<p>@ucbalumnus: Agreed. That’s why I prefer to look at alumni outcomes/acheivements. I don’t have a problem with taking in transfers/nontrads/spring admits/whatever. So long as a school still produces a high percentage of high-achieving grads, then that school is doing its job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did, and considering that the ranking organizations led by USNews created the Common Data Set and review its annual methodology, you can safely assume the collection of the data and their interpretations are … deliberate. In fact, they DO collect the transfer data and the deferred enrollment, but opt to NOT include the numbers in their calculations. Their response? In the grand scheme of things, it makes little diffence to the schools in general, and that is the way we have done it for a long time! They are fully aware that the outcome of a school such as Cal is flawed. </p>
<p>I’d call that deliberate as it fulfills one of their not-so-veiled objectives. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They do have to cross the line somewhere, but by October, they do know the number of deferred <strong>admits.</strong> The numbers of later enrollees is not that important and could be added in the following year report with an asterisk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct, but admits are not matriculants. And I would guess that public schools like Cal, experience ‘fall melt’ to a much greater extent than Middlebury or Northeastern. (The difference being wealth. Perhaps a Spring admit to Cal takes juco courses at home during the fall, and ultimately decides to continue at local juco to save money, earn an AA, and transfer later. Dunno how big that may be, but the point is that the Spring yield is probably much lower than Midd’s.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The implication should be irrelevant. The discussion is not about the worthiness of the admitted student, as that is a decision for the school to make. It should not subject to speculation … it should be part of the equation in a ranking system! </p>
<p>In the meantime, however, it remains that the undergraduate body at a school such as Cal is different from the statistical data shown (and massively) reported by the USNews. Like it or not, the selectivity and the overall rankings of schools that adorn the first pages of the rag carry a huge importance. For most, the rate of admission and the FINAL rankings are the only subject of discussions. Pretending that the USNews is of little importance is simply a canard. And it only takes to read the OP of this thread to see that! </p>
<p>No matter how we slice it, it remains that the transfer policies of the UC system opens two different paths. The first one being one that is discussed in this forum and involves high scores, high SAT, high GPA, and endless lists of ECs. Thta is the world of the highly selective schools led by our favorite acronym HYPS! The latter is totally different as it involves a path via Junior or Community colleges a la De Anza or Santa Monica. Is it not a safe assumption that the freshman student body at Cal is quite different from the ones at the JUCO or at the CSU? </p>
<p>Speaking about implications, one that would surface after the release of Morse’s follies next week is that Cal/UCLA are … underrated and “screwed” again. Another will be that Cal is in the “same” category as Stanford. The implication stems from a large number of cross-applicants --and ignores the simple fact that in terms of enrollment, there is no real parallel, as just a handful of students turn down Stanford for Cal while hundreds go the other route. </p>
<p>If the student body present a few strenuous parallels for the freshmen class, that goes entirely out of the window when merging the transfers into the student body that entered via a competitive and selective process after high school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They DO have a dog in this fight! And that is why they are influencing the results and why they will deal with a Sarah Lawrence or Reed much differently than they have with the UC system! Just as the College Board did when facing the elimination of the SAT in California. It is important to the USNews to maintain the “established” order and keep very popular schools high enough to be relevant. </p>
<p>To keep their thumb on the scale, they do not mind looking the other way without a second thought. The USNews also knows that they could massively increase the integrity of the system but this would come at a risk of a much lower participation by the schools … if the officials had to sign a la Sarbanes-Oxley! </p>
<p>Yet, we could *and have to" live with an imperfect system. Despite its flaws, the USNews remains a great resource when used properly and its methodology is the soundest of the bunch – not a hard feat in a sea of garbage and shoddy work. But it would not be too much to expect that the Common Data Set be appraised with a … commonly applied methodology void of deliberate exceptions. </p>
<p>@xiggi:</p>
<p>It’s really hard to draw conclusions from cross-admit data between a private and a public because folks who have Cal over Stanford because they are in-state and cost-conscious would not even apply to Stanford, so those who get in to both would invariably choose Stanford (that was the case with a relative who’s dad told his kids they were going to Cal as spending full-pay money on a private did not make sense with Cal being in-state; she got in to UCSF med school and a masters program at Harvard later, so I daresay she could have gotten in to some Ivies if she had applied there). BTW, you have the same problem when looking at cross-admit data between schools that offer merit and those who don’t. That’s likely why WashU is roughly even with Yale and Princeton and beats Stanford in Parchment’s crossadmit data.</p>
<p>Another reason why looking at alumni achievements is a better gauge if you want to rank schools, and by that criteria, while Cal isn’t equivalent to Stanford, it is equivalent to some Ivies.</p>
<p>My son graduated from NEU last year. Overall he had a very good experience. He had some really great co-ops, including working at a Harvard research lab and teaching overseas for 6 months. Even back when he applied I was well aware that NEU was trying very hard to improve their “ranking.” At the time of course I was focused on admissions, and I picked up that they were trying to manage acceptance rates and yields with an eye towards ranking. I am not at all surprised (in fact would expect) that they addressed a wide variety of factors that go into ranking.</p>
<p>from 12/24/09
<a href=“Why was I deferred? - #54 by NJres - Northeastern University - College Confidential Forums”>Why was I deferred? - #54 by NJres - Northeastern University - College Confidential Forums;
<p>quoting myself, LOL!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Humm. could you expand on how cross-admit results are influenced by cost-conscious people who do NOT apply? Are you also intimating that full-pay people who have a choice between Cal and Stanford (very typical application duo for competitive students in California) are picking Stanford but that cost conscious students might not? </p>
<p>My take is that it is very difficut to draw conclusions based on finances as Stanford and privates might offer cheaper options than the public schools for low and middle class students. All I did was to rely on the numbers shown by the Stanford Dean when he does his annual review of admissions at the Stanford Senate. Those numbers indicate that very few select Cal as their school over Stanford. Very few as in a handful out of several hundreds. The reasons behind those choices are not really relevant; the facts are. </p>
<p>Fwiw, I think that Parchment’s numbers are just as reliable as the few “polls” on CC that purport to present the revealed preferences of students. And that means … not reliable at all! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps not relevant to the discussion, but I’d love to know why anyone smart enough to get into S would not pick it (absent a Regent’s, which doesn’t amount to much $, or being a faculty brat, or a recruited athlete vs walk-on)? (As you note, for many so-called middle class kids, attending a top private is less expensive than paying instate sticker at UC. I know it was less costly for us when my son chose an Ivy over UC, even with Regent’s.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, the frosh are different. However, the prospective transfer students must go through a competitive admission process after showing high achievement in college course work in order to be admitted as junior transfers to the more selective universities in their desired majors. Yes, it is a second chance for those who did not achieve highly in high school, but making use of the second chance means having to achieve highly in college. Would you assume that they are still unworthy of attending a highly selective university as a transfer after meeting a high transfer admission threshold based on their college course work, as opposed to the probably less predictive high school records and test scores?</p>
<p>@bluebayou Your choice of major could also play a roll in picking a UC vs.a top private. Engineering is a typical example (with Stanford being an exception, as it has an excellent program). In the case of Cal vs. Stanford, Stanford doesn’t have an Architecture program (though I would ask my DD or DS to pick a major other than Architecture and go to Stanford…but that would be bad and controlling!)</p>
<p>UCB, you keep coming back with the worthiness of the students as a rebuttal to my point that their statistics should be reflected into a purported common ranking. The admissions of transfer students is part of the UC system, and the officials are making such choices. They obviously consider students who might not have been admitted based on the criteria applicable to freshmen can succeed at the state flagship when armed with the basic instruction given in Junior Colleges. </p>
<p>Allow me to ask a personal question here. Have you taken one or many classes at a community college? Since you suggest that HS school records might not be very predictive, are there many reasons to think JUCO courses are of a higher level? I ask because I took close to a dozen CC courses (granted in Texas) and most courses were at a LOWER level than our honor HS or advanced courses (not the exams, mind you) </p>
<p>Inasmuch as I did not suggest that JUCO transfers are unworthy of attending Cal (obviously that is belied by the admissions’ policies at the top public school in the country) I might pose a different question. How successful are California transfer students in getting a transfer … outside California at schools that are ranked twenty spots above Cal and twenty below? </p>
<p>But again, my issue is NOT that this system of transfer exists in California (or the CAP in Texas) but that the rankings are remaining totally oblivious to the impact on their methodology when it comes to schools that have extensive deferred admissions. There is simply NOTHING been measured or shared about it. Yet, they measure (or pretend to) elements such as expected graduation performances! </p>
<p>@xiggi:</p>
<p>So a few things:
- First on finances, the kids who can get in to a place like Stanford come disproportionately from the upper-middle-class or above. I’m guesstimating that roughly half or more come from a household making $200K (considering that roughly half the student body at elite privates are full-pay). Of those, the rich may not care about price, but many upper-middle-class who are in-state in CA can’t justify the extra cost of Stanford over Cal.</p>
<ol>
<li>You can divide the applicant pool that are considering both Stanford and Cal in to two groups: those who prefer Stanford over Cal and those who prefer Cal over Stanford (for cost or other reasons). Many of the first group would apply to both and then choose Stanford over Cal if they get acceptances to both. Very few in the second group would apply to Stanford. You’re not going to use Stanford as your safety if your dream school is Cal. So the cross-admit data will be heavily skewed towards Stanford, even if the preferences of applicants is much more even.</li>
</ol>
<p>@bluebayou: Those families who are full-pay but not rich (especially in CA, where $250K/family doesn’t go very far in most places) and figure that they can get anywhere by attending Cal that they could get to from going to a Stanford/Ivy may only apply to Cal even if they could get in to a Stanford/Ivy. Since Cal would be half the cost of Stanford for them (an even smaller ratio 2 decades ago).</p>
<p>Not everyone is below the upper-middle-class or rich you know. Especially among familes of kids who can get in to a Stanford, where the upper-middle-class is overrepresented. Plenty of those kids come from families who fall in that donut hole where they’d receive no fin aid but don’t have the money or can’t justify full-pay at a private if a school the quality of Cal is an option.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would point out that many, many very high stat and well-qualified California students opt for the CC route because it is more affordable! You are looking at spending hundreds of dollars each year on course fees vs. a cost of attendance for attending the university that is now above $30K at some campuses. ($32K for students in dorms at UC Berkeley) And for what? To attend introductory classes in lecture halls filled with hundreds of students, with discussion sections taught by grad student TA’s? When the student can opt instead to complete their lower division general ed requirements in a class setting where they can actually be assured that their instructor knows their name? </p>
<p>If you look at the economics of the choice, it seems that CC is the smarter choice – the CC student completes foundational courses in a more supportive setting, saves money, and graduates with the same degree as the student who has spent 4 years at the college, </p>
<p>I think it is a very serious mistake to assume that students who are attending CC’s are there because they couldn’t get accepted to UC’s – I’m sure it is simply a matter of economics for a large number of students. Some may have applied to the UC’s, been accepted, then turned down a spot after seeing their financial aid award. Others may have made the decision to economize well in advance of applying – they may know that their parents earn too much to qualify for a lot of financial aid, but are not really in a financial position to fund the cost of 4-years at the university. </p>
<p>^This. Take, for example, Lowell High School in SF, which is ranked ahead of Boston Latin and Stuyvesant in the USNWR rankings. (I realize this whole thread is about dissing the USNWR rankings, but at least that gives some context.) Yet 20% of Lowell grads go to community college. That’s certainly not because they weren’t UC or Cal State material. </p>
<p>The kids stay at home, commute to the community college in SF for 2 years, and then transfer. As calmom points out, this saves them a ton of money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very serious mistake? </p>
<p>Well, anyone can assume or idly speculate! What is the difference? </p>
<p>PS I happen to think that attending a JUCO or CC is not a bad idea at all, but this has ZERO relevance to the points I made about a common methodology to describe the UG student body and resources … which is what USNEWS pretends to do! </p>
<p>I also think that the fact that JUCO transfers handle the advanced classes in the UC system offers an accurate insight in the value of the basic courses! </p>
<p>
Unfortunately, CCSF has its own set of problems right now, but that’s another story. It has nothing to do with the qualifications of the students who attend</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah I get that, but then kinda silly to apply to S, ain’t it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah I get that too, but not relevant, since I was asking about cross-admits.</p>
<p>btw: Stanford has wonderful need-based aid, and caps home equity, which for many in the “middle class” (however defined) is a family’s biggest asset. It is certainly the case that a family making six figures could easily have a lower cost of attendance at S than at UC with instate rates.</p>