Again, show us the data.
Many students who attend highly rejectives come from affluent families and the various advantages they have had thru k-12, as well as family connections, etc mean where they go to school doesn’t matter. That’s what Dale and Krueger (and others) have repeatedly shown. Some studies show there can be a relative benefit for limited income and/or URMs who attend highly rejectives.
The value of college prestige and connections made in college varies by industry and other factors. It may be omnipresent in some industries, but minimal in others. Other factors include whether one is already well connected – those with the least pre-existing connections into the upper class were more likely to benefit from attending a prestige college, according to one study.
The UC Berkeley admission process is somewhat more holistic. They receive plenty of high GPA applicants, but they seem to put more weight on the other factors, compared to UCLA and other UCs. Sometimes a student is rejected from all the other selective UCs but is accepted at UCB.
Agreed
They actually post this data, so no need to infer anything. And yes, the majority of their enrolled students are from California.
I am not sure whether the percentage of students with a high GPA is necessarily the best indicator of whether earning an A at that school is “very easy.” Some public high schools, just like some private high schools, are packed with hard working competitive students who may be working quite hard to earn their high GPAs. Of course, it certainly may be the case that it could be easy to earn an A at the public schools you’re personally familiar with.
I’ve shared this before, but I teach at, and my kids attend, a California private that very rarely has anyone graduating with an unweighted 4.0. There may be a student every few years who has never earned a B. My ‘23 had an UW 3.75 and a weighted 4.65, a bit higher now with senior year grades. He was UC ELC and ranked 4th in his class. He ended up getting into 5 of the 7 UCs he applied to, including Berkeley. This indicates to me that admissions can identify the grade inflators and grade deflators. None of it is apples to apples, but it seems like they can figure it out from the school report.
Are you looking at the CDS for both UCLA and UCB? CDS data is for Enrolled students which in most cases, the GPA information is lower than the admitted. Below is the UCLA and UCB GPA profile from last year found on the school’s website. If applying, this is the data you want to use.
UCLA admitted 2022 Freshman:
Unweighted GPA Median: 4.00 25-75 percentile: 3.95-4.00
UCB admitted 2022 Freshman:
Unweighted GPA 3.90-4.00
CDS UCLA:
CDS UCB:
Except for a small number of private high schools which are known for their grade deflation, this is probably not true.
First, the majority of private high schools are parochial schools and they generally serve low income communities, and they are nothing like what people here on CC consider a “private school” to be.
Second, private schools which require testing in order to be accepted should be compared to public schools like magnet schools, which also require testing to be accepted. If anybody thinks for one moment that getting an A at Stuyvesant, IMSA, Payton, and the dozens of other such high schools is any easier than getting at A at private schools like Harvard-Westlake or Groton, they really need to do some more research.
Grade inflation is actually rampant at many “elite” private high schools as well. However, grade inflation is likely the most rampant in public high schools which serve affluent communities. At least one study from North Carolina seems to support that.
An interesting article with a different take on grade inflation:
To piggyback on this, anecdotally, D23 was accepted at 5 of 6 UC’s - UCB, UCSD, UCSB, UCD and UCSC - denied at UCLA.
She has 4 friends going to UCLA - all of them with a 4.0 UW GPA (2 private, 1 charter, 1 public).
To the OP, her application was obviously solid, seems safe to assume it was her UW 3.86 that made the difference, or not, as the case may be. Looking at the UCLA threads it’s rare to find an acceptance below 3.9. So yes, the few B grades she earned did seem to affect the outcome in that case.
It’s graduate degree. For undergraduate, an analysis in 2018 found the most represented colleges were as follows. I don’t think one can conclude much of anything from such stats other than a wide variety of colleges and college types are represented. You do not need to attended a particular small group of colleges to be a Fortune 500 CEO.
Fortune 500 CEOs are ridiculously extreme outliers who have almost no correlation to expected outcome for typical students. Instead I expect their path to CEOs involves a variety of unique traits and circumstances, as well as a lot of luck. Some persons with those particular traits and circumstances may also be more likely to apply to or attend certain colleges for undergrad.
Wisconsin – 14
Harvard – 12
Cornell – 10
Michigan – 8
Stanford – 7
Berkeley / Penn / Purdue / Texas A&M – 6
Bucknell / Illinois / Lehigh / Michigan State / Princeton / SUNY / Yale – 5
Boston College / Dartmouth / Iowa State / Miami / North Carlolina / Northwestern / Notre Dame / NYU / West Point / Utah – 4
I wrote about my nephew a bit back. He had a 4.0 (unweighted) with a very rigorous curriculum, but only moderate ECs. He was accepted to UCLA and UCSD and waitlisted at Berkeley. Decently competitive public high school for an affluent area (in CA).
UCLA prioritizes GPA and rigor over ECs, and they make it clear in the CDS - GPA, Rigor, and essay are all “very important”, while ECs, talent, and “personal qualities” are “important”.
This appears to make what is termed the “ecological fallacy”, assuming what is true for a population is true for individual members of that population.
I don’t doubt that there are consulting firms and other high-pay/high-potential firms that look to a few elite schools for hires. But neither do I believe the “finals clubs” at a school like Harvard or Skull & Bones at Yale are equally accessible to all undergrads who care to join. Or that kids from middle or even moderately upper income families encounter no barriers fitting into the social milieu with children of the 0.1%-percenters.
Elsewhere in the thread you wrote about the value of the network you make at elite colleges but the opportunities to form that network are not the same for all students.
As the “ecological fallacy” explains, all the studies in the world showing the many successful people graduating from elite schools do nothing to promise a benefit to every attendee.
Interesting - maybe I misunderstand the terminology - but at least in the “catholic” schools in the area I’m familiar with, they only survive from tuition (and many had to close over the last ten years because they couldn’t produce sufficient revenue from mostly affluent parents), with annual tuition usually in the high ten-thousands.
Of course not…but the opportunity exists. You don’t have to join Skull & Bones to build up an incredible Yale network that will benefit your career.
I’ve read the studies posted in this thread, and others I have found online. The studies posted by the folks in this thread who think ‘success’ is all about the student’s ability (and nothing to do with prestige) are far from conclusive. However, the studies that tout the benefits of attending ‘prestigious’ institutions (especially for underrepresented minorities & students from middle class to poor families) are not conclusive either.
My assessment is that, if you can graduate from a Top 20 private university with zero (or little) debt, it is worth it.
I just came across this and no one asked me, but if I could, I would say yes…but I’m also open to the idea that someone who attends Texas Tech or Florida Gulf Coast could have very valuable contacts that will never exist for someone who attends Stanford or UPenn. Depends on what you want to do and where you want to live. For MBB or i-banking, sure, Ivy. If you want to get involved in ranch management in West Texas, a network built on Texas Tech connections is more valuable than a dozen Ivy+ degrees. For many (perhaps most) industries and occupations, a large state flagship in the state where you intend to work would likely be the best choice to optimize your professional network.
I agree 100%.
The point is not the ‘prestigious’ schools are the 100% best option all of the time for everyone. The point is that, just like Texas Tech in certain situations, there are times when a ‘prestigious’ university degree has unique benefits.
Earlier, in this thread someone said, "the myth that it’s the school that creates the opportunity and not the individual." I am just saying that there are times that, along with hard work, a degree from a ‘prestigious’ university offers paths to success that other universities do not.
Agreed because you will have many more alumni from a state public school (especially flagship) than a small private school even if they are “higher ranked” or more prestigious.
The odds are that you will run into many more of them who can help you.
I actually edited that part out, since it is not clear that this is the case any more, because of the closings and other processes.
That’s a far cry from:
