<p>Berkeley is an amazing school, but whats a world class insitution doing with really low AVG SAT scores? It does not make sense.</p>
<p>The UC system is skeptical of the predictive value of the SAT tests, have been for a while. One of the forcing functions that lead to the institution of the writing component was the growing movement for the UC system to drop use of SAT Is altogether. They focus much more on grades, recommendations, ECs and the rest, less on the standardized tests.</p>
<p>Er, what "really low AVG SAT scores"? It has an average of ~2050 (though it fluctuates from year to year). That's 500 points above the national average. Now consider that Berkeley does not superscore (i.e. take the best single sections), which would make its average higher. And consider that Berkeley de-emphasizes the SAT, as studies have shown that GPA is much more indicative of one's potential success in college than SAT.</p>
<p>I believe the avg. SAT this year is actually around a 2070-2080....which, by no standards is "low"</p>
<p>Yes, the lack of superscoring does lower the average SAT score. Additionally, it does not place much emphasis on it. Two of my friends who applied this year had a 2320 and a 2340 on the test, and the both of them were rejected, while a couple of my friends with "low" (less than 2000) SAT scores were accepted.</p>
<p>The combination of the lack of superscoring and emphasis make berkeley's scores seem lower than those of comparable academic institutions. However, a quick look at their student body, 99% of whom were in the top 10% of their high school class, shows that this top class university's standards are just as high as any other school's (except HYPSMC and a couple of other ivies).</p>
<p>It makes perfect sense. The UC system ignores grade inflation and places an emphasis on hard work over intellectual capacity, so some kid with a 4.5 and a 1850 actually has a good shot at Cal or UCLA.</p>
<p>@bartleby</p>
<p>You make it sound like it's a bad thing. It's more like UCs don't believe that a single test is indicative of your abilities to succeed at their college.</p>
<p>After all, who would you rather have at your school, someone who consistently demonstrates achievement (high gpa over 3 years) or someone who shows that they can cram for one test?</p>
<p>Your question is based on the false premise that the SAT can be crammed for. <a href="http://professionals.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/coaching_and_the_sat_10501.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://professionals.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/coaching_and_the_sat_10501.pdf</a></p>
<p>As I said, GPA is as much a factor of the difficulty of attaining an 'A' grade at a school as it is of intellectual ability. Not to go too deeply into anecdotes, but I know a bunch of unexceptional, quite mediocre kids who got into Cal and UCLA because they attended schools where getting an 'A' was not too much of a challenge and/or they studied, studied, studied non-stop (but not really gaining any knowledge or expertise in a certain field beyond the date of the test) while not expressing any interest in an intellectual discipline beyond that necessary to attain the grade they needed.</p>
<p>Of course, elite colleges make a giant mistake in not using AP scores more widely for the purposes of admissions. Those tests, I would guess, are the best indicators of ability to succeed at the college level. Obviously, this creates questions of equity.</p>
<p>Obviously, the SAT can be crammed for. All your article proves is that coaching doesn't offer any significant benefits compared to studying on your own. And if it didn't pay to prep for the SAT, why do you think there are so many prep books (even prep books by collegeboard)?</p>
<p>If it is really coming down to anecdotes, I know a number of lazy kids who get mediocre grades but either crammed for the SAT or took it multiple times in order to get a good score (a girl i know got a 2150 on her first test, took it again and dropped to 2070, then took it a 3rd time and got a 2380).</p>
<p>If those "mediocre" kids are "going" to Cal and UCLA, that implies that they're still enrolled. To maintain good academic standing, you still have to work very, very hard. So maybe they aren't as "mediocre" as you think they are ^_^</p>
<p>I agree with bartleby completely. I got into UC Berkeley with a 3.75/4.4 UC GPA (3.1 UW) but with an SAT score of 2390. I went to an extremely competitive private school where the average SAT for our school was a 2100, our average AP test scores were 4.5s, but our average GPAs were 3.2s. (we had 500 people in our school).</p>
<p>The claim that your high school gpa determines how well you do in college is complete bs. I’d say getting a high SAT score (2200+) is much more indicative of hard work and intelligence, since I think that it is ridiculous that students that go to schools where getting A’s aren’t that difficult can get into Cal with 1900s and 2000s. (I’ve known the majority of my friends to say that their high school was a joke compared to Cal, where I found Cal only slightly harder). </p>
<p>And yes, sure, after a semester or two, these mediocre students had to step it up to do well, but at the same time people with mediocre high school GPAs and high SAT scores can also step it up and do well here. I’m living proof. Despite my low high school GPA, I graduated from Cal with a 3.8 GPA in a double major in economics and political science, and I got a 174 LSAT score, and I’m at NYU law now (currently ranked 6th in the nation and above berkeley’s law btw). (I got accepted at Columbia, Duke, UChig, Boalt, and others, but NYU gave me the highest fin aid).</p>
<p>So personally I believe that SAT scores, AP scores, and SAT II subject tests are far more indicative of college performance than GPA. and my reasoning? why do law schools weigh the LSAT so heavily, rather than one’s GPA? Because some colleges may be vastly easier than others, and some may be cutthroat and extremely difficult. I don’t see how high schools are any different. Some may be complete jokes, where others are extremely challenging. Therefore, the SAT/SAT II/AP scores are the only solid indicators of one’s ethics and intelligence, and I feel that they must be weighed much more heavily.</p>
<p>I agree that subject test and AP test scores are definitely far more indicative of potential college success than GPA. The SAT . . not so much.</p>
<p>^I agree, but I still believe that the SAT is more indicative of college success than GPA. If it was so easy to cram as others say it to be, then one who got a bad score would retake it until he could get a 2200.</p>
<p>There aren’t many people who can score above 2200 on the first try, so attaining that score shows that you have worked hard and you are intelligent to reach such a high score.</p>
I guess that depends on your desired course that you`d like to pursue. SAT contains Math and English sections but what if your desired course has nothing to do with the kind of Math that is in the SAT. Perhaps, Berkeley looks through that context when deciding. And whereas the English section is concerned, that is a subtle part, no matter what field you choose.
Count Harvard among those who think that the SAT reasoning is of less predictive value than other academic criteria (AP / IB exams > SAT subject tests and SAT reasoning writing section / ACT writing section > high school grades > SAT reasoning / ACT), according to http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/harvarddean-part2/ .
@ucbalumnus thanks for that link!