How competitive is Stanford?

<p>
[quote]
No evidence of that exists, either

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, there is in fact a mountain of evidence that shows this. Specifically, one can simply look at the evidence that demonstrates a positive correlation between each SAT section and college first-year-grades. Hence, if each section is positively correlated with first-year-grades, then simply by transitivity, each section is positively correlated with each other. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But it makes more sense for a student to be accepted with lower scores in one section if the other sections are higher -- especially since SAT scores are, after all, considered "important."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And again, that presumes that large numbers of these people actually exist that exhibit such a negative correlation. Let's face it. There aren't that many people who get 800 on the critical reading section, but a 300 on the writing. Barring the possible exception of recent immigrants (which don't comprise a large percentage of the pool), the same holds true for math vs. CR/writing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
a positive correlation between each SAT section and college first-year-grades.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is not a perfect correlation. And even then, a student who performs poorly on the math but does will in CR and W will probably do well in college if he/she doesn't take any math courses. So that point is moot. (Not to mention that data isn't on how Berkeley students fare in comparison to their SAT scores. In fact, a study by UC showed that SAT isn't that good an indicator of success in college, which is in part why Berkeley de-emphasizes the SAT.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
here aren't that many people who get 800 on the critical reading section, but a 300 on the writing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that's a huge difference. I'm talking, say, 720 in CR, 700 in W, but a 600 in M (I know many with such scores, in fact).</p>

<p>Either way, you can't say that x% students received below a 1700 on the SAT, when that's patently not what the data says.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There is not a perfect correlation

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When did I say there had to be a perfect correlation (that is, a Pearson's of precisely 1)? It's frankly almost impossible for you to find a perfect correlation in anything. All I have to do is demonstrate that the correlation is not negative. There is clearly no evidence of that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And that's a huge difference. I'm talking, say, 720 in CR, 700 in W, but a 600 in M (I know many with such scores, in fact).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that's precisely what I'm talking about. Somebody who earns an above-average CR score is probably going to earn above-average scores in the other sections (and vice versa). And that's precisely what happened in the numbers you presented: all of those scores are above average (relative to the national average). </p>

<p>In other words, if you tell me somebody's CR score, that tells me useful information about what that same person's scores in the other sections probably are. If he scores above-average in one section, he will probably score above-average in another.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Either way, you can't say that x% students received below a 1700 on the SAT, when that's patently not what the data says.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is a simple inference from the data. After all, like I said, there is indeed a non-negative correlation amongst the various SAT sections. Somebody who does poorly in one section is probably going to do poorly in the others. </p>

<p>In other words, there is no reason to believe that somebody who got a mediocre score in CR is going to do better in the writing or math. In fact, he may well have done worse in those other sections.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is a simple inference

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And a wrong one.</p>

<p>The end.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And a wrong one.</p>

<p>The end.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nope, it is the right one. </p>

<p>The end.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Actually, I would say that what really skews that data is the large population of community college transfer students, a disproportionate portion of which probably have relatively low (for Berkeley) SAT scores, or would have had such scores if they had taken the SAT.

[/quote]

It was my understanding that Berkeley does not consider SAT scores for transfer students, just college grades and essay.</p>

<p>When I transferred I did not have to submit my SAT scores. So, I don't think SAT scores for transfer students get averaged in with the data. </p>

<p>I did take the SAT and my score was crap, yet somehow, I still managed to transfer to Berkeley from a CSU, take supposedly the hardest major at Cal and graduate with a 3.1 GPA...Go figure!</p>

<p>Well, the average GPA earned in ChemE courses is a 3.21 (according the thecampusbuddy). Upper division course materials may be more difficult, but the grading is much more lenient compared to the lower division weeder couses.</p>

<p>Gee, I'm really stupid then. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>I took Math 54, Chem 112A and all ChemE courses at Berkeley.</p>

<p>I love how people always want to knock each other down...</p>

<p>
[Quote]
Well, the average GPA earned in ChemE courses is a 3.21 (according the thecampusbuddy). Upper division course materials may be more difficult, but the grading is much more lenient compared to the lower division weeder couses.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Let's see, how should I classify that statement?</p>

<p>A) immature
B) rude
C) irrevelent
D) All of the above!!!</p>