Why would you be posting about you're vast knowledge of what an employer wants?? when you're still in HIGH SCHOOL?! Did you google the knowledge of employers?
</p>
<p>Ugh, it's really revealing when rather than engage me on the issues, you launch headlong into a personal attack.</p>
<p>For your knowledge, I base what I say on conversations with guidance counselors, websites like collegeconfidential and vault.com, guidebooks, parents, other students, and news articles on the web. Each of those individually is not conclusive, but when you put them all together and the facts tend to match up, it is safe to believe that what they say is true.</p>
<p>Yup, I mentioned that. But can it explain the difference between USC's middle range of 1260-1440 vs. UCSD's middle range of 1130-1360? That's a 130 point difference for the lower quartile and an 80 point different for the upper quartile.</p>
<p>I would imagine the average score difference between the two different ways of reporting GPA is ~30 points, but that doesn't come close to making up the difference, particularly with the lower quartile.</p>
<p>Anyway, by what measure does UCSD attract higher quality students?
I reiterate:</p>
<p>Acceptance rate: UCSD: ~40% USC: ~25% And don't say USC attracts many more "crappy" applicants just because of their football programs. Applying to UCSD is as easy as checking a box on the UC application.</p>
<p>Top 10% of HS: Well, the stats say that UCSD has 99% in the top 10% of their class. Huh?? I really don't know how the UC's report that figure (they have Riverside at 94% in the top 10% of their HS, higher than Caltech, Brown, Dartmouth, Stanford, Columbia, and Cornell, among others) USC reports 84% in top 10% of HS class.</p>
<p>Sfgiants, I meant to personally attack you, because I feel validity of knowledge is important in today's day and age. What you said about prestige may be true to some degree, but for instance certain industries higher from CERTAIN institutions. In california, Cal Poly may not be that prestigious but there are loads of companys that recruit their students out of the engineering department based on their reputation in engineering. Employers ARE well aware of great niche programs, regardless the prestige of the school. Why would you be conferring with a HIGH SCHOOL guidance counselor on the subject matter of the real working world? And furthermore, i'm curious as to why you would be informing us all of the pyschology of employers while you're still in high school?</p>
<p>The personal insults aren't help anyone's arguments, nor is it helpful to argue against personal attacks only to follow up with one's own. </p>
<p>Being a senior in high school versus being a junior in college (or whatever else) does not actually entail either one to talk with personal knowledge of the "Real World." If a second grader happens to have valuable insight relating to the experiences of post-graduate education, then fine...who's it really hurting to listen to it? Take it where you can get it, man! Furthermore, these boards are FOR high schoolers as much as for anyone else.</p>
<p>I also think that most high school counselors would take offense at being seen as useless regarding advice on the "real working world", as they ARE in it. </p>
<p>But the actual point of posting (I HATE giving the above disclaimers and try to just stay out of it as much as possible, but...come on) was that the UCs have certain policies regarding CA students. I don't remember ANY of the statistics, so feel free to insert hard facts, but only a VERY small percentile of CA students are even qualified to apply for the UCs. I also seem to recall that a certain class ranking guarantees one admission to the system (not the school of their shoice, necessarily, but at least one UC school). </p>
<p>Bear in mind also that the CA school system--pre-university level--is hardly something to brag about, especially in Southern Cal. Things like overall high school quality (esp. for SoCal UCs such as UCI and UCR, which have large commuter populations), percentages of students from out-of-state, percentage of students from private vs. public school, etc. have a very large impact on stats like the percent of students in the top whatever% of their HS class. The "Top 10%" is not equal across the board, and this is what gives UCs such high (but presumably correct) ratings in this category.</p>
<p>i find this weird..i got into UCSD for Mechanical Engineering (they're supposedly like 12-ish overall??) yet i was rejected from USC's ME program (which is somewhere in the 30s in the rankings i have). but overall i think UCSD and USC both have their strengths/weaknesses. like some ppl said if ur an engineering major you'd probably take SD or 'SC. </p>
<p>Yes. But I don't know how informed a high school guidance counselor for example can be about the corporate structure of toyota and what type of employs they hire and degrees they look for, just on the basis they chose to work inside of a high school as a college guidance counselor. I mean if I really wanted to know something, I would get an internship inside of where I wanted to work, and hear it directly from the horses mouth, or talk to a friends dad/mom who happens to work in a certain industry. Because I don't know it might be harmful to tell someone to go to Harvard because of prestigious reasons and blow 160k, when they easily could have gotten the same oppertunities elsewhere for much less money.</p>
<p>ok, UCSD's ME is not really that strong. What really helps UCSD's rankings is their bioengineering program which has been second or third in the nation for like the past 5 years. That's really the only reason I picked SD, because I am a BioE major. If I was any other engineering major, I would have prolly gone to calpoly or Rice.</p>
<p>"Yup, I mentioned that. But can it explain the difference between USC's middle range of 1260-1440 vs. UCSD's middle range of 1130-1360? That's a 130 point difference for the lower quartile and an 80 point different for the upper quartile."</p>
<ul>
<li>much of that difference is simply the difference in single sitting vs. muttiple sitting. furthermore, UCSD has a higher average gpa, higher percentage of students in top 10% of high school class, and more top 10 and 20 ranked programs than USC. USC does have a lower admit rate however. 99% of UCSD freshmen are in the top 10% of high school class, 84% at USC. if you feel thats not a fare stat, i dont know what to tell ya. people cant take USC's word for their stats, and then argue UCSD is somehow falsely reporting theirs, then state USC's sat, and compare it to UCLA's and UCSD's. USC doesnt even use the same formula to compute their sat, yet people compare them as if they are computed equally, with the same formula. clearly USC's sat numbers are inflated next to UCSD's, thanks to the numerous sitting formula. i have nothing against USC, hell im applying their for grad and law school. an argument could be made for either of these fine institutions, i just feel UCSD is a superior academic school overall, not in every area however.</li>
</ul>
<p>well according to those rankings (see the link) UCSD has a fairly strong ME at #11. obviously not as strong as their bioengineering, but i still think it's fairly strong...</p>
<p>yea but you gotta think, USC Vitterbi isnt that bad at all. Besides, college admissions at the top colleges are a crap shoot. One of my friends gor rejected by Yale, Princeton and Upenn but to into harvard. Crap like that happens</p>
<p>
[quote=me]
I would imagine the average score difference between the two different ways of reporting GPA is ~30 points, but that doesn't come close to making up the difference, particularly with the lower quartile.
</p>
<p>replace "GPA" with "SAT." That was a typo, but from the context it is easy to tell what I meant.</p>
<p>i was on usc's site, i couldnt find their average weighted gpa. there unweighted gpa average was around a 3.7-3.8. ucsd's average capped weighted gpa is a 4.03, with maximum 4 honors courses i believe. the two schools capped weighted gpa numbers are likely very similar. usc states their admission rate was just over 27%, ucsd's was 39.3%. you put that the difference between one sitting and numerous sitting sat is likely 30 points, i would argue it is significantly more than that. ucsd claims on the university of california site that its average sat was a 1306. i believe usc claims somewhere in the 1340's or 1350's or 1360's with its multiple sitting format, but im not sure. after computing the atleast 30 points difference in using single sitting(ucsd) versus multiple sitting (usc) formats, there sat's also seem very similar. i still feel 30 points is not enough points to compare these to computational formulas. if you look at the number of top 10 and 20 programs i believe the difference between the two schools becomes clearer. ucsd has more top 10 and top 20 programs than usc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many employers are not as knowledgeable as you may think, and many of them are not aware of how strong individual programs are at schools. They just know the overall name of the school.</p>
<p>Furthermore, what if your interests shift? It is best to have a school that is strong across the spectrum rather than only good in one thing. Overall prestige is a very real thing, and much of the overall prestige is based on prestige for specific majors/programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But I do agree with you here, so you get vindicated a bit. ;)</p>