<p>There was some confusion on this board on to UVa's SAT scores for this year due to poor wording on the admissions website. This has been corrected. The entering class this year, the class of 2010, has a 25%-75% SAT score of 1280-1490.</p>
<p>I don't believe it.</p>
<p>hahahaha,</p>
<p>cav, the funny thing is, i remember you saying something like "i'll notify dean j to correct it." I guess he did ;-). i don't know why its so hard to believe. look at michigan - its SATs for this year are 1260-1480, berkeley is 1200-1450. The schools are selective - what more do you want?</p>
<p>In year when SAT scores were down nationwide, and when UVA did not get much more selective, I do not believe that the SAT midranges would go up that much. For the class entering in 2005, the verbal midrange was 600-710 and the math midrange was 620-720. The information on the admissions website is incorrect.</p>
<p>edit: ugh, they're also using outdated magazine rankings on the admissions website.</p>
<p>just because the national averages went down - doesn't affect whats happening at the top colleges where the top students go.</p>
<p>its not that UVa has gotten more selective, other top publics got more selective. Like I said, michigan's SATs jumped to 1260-1480 from 1210-1400 (practically the same jump as UVA) - which is even MORE impressive given the size and admit rate of michigan.</p>
<p>Ok.</p>
<p>I don't believe it.</p>
<p>you're funny.</p>
<p>Ok. (10 char)</p>
<p>The CDS shows the numbers that cav posted. There's no way 25% of this school scored 1500+. And there's no way our numbers will ever be higher than Berkeley's so long as they have race blind admissions while we support AA. It's a tradeoff.</p>
<p>the most current CDS is for the class of 2009. those numbers are for the class of 2010.</p>
<p>Like I said, this isn't that unique. The university of michigan had an extremely similar jump as i pointed out before - from 1210-1400 to 1260-1480.</p>
<p>I'm sure the reason behind this is the change of the SAT. While the average student might do worse on the new SAT because the Math section has gotten harder, top students most likely did as well - if not better because of the removal of the ever troubling analogies on the verbal, and the fact that the math section shouldn't have been hard enough to change the scores for people who did well in algebra 2 and beyond.</p>
<p>Scores at peer schools were generally flat.</p>
<p>this isn't worth arguing over anymore. the way i see it - i'm the who has a source to back up my information. all you have is speculation and the opinion that "that can't be right."</p>
<p>i've also shown that its not a unique case where schools had jumps in scores this year - the University of Michigan - a peer university - had an equally impressive jump in SAT scores.</p>
<p>I don't really see how you have any leg to stand on other than your unbending and unsubstantiated opinion.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I guess he did
[/QUOTE]
She didn't. ;)</p>
<p>The data gets updated now and then when Institutional Assessment "certifies" new numbers. We'll have another update next month, after that office completes the census.</p>
<p>Interestingly, I was a tad worried when we didn't see a huge jump in the number of applications to UVA last year. But, as more info came out, we found that some of the schools that experienced up to a 15% jump in applications are the ones that had a drop in their average SAT scores. That says to me that those extra apps may not have been particularly competitive.</p>
<p>The number is not inconsistent with what is going on given that the top Ivies and LAC's have their 75% scores above 1550.</p>
<p>So essentially it's not that the kids got smarter but the SATs got easier or what?</p>
<p>I think the rise is due to two factors:
1. The top students are better prepared, either through self practice or through commercial venues.
2. Students are taking the SAT multiple times, and colleges use the best score in the statistics. </p>
<p>Notice that it is the % in the high end that is creeping up but not the median. Unfortunately, I don't believe the test has the power to distinguish among students from 1750-1600, making the score less a factor for our top students in admission.</p>
<p>Well, at least overall according to the scores, the SATs got harder. However, I think for better students - i.e. people applying to schools like UVa, the SATs got easier. Tricky questions were removed that could trip anyone up (quant comparison, analogies). It can be assumed that these meaningless mistakes have now been lost - which could result in improved scores. Also, while fewer people took the SATs more than once this year, which would result in lower scores, I'm sure most people applying to competitive colleges took the test more than once.</p>
<p>A few points: </p>
<p>-The format of the SAT changed, but the percentile ranks for each scaled score stayed just about the same. The test did not "get easier" for top students. Scaled scores remained equal or close to their erstwhile percenile ranks.</p>
<p>-SATs were flat across the board - even at top schools. In a year when UVA's applications were flat - and when the admissions office did nothing new to attract better applicants, it's unreasonable to assume that the applicant pool improved, and that the <em>superior</em> accepted students matriculated in such large numbers. </p>
<p>-No school that I can recall has seen such a jump in SAT IQR and mean. None. Especially when, as I noted above, nothing had changed in the admissions process. </p>
<p>Finally, I present to you the article put out last april about the newly admitted class, which clearly states that the verbal and math SAT IQR's for the <em>admitted</em> class were 630-740 and 650-750, respectively. Consider the difference between the <em>admitted</em> class and the <em>enrolled</em> class. No school - not Harvard, not Princeton - has an SAT midrange equal to or better than the SAT midrange of its accepted students. </p>
<p>As far as I'm concerned, jags, I don't really see how you have any leg to stand on other than your unbending and unsubstantiated opinion</p>
<p>hey bro -</p>
<p>don't hate. just because the UVa website says something which you can't refute, you don't have to get all bent out of shape. it took you 2 days to come up with a response that doesn't prove me wrong, and doesn't prove you right.</p>
<p>"-No school that I can recall has seen such a jump in SAT IQR and mean. None. Especially when, as I noted above, nothing had changed in the admissions process."</p>
<p>Cav, I believe as I have said...3 times now...look at the University of Michigan. SAT scores from its 2005 CDS report 1210 - 1400.</p>
<p>Michigan's incoming class for 2006...just like UVa's had a very sharp increase in SAT scores. As Michigan's website reports, the incoming class this year - the class of 2010 - had a SAT range of 1260-1480. An increase just as impressive as UVa's. I know you fail to acknowledge this fact because it goes against your argument, but its there.</p>
<p>I also acknowledge the difference between "admitted" and "enrolled." I also acknowledge how UVa's website change the prior wording for "admitted" to "enrolled" which is why i started this thread in the first place.</p>
<p>UVA's website is wrong, you're wrong and UM is wrong. HTH!</p>