<p>I applied to UCLA and got in this weekend. I have been reading some posts with students having 700+ SAT 2's and 2100+ SAT's (instate). I wasn't really planning on attending UCLA - mainly because of the stats from the US NEWS and WORLD REPORT - 2006 - BEST UNIVERSITIES LIST. It lists 1180-1410 SAT (old scores). The scores didn't seem that great to me and UCLA doesn't seem significantly difficult to get into. Yet, the scores from the rejected applicants differ? What's the deal?</p>
<p>[ol][<em>]The 1180-1410 range you cited is the SAT I distribution of matriculanting students, rather than of admitted students.
[</em>]The recruited athletes at UCLA tend to skew the SAT I distribution downwards; in other words, the mean score of the "traditional" student body is closer to the high end of the range with a smaller spread (1325-1375).
[*]As this year's admit/reject pools show, UCLA admissions tend to emphasize the applicant's UC GPA much more than his/her SAT I score; thus, it isn't the best measure of the caliber of the students here.[/ol]</p>
<p>Number three seems questionable, but so does asking how good a school is based on test scores. What are you really asking, roxycristina?</p>
<p>flopsy:</p>
<h1>2 & #3 are both questionable. Even if a couple of hundred recruited athletes scored 600 SAT score (200x3), it would not bring down the range of the other 4000 students. However, UCLA, (Cal and Stanford) do also recruit athletes that have 2000+ scores, so don't pick on the players.</h1>
<p>But, the relative low SAT scores are reflective of income levels of accepted students under comprehensive review. The UC's accept ~35% Pell grant recipients -- the highest % in the nation. )For comparison, UVa is proud to have moved up to ~9% Pell grantees.) According to collegeboard's own data, kids from poor families score lower on the SAT. Thus, 35% of lower income income kids (and scores) will move the range downward from the higher-scoring kids. Also, since Calif has a lot of kids who speak english as a second language.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
The UC's accept ~35% Pell grant recipients -- the highest % in the nation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have any information on just UCLA, though?</p>
<p>Flopsy, you sure you are an engineering major? 25% below 1180, shouldn't that be enough to cover all the athletes admitted? </p>
<p>UCs get a lot of students from California public highschools. That may be one of the reasons to explain high GPA, low SAT. UCLA has the most bell grant recipients in the nation by the way, but I don't remembr the number.</p>
<p>UCLA and Cal have quite high GPAs and SAT scores, really. They just don't compare, particularly the test scores, the the best private schools. Also, the UCs take the best single sitting, and most private schools take the best combined sitting. This skews things a bit, but a lot of people seem to ignore it. Also, keep in mind how many kids do have very high scores- keep in mind that you're dealing with averages.</p>
<p>Well, I'd be the first one to say that SAT's aren't very important or indicative of talent/academic ability, but schools to use it to measure things like that. I'm just not quite sure why Cal or UCLA are rated so highly, when its not extremely difficult to get in based on SAT's. (GPA is another story). I'm mainly talking about in-state students because out-of-state is a lot more difficult. UCLA/Cal are not comparative to the ivies or northwestern or stanford, yet everyone "ooh's and ahh's" over them?</p>
<p>On second thought, I retract the second point in my original post... I now realize that there just aren't enough recruited freshman athletes (out of the ~4500 matriculants) with below-average SAT I scores to significantly lower the average SAT I score of the UCLA entering class from ~1350 to ~1180... Sorry about that. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>What the SATs do or dont' do, I'm not sure. i've heard here some studies that indicate the correlation between SAT score and graduation, but anyway, schools do use them, yes.</p>
<p>I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What ranking system are you considering in which they're "rated so highly?" 25-30 is fairly high, sure, but it's easy to see how a school is as high as it is on US News- just follow the formula. Did you hear what I said about private schools using best individual score for multiple sittings? What do you mean it's not hard to get in based on SATs? When you say "are not comparative," do you mean with respect to difficulty of admissions, or educational quality, or what? I think they might be comporable to Northwestern, but I'm not sure. Care to compare? Don't you think regionalism has something to do with what you hear about and "oohs" and "ahhs?"</p>
<p>roxy:</p>
<p>don't forget, that the UC's only accept the highest SAT score from a single sitting, whereas the privates mix and match test scores. Thus, the actual test comparison is not statistically accurate. Further, the students applying to HYSM et al, have a much higher average income than those applying to the UCs, which, by definition, have 33% low income kids -- they just score lower.</p>
<p>oh, crosspost with Drab.</p>
<p>When I said "comporable to Northwestern," I was referring to difficulty of admissions.</p>
<p>this is one of the most ridiculous points i've ever seen made.</p>
<p>UCLA offers an unbelievable amount of courses and majors. you can pursue ANYTHING. and its beautiful. and it is extremely well respected, but like every state-school, its admissions numbers may be somewhat skewed because it's in the service of the state, and will take some california residents from financially unsound backgrounds and with less impressive SAT scores. </p>
<p>and saying Cal isn't one of the top places for an education just makes you look ignorant.</p>
<p>wow, the last poster had no idea what you were getting at... lol. but yes, the obligation to in-state folks drags down SAT numbers, but SAT's are directly related to parental income; kids with the same capability but different financial situations tend to score differently, because money buys test prep. Keep that in mind when you're comparing UCLA and Stanford.</p>
<p>but if there's one thing you need to know, that is DON'T READ TOO MUCH INTO THE RANKINGS! different publications rank differently according to different numbers- a few years back, Chicago was simultaneously rated 13th and 38th. look at the breakdowns instead.</p>
<p>I think Cal is a great school. I think UCLA is a great school. Don't confuse my bewilderment with dissatisfaction concerning the UC's. I was questioning why they were highly regarded despite the lacking stats. That is all. From the above posts, it seems as though the stats are low because it's public and has to accept some less-than-impressive students.</p>
<p>Lacking stats? Again, on average. Plenty of students here have stats that match the best from other great schools. Do you understand how taking the best single sitting, and not the best combined, effects things? Or the other points in my post, or other posts above, that you didn't acknowledge or respond to.</p>
<p>Yes, the sitting thing does apply for SOME schools. Not every private school in the nation does that. Each school has different ways of putting together the mid-50 percent.</p>
<p>ALSO...</p>
<p>"Lacking stats? Again, on average." </p>
<p>Every school's mid-50% is ON AVERAGE. That's no explanation.</p>
<p>Yeah, but consider size. There are huge numbers of kids in the classes at UCLA and Cal whos sat scores match that of the best private schools. There just also happen to be many with slightly lower stats than these, too. But fine, ignore size, and that that the average private school will take the best multiple sitting combined, and other things that have been brought up. Read what you like, it's your perogative.</p>