<p>1.) The PSAT score for finalists varies considerably from state to state. If your children are taking the test in the UK (as per your screen name) you would want to check with the National Merit folks (as opposed to the PSAT folks) about the situation for international students, or for US students living abroad, in terms of the standard for determining who is a finalist in that pool. Also, once a student’s scores make him or her eligible to be a finalist, the student and the school have to complete some paperwork, short essays and such, by a strict deadline.</p>
<p>2.) You absolutely do not have to take the PSAT in grade 10 to be a finalist. The grade 10 administration doesn’t count toward being a finalist; only the grade 11 PSAT counts.</p>
<p>^^varies by state, you need a higher score in states like California where there’s a higher percentage of high scoring kids. the NM commended, semi, and finalist numbers are set new every year based on each states testing ability. The kid with same score in New Mexico has a much higher chance of being a NM than the same score in California, NY, Mass, etc.</p>
<p>i think roughly a 210+ psat gets you in the running in CA.</p>
<p>“its wrong for UCLA/CAL parents to cast these schools in a positive light”</p>
<p>Pacheight—our students, many of which turned down USC for UCLA (mine included) are and have been getting a great education at UCLA (and CAL). Not everyone and every department is affected in the same way. It’s wrong of YOU to be talking about schools with which you have no direct experience . I have been sorely tempted to throw a few negative stats on USC (why my D turned them down). They do exist. But since we do not have any current experience with USC…then THAT would be wrong.
Basically—there is a not so fine line between boosterism and constructive information.</p>
<p>every single parent says their kids school is great, from chico state to UCLA. That’s a natural response. But your logic is off, parents who went to UCLA, Cal 25 to 30 years ago haven’t had recent direct experience as you say. And your child has no other college experience to compare their experience to, they don’t know what they don’t know.</p>
<p>And your just wrong if you don’t think every single department hasn’t already cut back significantly and will have to cut even deeper in the next 2 years.</p>
<p>Oddly I’m advocating for the UC’s to improve, and the first thing is to get other Cal/UCLA alum to realize there’s a huge problem.</p>
<p>I know you won’t take my word for it but how about a student regent from UCLA recently: “The magnitude of this is so serious, and I don’t think I fully realized it, I don’t know if students realized it yet.”</p>
<p>It does not matter that my D is a grad student who has attended three diverse schools, her room mate and friends go to USC, that her at UCLAhas not been cut drastically, that one of the reasons she turned down USC is that they eliminated the German department…on and on</p>
<p>But thanks for the insight…you know about every school and everyone else is an ignorant fool.
yawn…</p>
<p>not everyone else, just some ucla and cal parents. You are foolish if you don’t realize what all the UC profs and UC regents are saying is true. 1) they’re broke, 2) they’re over crowded, and 3) 1 and 2 dramatically hurt the quality of education compared to what it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago.</p>
<p>where did I last hear this let’s see at Peets on Domingo street talking to a nobel chemistry candidate prof who brings a ladder from home to clean the outside of his window office. What’s going on at ucla and Cal deserves the slamming, and the slamming is coming from within.</p>
<p>it sounds like you think all schools are good, especially where your child goes, and we should all just be positive on CC. All the UC Regents have said, heck have yelled the sky is falling, I believe them.</p>
<p>pacheight, I don’t think everyone needs to be positive on CC. What doesn’t come across well are statements of certain schools being “better” or “best,” as well as slamming schools. I’d respect a perspective more if a parent discussed why their kid chose their own schools and/or if a parent has some information about another school, that they share it in a way such as, “I read an article about funding cuts at X and here is the link; you may wish to check it out.” That is not putting down the school or elevating another school over that school but simply sharing information.</p>
<p>I don’t know any or hear of any profs that disagree with Yudof’s assessment: </p>
<p>“UC President Mark G. Yudof said additional cutbacks would place an overwhelming burden on the already financially constrained school system. A cut of this magnitude would be unconscionable — to the university, its students and families”</p>
<p>“unconscionable”, strong language from the guy in charge or will you argue that Yudof doesn’t know what’s going on as well?</p>
<p>further: “$1 billion reduction would impact campus faculty, staff and facilities, Yudof said.”</p>
<p>ya, think? One billion reduction might just have an impact on education quality??</p>
<p>what amazes me is that Cal/UCLA parents are not well aware of what’s going down.</p>
<p>and sooz, it’s quit a claim to advise actor and musical theater students on how to train to be a pro when you’ve never done it.</p>
<p>I don’t live in your world where everything is the same and there is no such thing as better. In my world there are “better” things. Such as casting the best actor for the role. If there ever was an industry where honest assessment of what is good and bad, it’s dramatic arts.</p>
<p>Not all actors are the same and not all schools are, some are bad at what they do.</p>
<p>While budget cuts may be a serious problem, you appear to be exaggerating in this claim, since this complaint about graduating late because of not being able to get into classes is absent on the UC Berkeley forum.</p>
<p>[University</a> of California: StatFinder](<a href=“http://statfinder.ucop.edu%5DUniversity”>http://statfinder.ucop.edu) reports that fall 2005 freshmen were 71.4% graduated at calendar year four. For computer science and engineering, it was 76.6%, for biological sciences, it was 80.7%, and for math and physical sciences, it was 77.4%.</p>
<p>And four year graduation rates have been generally rising over the years (only 45.3% of fall 1992 freshmen were graduated four years later; the percentage was 52.2% for fall 1997 freshmen and 64.2% for fall 2002 freshmen).</p>
<p>This data is from the National Center of Educational Statistics. usbalumnus quotes a higher four year rate (71.4%) for Berkeley and so that may be a more recent statistic. The difference in these rates between USC and Berkeley are not too significant.</p>
<p>I do not think these remarks are relevant to this thread but I feel compelled to defend what comes across as an attack on my qualifications for my job. I am a college counselor. A college counselor doesn’t have to be an engineer to advise engineering applicants, or an actor to advice theater applicants in their college selection and admissions process. Rather, a college counselor needs to have expertise in college selection and admissions. I do not train theater students. All of my theater applicants are also working with audition coaches in acting and/or voice. I don’t advise someone in “how to train to be a pro.” I advise applicants to COLLEGE for many fields of study. Applicants to any field of study should also be learning from and seeking advice from professionals in their field. That is not the same as guidance in the college admissions process. I don’t advise someone on how to become a professional actor. That is not my area of expertise. I advise someone who has chosen to pursue a college degree in theater or MT on how to go about THAT process. I realize that you have written on CC that you don’t advise attending college for a BFA necessarily for those pursuing acting careers. That’s fine that you have that opinion (you are not an actor either, I presume), but I advise those who do want a college education and conservatory training to pursue this field, which I think is one very viable path. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said everything is the same. I never said there was no such thing as better. What I did say was that the best or better college is the one that fits what the applicant is seeking. For example, you may claim that Stanford is better than Berkeley but for my kid who is entering a graduate degree program, Berkeley’s program in her field was better for HER. I will never claim one school is better or best overall or put down another school. I happen to think Stanford is a fabulous school and one of the very highly regarded schools. My D applied after all. She turned down the generous offer there because the program at Berkeley fit her best. She, nor I, have any reason to call Berkeley the best or better but simply it was the best match for HER. That’s what college selection is about. </p>
<p>As far as drama goes, I will never say my kid is the best or better than another actor. I think she is pretty darn good. But I also don’t believe that auditioning is only about who is the best actor but also about who fits a role or a director’s vision of a role and/or type. It is not merely a talent contest. Yes, talent is essential in the process. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course not actors are the same. Nor are all schools. Some schools are more selective than other schools and are more renown than other schools too. Some actors are more talented or more successful than other actors too. I just do not respect those who bash some colleges (or actors). I think college selection is very individualized in terms of each person’s own selection criteria. Finding the college that fits you best is more important than the “best college.” In any case, I prefer to hear someone extol the virtue of their own colleges or their kids’ colleges that they have first hand knowledge about and/or share what they know about other colleges (example: budget cuts), then claim that this or that college is not a good one, etc. When I suggest colleges to students, I provide lots of information about each college and how it may fit the student. I don’t say which college is better or best or not a good college. Those are opinions best left to each person to decide. I don’t find it becoming either to hear a parent bash other schools. Simply say, my kid did not chose X college because A, B, C reasons didn’t match what SHE was seeking. I don’t think saying, “X college is not a good college,” helps anyone and it really is a matter of opinion. I recall when I my younger D was visiting a highly regarded BFA in MT program that the students in that program put down another program (that they obviously didn’t attend) and I thought that was unbelievable (she did not run into that attitude anywhere else). They discouraged my D from applying to this other college. D did apply to this other BFA school (also highly regarded in the field) and in fact attended it and loved it. She can’t imagine putting down another program, but would just explain to others why she didn’t pick it for herself but does not think negatively of these other schools for other people to attend.</p>
<p>I don’t put a lot of weight on the grad weight stats - especially for state schools - because there are so many variables:</p>
<p>1) some kids are putting themselves thru school, so they may be taking 12 credits per semester, but doing so will require an extra year or two to graduate. (I know, most UCs are on quarter)</p>
<p>2) Many kids change their majors/career goals. Probably 75% of pre-med students end up re-evaluating between years 1-3 and go another route. A good number of engineering students do as well. </p>
<p>3) Some kids drop classes or won’t take an offered class at an “inconvenient hour” (8 am or 5 pm), so that delays graduation.</p>
<p>none of the above factors are a school’s fault, nor are they things that a school can do much to prevent. </p>
<p>More variables in graduation rates include those who do co-op jobs and internships; since graduation rates are given in calendar years, a student who graduates after 9 semesters, one of which was away from school at a co-op job or internship, looks like a “late” graduate, even if s/he spent only 8 semesters actually in school. There can also be variables in how schools count attendance of summer sessions.</p>
<p>But the whole subject of graduation rates was to disprove a claim that “students have to take five years because they cannot get the desired classes due to budget cuts”. While budget cuts do cause problems, the school in question appears to be avoiding this particular problem.</p>
<p>*More variables in graduation rates include those who do co-op jobs and internships; since graduation rates are given in calendar years, a student who graduates after 9 semesters, one of which was away from school at a co-op job or internship, looks like a “late” graduate, even if s/he spent only 8 semesters actually in school. *</p>
<p>Good points! And some kids do a semester abroad taking classes that aren’t really needed, which adds to the delay.</p>
<p>*But the whole subject of graduation rates was to disprove a claim that “students have to take five years because they cannot get the desired classes due to budget cuts”. While budget cuts do cause problems, the school in question appears to be avoiding this particular problem. *</p>
<p>The argument that the inability to get desired classes (due to cuts) is the main reason for 5-6 year grad rates is over-blown. …for the reasons mentioned above. There are other factors involved.</p>
<p>I think the changing majors and/or dropping classes situations are probably the bigger causes for delays in graduations.</p>
<p>this is the fear: “you can’t get out with your degree in under five or six years because of class availability. I mean, it’s no longer the University of California at that point where we’re losing faculty members; as it is, they’re getting offers from around the country.” Mark Yudof, March 2011. </p>
<p>This is a very real problem that’s why the the President of the University of California talks about it openly!</p>
<p>also, “losing faculty members; as it is”. as it is! these are realities reported by the President of the University this year.</p>
<p>and Berkeley’s four year graduation rate at 66% is serious. Do you really believe with the billion dollar cut back the UC faces now that 4 year graduation rates will get better next year or in 5 years??</p>
<p>There’s a very real possibility that next years, 4 year graduation rate, will drop in to the 50’s. And guys like Yudof are truly scared that it could go lower, in to the 40’s.</p>
<p>a billion dollar cut, that’s a thousand million dollars.</p>
But I also don’t believe that auditioning is only about who is the best actor but also about who fits a role or a director’s vision of a role and/or type. It is not merely a talent contest. Yes, talent is essential in the process. </p>