times. If you said #8 happend to you and you said the difference for you was 80, that must mean you gained a lot in one section but a big drop in another in your another retake. Or were you mistaken?</p>
<p>As for people taking 3 times or more; I agree with you that there are "more chances for <em>higher</em> SAT scores through combining from different sittings" but the thing is it may actually <em>decrease</em> the difference between the two practices.</p>
<p>Let's use #4 again. 700/700 (first sitting), 620/800 (second sitting). If the third sitting is 740/790, your combined result becomes 1540 (an improvement from 1420, consistent with what you said) but the difference between two practices becomes only 10 (instead of 80)!</p>