Berkeley's US News Ranking - Wrong SAT Methodology

[sakky]

<p>

I mostly concur with sakky’s suggestions as well. My only beef is that, by reading sakky’s posts, it appears to be a “Berkeley problem” (or problems), when in fact it is a state and Regent problem. Both of the latter have been doing everything they can to increase the prestige level of the bottom 7 (well, ok, just get anyone to go to Merced), almost at the expense of Berkeley (and UCLA). Thus, practically any good idea that would benefit Berkeley (or ULCA) will be ignored by the Regents (and Legislature) if it places more distance between the Big Two and the other 7.

</p>

<p>All of UC should be reporting superscores to USNews, so then they would all benefit. Note, that doesn’t mean that UC has to use superscores to determine admissions. They can just report them.</p>

<p>

Emory has Oxford College to house all the bozos.
Cornell has CALS to house Keith Olbermann and the likes, not to mention the hotel school.
Penn has the nursing school.
We’re comparing freshman standing. Apparently proximity to greatness makes one greater. The freshmen don’t live in the same dorm as the CC transfers.

</p>

<p>Actually, the freshmen do live in the same dorm as some CC transfers. Granted, the transfers are not guaranteed campus housing because they aren’t fresh/soph’s, and many of them prefer to live elsewhere anyway, but they do sometimes get and take it. I certainly remember some. </p>

<p>But in any case, my problem is not with transfers per se. In fact, I’ve toyed with the notion that Berkeley might actually be better off as a pure transfer school (that is, have no freshmen admits at all) because, as mathboy98 pointed out, Berkeley’s quality of instruction does tend to improve as you move to the upper division and away from the cavernous and moblike lower-division lectures, which then begs the question of why don’t we just outsource the lower-division to other schools. Berkeley would then be able to cream off the very best students from the lower UC’s, CalStates, and community colleges. </p>

<p>Hence, the problem isn’t with transfers, but rather with bad transfers, for the truth of the matter is that many of the transfers are simply not that good. That transfer students and freshmen-admits have similar Berkeley GPA’s actually doesn’t prove that they are of similar quality but actually proves that the transfers are worse, because the transfers get to skip many of the lower-division weeders. I know my GPA would be substantially higher if I could count only my upper-division courses and ignore my weeders. What would be fair is for either the transfers to also take the weeders and the corresponding GPA hit, or for the freshmen to not have to undergo weeders (or at least have them graded P/NR). </p>

<p>To improve the quality of the transfer, Berkeley should be actively trying to attract transfer candidates from a wider range of schools, meaning not just the CC’s which the vast majority of transfers come from today, but also the other UC’s and CalStates, as well as some of the other elite schools. For example, Caltech students who find that they don’t really love quant majors as much as they had thought and really do want to major in the humanities or arts should be strongly encouraged to apply to transfer to Berkeley. Similarly, students at the elite LAC’s such as Williams or Amherst who find that the LAC-lifestyle is not for them and would benefit from a large research university should be encouraged to apply. The point is to greatly raise the bar of competition for being admitted as a transfer. Note, CC students could still apply, but I would envision that relatively few of them would get in because they wouldn’t be able to match the competition coming out of Caltech, the elite LAC’s, or the other UC’s. Nor do I consider this to be a problem, as they could just go to another UC like Merced. {The governing principle is that nobody has the “right” to be admitted to Berkeley - you are admitted only because you are more qualified than the competition.}</p>

<p>To be fair, for me to talk about bad transfer students, I should also talk about bad freshmen-admits, and I certainly agree that both are problems. As I’ve always said, Berkeley should minimize the admissions of both categories, with the least controversial proposal being, as has been discussed on other threads, to simply not admit those students who we have strong reason to believe are just going to flunk out anyway. Bringing in students only to flunk them out doesn’t help anybody.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>I agree with Sakky. With all the extremely gifted and high quality high school seniors in a state of 33 million, it’s inconceivable that Cal is accepting kids with sub-600 SAT scores (who aren’t recruited athletes). But, that goes back to my earlier point, the Regents don’t want Berkeley to become the premier, premier public Uni. Thus, they admit a whole lot of kids who struggle mightily (if they don’t flunk out), when they coulda been a star at a lower campus.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

With all the extremely gifted and high quality high school seniors in a state of 33 million, it’s inconceivable that Cal is accepting kids with sub-600 SAT scores (who aren’t recruited athletes)

</p>

<p>Of course, one major problem is that all those highly gifted and talented California high school seniors often times don’t really want to go to Berkeley. Instead, they prefer a school in Palo Alto, damn it. Or they prefer schools in the East Coast, like a certain couple of schools in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Berkeley therefore needs to make itself more attractive to the very best students.</p>

[tastybeef]

<p>

Anyone see the new Prez’s speech? He inferred that rankings were important and so were test scores. It’ll be interesting to see if the UCs start to superscore the SAT.

</p>

<p>I’d like to see them start being more selective with the admissions process, especially with the SAT scores. But I mean, that’s highly unlikely since UC admissions won’t even require SAT II’s in 2 years.</p>

<p>

Note, CC students could still apply, but I would envision that relatively few of them would get in because they wouldn’t be able to match the competition coming out of Caltech, the elite LAC’s, or the other UC’s. Nor do I consider this to be a problem, as they could just go to another UC like Merced.{The governing principle is that nobody has the “right” to be admitted to Berkeley - you are admitted only because you are more qualified than the competition.}

</p>

<p>Exactly. If you read some of the posts made by transfers, it seems like they have deluded themselves to think that they should be admitted to Berkeley because they did well at CC’s. But the distasteful truth is that it doesn’t take a lot to do well at a CC. Those transfer spots could be better filled with more competitive applicants from other universities, especially OOS ones. Then, Cal can charge them OOS tuition to alleviate some portion, no matter how little, of the budget cuts.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

You know, all other schools use best reading, best math, best writing combined for their average SAT scores when sending into US News ranking lists.</p>

<p>Only the UC’s use best one sitting SAT score. The difference between the two can be somehwere between 50-100 points depending on how many times you take the SAT.

</p>

<p>The problem here is USNews, not Berkeley. USNWR (and the Common Data Set) needs to stipulate to the schools exactly what computation is requested, and exactly which population of students is to be included in the result. Currently schools choose both the formula and the population to their advantage.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

@sakky

Of course, one major problem is that all those highly gifted and talented California high school seniors often times don’t really want to go to Berkeley. Instead, they prefer a school in Palo Alto, damn it. Or they prefer schools in the East Coast, like a certain couple of schools in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Berkeley therefore needs to make itself more attractive to the very best students.

</p>

<p>It’s a strange world we live in indeed. That school in Palo Alto does some of the strangest, most random things in admissions, admitting students I think could very well be happy elsewhere in favor of students who’d explicitly thrive in its environment, and Berkeley admits a wide range of substandard students to counter. Things are operating in an undesirable ways everywhere!!! </p>

<p>I appreciate Sakky’s efforts, and agree it’d be much greater disloyalty to refrain from pointing out faults and/or not caring at all. I for one don’t think the only way to be loyal is to yell “GO BEARS!” and ignore all the faults.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>I also appreciate RML, who makes a lot of sense and makes great points about Berkeley without even having been an undergraduate here! :)</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

But in any case, my problem is not with transfers per se. In fact, I’ve toyed with the notion that Berkeley might actually be better off as a pure transfer school (that is, have no freshmen admits at all) because, as mathboy98 pointed out, Berkeley’s quality of instruction does tend to improve as you move to the upper division and away from the cavernous and moblike lower-division lectures, which then begs the question of why don’t we just outsource the lower-division to other schools. Berkeley would then be able to cream off the very best students from the lower UC’s, CalStates, and community colleges.

</p>

<p>Aw, well what about those of us who actually listened to you and <em>avoided</em> those cavernous mobs!!! I did so and my 4 years are all for the better, and I’d not want to give any of them up!</p>

<p>I really think the only way to do it is to get Cal to up the selectivity. Haven’t been able to see any other option. Maybe I’ll think about it some more.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>

Berkeley therefore needs to make itself more attractive to the very best students.

</p>

<p>As a public Uni, Berkeley will never be able to keep the VERY best; Harvard just has too much money for upper-class finaid for a blue-state public to compete. But it could get the best if it dropped compassionate review and all the sob stories to justify low gpa’s. Cal could pick up great kids from UCSD (or UCLA), for example, or kids who pay OOS fees to UMich. There is no reason that Cal doesn’t have the better stats than a Vandy or Emory.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

As a public Uni, Berkeley will never be able to keep the VERY best;

</p>

<p>I don’t think this is quite obvious – it depends largely on whether we can solve the overcrowding issue and make Berkeley’s image that of a more selective school. Berkeley has the academics to compete with Harvard, just other issues related to overcrowding that make it less attractive than most such elite privates.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Aw, well what about those of us who actually listened to you and <em>avoided</em> those cavernous mobs!!! I did so and my 4 years are all for the better, and I’d not want to give any of them up!</p>

<p>I really think the only way to do it is to get Cal to up the selectivity. Haven’t been able to see any other option. Maybe I’ll think about it some more.

</p>

<p>Well, what can I say, mathboy98? Every reform will inevitably hurt some people. The question is not whether it will hurt some people, but whether the net benefit is positive.</p>

<p>For example, take your suggestion of increasing Berkeley’s selectivity - one that I have vehemently supported in the past, and still do. Yet that’s bound to hurt some people - namely those who won’t now get in but would have actually done well. But to take that consideration to its extreme, one would then logically have to support open admissions, for after all, even the guy graduating last in his high school class might actually do well at Berkeley, hence there’s no reason not to admit him, right? But that’s obviously a recipe for disaster, for that guy is far far more likely to flunk out. </p>

<p>So while I agree that converting Berkeley to a pure transfer school might hurt people like you, it would also greatly benefit others. I would first of all argue that the hurt you would feel wouldn’t be that bad: you would still go to Berkeley, but just for 2 years, not 4. On the other hand, the gain would be tremendous, as one of Berkeley’s greatest problems has to do with students whose high school records seem good enough to warrant admission, but nevertheless perform poorly at Berkeley. Let’s face it: those students getting below a 2.3 GPA in a creampuff major in their first 2 years at Berkeley should not have been admitted in the first place. Having students attend some other college for 2 years provides Berkeley with more information about them to make better admissions decisions.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>I would accomplish roughly only half as much if I went to Berkeley for 2 years! I’d definitely not want that.</p>

<p>The reason I vastly prefer just making admissions more selective is that this’ll help those who are most motivated out, and really, I think it more likely that a lot of motivated students will lose a lot out of getting only 2 years at Berkeley, as compared to the tiny chance that someone who’s to do exceptional things at UCB getting rejected due to a harder admissions cycle. For this, I propose keeping UCB admissions very straightforward – none of this rejecting billions of 4.0, 2300+ SAT applicants for those with “more personality.” </p>

<p>

as one of Berkeley’s greatest problems has to do with students whose high school records seem good enough to warrant admission, but nevertheless perform poorly at Berkeley.

</p>

<p>Hopefully once we increase the bar for Berkeley admission, things will get better. After all, that does seem what some other schools with less overcrowding seem to have done!
I think the opportunities at Berkeley for a 4-year education are terribly juicy, and should be available, but of course only to students who can really benefit from them, or at least those who have a realistic chance. </p>

<p>I’m pretty sure</p>

[sunfish]

<p>The way to go is to split Berkeley into two colleges, kinda like the Restaurant and the Cafe at Chez Panisse where food is served from the same kitchen.</p>