<p>Yes, Princeton Review ratings are total BS. For some reason all the UC's that 95%+ of the kids were in the top 10% of their class. Because of this, they are all regarded as ultra-selective. UC Davis is NOT more selective than Cornell you PR idiots!</p>
<p>UC Davis Admissions Selectivity Rating: 99
<a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/generalinfomore.asp?listing=1023799<id=1&intbucketid=%5B/url%5D">http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/generalinfomore.asp?listing=1023799<id=1&intbucketid=</a></p>
<p>Cornell Admissions Selectivity Rating: 98
<a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/generalinfomore.asp?listing=1023589<id=1&intbucketid=%5B/url%5D">http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/generalinfomore.asp?listing=1023589<id=1&intbucketid=</a></p>
<p>thats one flaw in PRs ranking of selectivity... and i dont think anyone appreciates you calling people idiots.
I, for one, think PR does a better job than USNWR, because PR doesnt say that one college is better than another because its harder to get in to... in fact, it doesnt say that one college is better than another at all, which is exactly the right attitude to have. College books should be sharing info about what a college's atmosphere is like, what teh campus is like, and so on. Anybody who chooses a college because it was harder to get in to than all the others is the idiot, not PR</p>
<p>The USNews does not say that either. Look at UC Berkeley and Georgetown.</p>
<p>The number is based on a simple factoid: 95% of Davis students are in the top 10% of their class (it's probably higher this year). That's the way the UC system works. Playing lacrosse, attending a fancy prep school, being from a traditional feeder school, having the GC go and have drinks with an admissions officer is not going to help you much. The comparable percentage at Cornell is 85%. The result is that there are likely all kinds of people who can get into Cornell who can't get into UC-Davis. So the numbers (both of which are very high), reflect "comparative selectivity". </p>
<p>PR doesn't mistake UC-Davis for Cornell. Check out the rest of the ratings. You may not like what they are doing, but they know very well what they are doing.</p>
<p>I think PR is extraordinarily accurate for quality of undergraduate education, free of issues of prestige or graduate school rankings.</p>
<p>"I, for one, think PR does a better job than USNWR, because PR doesnt say that one college is better than another because its harder to get in to... in fact, it doesnt say that one college is better than another at all, which is exactly the right attitude to have."</p>
<p>I disagree. PR ranks colleges on a variety of factors including "admissions" (admission selectivity) and "academics" (relative academic prestige). It merely fails to compile these into a single list with enumerated rankings, though that fact that it does condense something so complex as academic prestige into a single number implies a formulaic methodology that is intrinsically flawed to a degree, and moreover, is less transparent than US News with clearly describes how they perform their computations so one can decide how relevant its rankings are.</p>
<p>"Playing lacrosse, attending a fancy prep school, being from a traditional feeder school, having the GC go and have drinks with an admissions officer is not going to help you much. The comparable percentage at Cornell is 85%. The result is that there are likely all kinds of people who can get into Cornell who can't get into UC-Davis."</p>
<p>Sure, perhaps an "old boys club" operation still exists at the ivies but the fact that remains that the vast majority of these students are all jaw-droppingly impressive. It takes more than legacy and playing lacrosse to get one into Cornell. I would argue that almost anyone with sufficient stats to get into Cornell could get into UCD... the one mitigating factor being UC Davis not taking many out of state students due to its public nature; of course, this is do to school mission, not any component of ADmission. Let's not forget that class ranking isn't the only factor of admissions, as well as which schools feed to which. I'd much rather be in the top 15% at Groton than the top 10% at some CA public. Needless to say, Cornell will have more of the former.</p>
<p>There was no intended put down of Cornell; it was just a simple truth that there are people who can get into Cornell who can't get in UC-Davis, which is formula driven. Maybe they "should" be able to get in; but they can't. The things that will help one in admissions at Cornell (where they students are wonderfully accomplished!) won't do one much good in applying to Davis. And let's be clear: PR doesn't mistake Davis for Cornell, as the rest of its rankings (for which methodology are given) makes clear.</p>
<p>Where you'd prefer to be in high school is wholly irrelevant.</p>
<p>It's completely relevant. </p>
<p>You pointed out that 95% of the students at UCD are in the top 10% whereas only 85% are at Cornell. I said look at the feeder schools. UC Davis has most of its students coming from California publics whereas Cornell draws from a much more national pool, including the most competitive private schools in the nation like Groton, Andover, Exeter, etc. Subsequently, one cannot directly compare these stats because there are lurking variables - such as, as I mentioned, being in the top 15% at Groton is in many instances, every bit as presitgious (an in all probability even more so) as being in the top 10% at a CA public, though this student in the top 15% won't get factored into Cornell's "% in top 10% of HS class" statistic.</p>
<p>And again, I would venture to say that in 90%+ of cases, the only thing keeping Cornell admits out of Davis is Davis' lack of enrollment of non CA residents. I imagine that if these Cornell admits did indeed live in CA, not only would many gain admission to Davis, but with a Regents to boot. To say that UCD is harder to get into than Cornell borders on absurd.</p>
<p>You're making the argument that Cornell admits many students based on non academic factors like "well-roundedness" and lacrosse playing. Look at the stats of Cornell's freshman classes. Also, the UC emplys comprehensive review, giving points to non-academic things like overcoming hardships. Last year a study by UC Regent John Moores found that 400+ students were admitted to Berkeley with sub-1000 SAT scores. If that was at Berkeley, imagine what that number is at Davis. Most schools factor in non-academic issues into admissions, including Davis. But when compares relevant statistics of selectivity -- % admitted and the average stats of the freshman class -- Cornell wins outright.</p>
<p>Could someone explain to me how, in virtually all the UCs, the number of students in the top 10% of the class is so high......yet the average SATs are, well....kinda average. Certainly there is a lack of correlation in these two statistics....unlike what you see in most schools. I've heard someone mention that the UCs do not actually use true class rank...instead they use an "effective" class rank that comes from a "formula" based on other things. If that was true, then it would explain why the UCs appear so good in this one statistic compared to all the other good publics and privates out there (which use true class rank). Comments?</p>
<p>Doesn't everyone get into Davis??!</p>
<p>They have a 70% acceptance rate, and the remaining 30% get in via Sac City Community College, or Solano CC. I'm from the area, and I know for damn sure it's not considered prestigious around here.</p>
<p>They have a 70% acceptance rate</p>
<p>58% actually.</p>
<p>Rogracer, the UC system as a whole has an official policy that GPA is more important than test scores. Also, the top 4% of graduating students from every California high school are guranteed admission into a UC campus. So you're right - UC admissions skew towards grades. Students with high test scores and so-so grades will tend to go somewhere else where the priorities are different.</p>
<p>compare the sat scores and you will notice that cornell's average sat is much higher than all the UC schools. the UC schools just accept a lot of students from cali that are in the top 10%, but a lot of the schools in cali are not very good imo, especially with the illegal immigrants. i'm guessing that a lot of the students in cali are probably less well-off because of the significant minority populations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
especially with the illegal immigrants. i'm guessing that a lot of the students in cali are probably less well-off because of the significant minority populations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, because minorities make schools worse...?</p>
<p>Even though I personally disagree with the Princeton Review on this, I still respect it. According to the METHODOLOGY OF THE PRINCETON REVIEW, UC-Davis is more selective than Cornell, and they probably have their personal information to back it up. That's fine. However, even if UC-Davis were more selective than Cornell, Cornell is still a better institution to me. Acceptance rates and selectivity do not equal prestige and quality.</p>
<p>i am a minority, btw. i'm just saying that minorities and especially illegal immigrants usually do not have the opportunities that Whites have. minorities are generally associated with inner city schools and poverty.</p>
<p>"However, even if UC-Davis were more selective than Cornell, Cornell is still a better institution to me. Acceptance rates and selectivity do not equal prestige and quality."</p>
<p>That is precisely what PR says, and quite clearly too. (As for the SAT scores, in aggregate, a 1400 is simply a 1200 plus $100,000 in annual family income. Or so reports the CollegeBoard - go fight with them.)</p>
<p>"Could someone explain to me how, in virtually all the UCs, the number of students in the top 10% of the class is so high......yet the average SATs are, well....kinda average."</p>
<p>this is what themegastud is trying to explain. the UC's ONLY accept the top 12.5% of california's high school students. that's how they get so many top 10% students because they draw from a huge number of public schools. </p>
<p>on the other hand, schools like cornell do not field as high numbers of "top 10%" because many of it's admits are NOT in the top 10% of their class, yet still highly qualified. several factors... first, there aren't as many public schools to draw from, and second the public schools are not as big as those in california. this leads to cornell drawing more of it's admits from privates than UC Davis does, and the students who AREN'T at the top 10% at these (perhaps prestigious) privates are highly qualified, and perhaps even more qualified than some of the top 10% at regular publics.</p>
<p>"And let's be clear: PR doesn't mistake Davis for Cornell, as the rest of its rankings (for which methodology are given) makes clear."</p>
<p>No, the methodology isn't made clear. Pasted from PR's website: </p>
<p>"This rating measures how competitive admissions are at the school. This rating is determined by several institutionally-reported factors, including: the class rank, average standardized test scores, and average high school GPA of entering freshmen; the percentage of students who hail from out-of-state; and the percentage of applicants accepted." </p>
<p>To paraphrase, they're saying "we look at a variety of admissions factors." That's it! They don't tell what kind of weight they give to each factor, whether they standardize school reported statistics (i.e. UC gpa vs. non UC gpa, best in one sitting SATs vs. best Math/Verbal), etc. It looks wholly unscientific. Just browsing their rankings makes me dubious. Consider the above instance where Davis is <em>supposedly</em> harder to gain admission to than Cornell. Does anyone honestly believe that? Harvard also has an "admissions selectivity rating" of 99. Is the Princeton Review saying that UC Davis and Harvard are equally competitive when it comes to admissions?</p>
<p>Other rankings/ratings from the PR are dubious too. Consider its Academic Rating. Off the top of my head, I looked up UCLA, USC, and Berkeley whose scores were 76, 85, and 92, respectively. Ordinarily, as a USC student, I would jump on anything that ranked USC an 85 and UCLA a 76 in academics but even I know this isn't right. One could make the argument that the PR's methodology factors in student:teacher ratio, class size, use of TA's, registration, and resources - factors which likely played a role in USC's hefty lead. But that still doesn't address the huge discrepancy between UCLA and Berkeley which in all likelihood should be much closer together.</p>
<p>The Princeton Review, along with this site, is probably the best college information resource available online. But I think the above proves that its ratings should definitely be taken with a healthy amount of skepticism and that conclusions based solely on information from these ratings should be avoided.</p>
<p>"this is what themegastud is trying to explain. the UC's ONLY accept the top 12.5% of california's high school students. that's how they get so many top 10% students because they draw from a huge number of public schools."</p>
<p>....there has got to be more to it than that. If you just compare state unversities across the nation, you will find that the UC's are out-of-line with the number of students in the top 10% versus average SAT scores. <em>All</em> the UCs are out-of-line with other state schools. As an example, consider UC Santa Cruz....96% in the top 10% of HS class, yet the 25-75 percentile of SAT is just 1030-1260 (source: US News). Other UCs show similar patterns. This is <em>very unlike</em> other state schools in the nation.....even schools that focus on grades and rank versus SAT scores. Something is odd about this. I've heard mention that the UC's do not use true class rank for this statistic (like I said earlier), and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it!</p>