<p>Re Pizzagirl’s post #370: Sorry, what were you saying? I have been out in the cornfields, which stretch as far as the eye can see, except for the pastures where we keep the cows. You were saying something about the upper-middle-class professional lifestyle out in this area? As soon as I shake the hayseeds out of my hair, I might be able to post something about that. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If every HS junior (or better, every member of that age cohort) in every state took the PSAT, the difference in National Merit PSAT qualifying scores by state might be meaningful. But that is not the case; participation varies widely by state, and by school district within each state, and by demographic group within each school district. So we have varying qualifying scores based on standard percentages of test-takers in each state, but varying percentages and distributions of test-takers in each state under widely varying policies. For example, is the test mandatory or optional, and who pays the fee–the state, the local school district, or the student/parent? Do HS sophomores take the test as “prep” for the National Merit qualifying administration of the same test in the sophomore year? And what is the level of prior knowledge and awareness, and how much information and instruction is given, concerning the role that this particular test plays in the National Merit scholarship competition (or even what the National Merit scholarship competition is), and as prep for the SAT? Etc., etc. </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, the states with the highest NMS qualifying scores are SAT-dominant states with large numbers of affluent households, i.e., those states most attuned to the entire SAT/College Board system.</p>
<p>And by the way, I doubt the high National Merit qualifying score in DC is indicative of a high level of educational attainment in District schools relative to country as a whole. More likely it’s a reflection of a small and non-representative sample size, i.e., the only people who take the PSAT in the District are the college-bound sons and daughters of affluent, college-educated parents. Take a standard percentage of that small and unrepresentative sample, and you’ll end up with a high National Merit qualifying score. But for the most part, District schools are plagued by high dropout rates and low educational achievement rates, just like other urban core school districts.</p>
<p>Regarding the overrepresentation of CA, it’s interesting that the degree of representation has changed significantly in recent years at most selective colleges. CA was not overrepresented at many of these colleges in the past. The change in number of CA students from 2000 to 2010 is listed below for various highly selective colleges:</p>
<p>Princeton : 103 -> 195
U Chicago : 72 -> 141
WUSTL : 76 -> 149
CMU : 80 -> 152
Cornell : 155 -> 269
Duke : 89 -> 148
Notre Dame : 107 -> 174
Dartmouth : 92 -> 145
Rice : 37 -> 71
Brown : 145 -> 234
Harvard : 178 -> 236</p>
<p>The moderately selective colleges I checked also had a significant increase in number of CA students, perhaps even greater than the highly selective schools. For example:</p>
<p>Northeastern : 45 -> 156
Syracuse : 62 -> 158
Tufts : 57 -> 136
Boston University : 230 -> 426</p>
<p>Did something change in recent years that would explain this result? Perhaps changes with the UC system and budget cuts?</p>
<p>For the moderately selective colleges, there seem to be at least two plausible explanations:</p>
<p>a. UC and CSU in-state costs have gone up significantly. So the other moderately selective colleges need to offer less merit scholarships to compete with UC and CSU for California students from high income families.</p>
<p>b. UC and CSU schools have gotten more selective, probably because the population is growing faster than the space in the universities. Some California students may not be able to get admitted to a desired UC or CSU, so they go elsewhere.</p>
<p>As more and more schools were added to the Common Application, increased numbers of students applied to more colleges, including those further from their homes.</p>
<p>
Most states did not show a noteworthy increase, so I don’t think the CA increase is primarily a common app issue. </p>
<p>I think ucbalumnus’s explanation about the tuition increase at UC (roughly doubled during this period) is reasonable. This fits with some of the largest changes occurring with nearby state schools. For example, U Oregon increased from 302 CA students in 2000 to 1122 in 2010… a larger increase than any of the private schools mentioned in my earlier post, both in percentage and total number.</p>
<p>Many UC schools show a notable change in the relative admit rate of in-state vs out-of-state and internationals during this period. This change may relate to efforts to increase the number of higher tuition students (out-if-state and international). For example,</p>
<p>UCLA Admit Rates in 2000 : 31% instate, 20% out of state, 14% international
UCLA Admit Rates in 2010 : 21% instate, 30% out of state, 31% international</p>
<p>Schools are very limiting in the education they provide, and elitism only constricts it further. I opted out of Ivy League schools, in spite of scores, because I didn’t want to spend for years around a bunch of boring, high strung, egocentric jerks. Odd how this conversation has seemed to ignore UIUC and the University of Chicago, two public universities whose schools often rank in the top three in the county (engineering, computer science, business, agriculture, etc.). The east coast, historically speaking, is the group that didn’t have the balls or open mind to adventure westward to learn and grow by way of experience. They think you gain knowledge from reading someone else’s thoughts. Dumb. I find the east coast to be highly out of touch, arrogant over irrelevant matters, and generally ignorant, even though they feel intellectually superior. In short, jerks. No wonder the bulk of the hatred in this country occurs out east.</p>
<p>Edited out profanity. - FC</p>
<p>University of Chicago is a private school. </p>
<p>Maybe those boring Ivy Leaguers and dumb east coasters would have noted that this thread is more than a year old.</p>
<p>As a person who grew up on the West Coast (the part that’s not California), and has gone to school on both coasts, lived and worked on both for years, and rub elbows professionally with people from every region of the country: nothing in eniguy’s post rings true to me.</p>
<p>Please use old threads for research and don’t revive them.</p>