<p>Alexandre: </p>
<p>pls post the sources of the Math, Reading, and Science achivement tests which you reference.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>I totally agree with you that Mich. is better than Irwine. However, I think UCLA vs. UVA vs. UMich is a much tougher call (I am of the opinion that UVA and Berkley are the 2 best publics in the country). I also believe UCLA is more selective than UMich at the undergrad level, and UVA clearly is more selective. </p>
<p>For example you say:
"Michigan's mean SAT score is 1310, UVA's is 1330 and UCLA's is 1290."</p>
<p>I don't think this is a very fair comparision, since at UMich more students have taken the ACT than the SAT, and that SAT average disproportionately reflects out of state students, who in general are more competitive than in-staters at UMich and all other state schools as well. </p>
<p>You have to consider that UMich's middle 50% ACT range is 26-30, which converts to a middle 50% SAT range of 1180-1340. </p>
<p>Sources:
<a href="http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html</a>
<a href="http://www.ivywest.com/acttosat.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.ivywest.com/acttosat.htm</a></p>
<p>The source is the World Almanac, 2004 edition. Actually, it is the "National Assessment of Educational Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education. But I saw the actual figures in the World Almanac.</p>
<p>Actually JW,, I disagree. As far as public schools go, Cal is generally the undisputed #1 and Michigan is generally regarded #2. Some argue that UVA is as good, but it is hard to make a case for UVA being better. UCLA is generally considered to be slightly weaker than Michigan. Obviously, all 4 are excellent. </p>
<p>As for your claim that more students at Michigan take the ACT as opposed to the SAT, that is imaterial since roughly 60% of Michigan students submit their SAT. </p>
<p>At any rate, comparing Michigan to Irvine is laughable. Saying that Michigan is not as good as UVA or UCLA for whatever reason is at least arguable.</p>
<p>And JW, back to the topic of the quality of HS students in California and Michigan. You pointed out that the mean ACT score in the state of California was identical to the mean ACT score in the state of Michigan. Fair enough. But the mean SAT score in the state of California is 1020 compared to 1140 in the state of Michigan. Now I do not think that 120 points is that much of a difference, but it is still something.</p>
<p>"As for your claim that more students at Michigan take the ACT as opposed to the SAT, that is imaterial since roughly 60% of Michigan students submit their SAT."</p>
<p>No, this bascially bolsters my entire point...at UCLA, a much larger portion (99%) have submitted SATs than the 60% at UMich. Furthermore, 71% of UMich students submitted the ACTs. When you consider that UMich's ACT range is 26-30, which converts to a SAT range of 1180-1340, AND add in the fact that more UMich students have submitted ACT scores than SAT scores, I don't think its accurate to imply the 1310 SAT represents the true average of the entire UMich undergraduate student body.</p>
<p>what the heck? How come I didn't know that Umich was that good? And can somebody please explain to me why the top ten in California is the top ten in Michigan? If you are in top ten in your high school, it should be the same everywhere with a little error due to different schools, right? And, hey, gloob_u, I'm with you. UCI is a good school. I'm from AL and I've heard of it. Although I'm not in a position to argue which is better because of my lack of experience with these schools.</p>
<p>"Fair enough. But the mean SAT score in the state of California is 1020 compared to 1140 in the state of Michigan. Now I do not think that 120 points is that much of a difference, but it is still something."</p>
<p>Again, this is not an accurate comparison. Only 11% of Michigan HS students even take the SAT, while about 1/2 of CA students do. Heck, if we are to go by these numbers without any further analysis, Alabama where only 10% of students took the SAT even has a higher score than CA, as do Kansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc....no offense to Alabama or any other state for that matter, but I don't think all these school systems are better than Aahnold's state. </p>
<p>The Mich. students who take the SAT are mostly the top students who apply to elite colleges, while the same is not true for those CA people who take the ACT (they are probably those who just preferred the ACT, but not top students). </p>
<p>The best colleges have student bodies that for the most part took the SAT, not the ACT (e.g even at CA where only 1/2 the people take the SAT, UCLA's student body still had 99% who submitted SATs). The SAT is basically much more common at the top schools than the ACT, and thats a fact.</p>
<p>JW, it is not possible to convert ACTs to SATs and vice versa. They are two distinct tests. The mean SAT score for Michigan students is 1310. The mean SAT score for UCLA students is 1290. The mean SAT score for UVA students is 1330. The mean ACT score for Michigan students is 28. The mean ACT score for UCLA students (and a third of UCLA students do report their ACT scores) is 26.5. </p>
<p>In short, Michigan students are pretty much as good as UCLA students and UVA students.</p>
<p>So why did you use the average ACT scores of California high school students to support your point that California high school students are as good as Michigan high school students? Only 15% of California High School students take the ACT. </p>
<p>At any rate JW, it is a well known and documented fact that high schools in California are weak. All the facts poin to it. Check it out:</p>
<p>University of California-Davis (95% graduated in top 10% of class, mean SAT 1190)
University of California-Irvine (96% graduated in the top 10% of class, mean SAT 1190)
University of California-Santa Barbara (95% graduated in the top 10% of class, mean SAT 1190
University of California-Santa Cruz (96% graduated in the top 10% of class, mean SAT 1140)</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? Clearly, California schools are not quite that good. And like I said, before, according to a detailed study conducted by the US department of Education, California students serious lag Michigan students in Science, Math and Reading.</p>
<p>"JW, it is not possible to convert ACTs to SATs and vice versa. They are two distinct tests."</p>
<p>Huh?? What are you talking about? Of course its possible to convert scores given the fact that there is a certain percentile for a certain score on both tests. Colleges need some way to compare applicants who've took different tests..and they do. There are plenty of conversion tables out there, and they vary slightly depending on the particular version of either test, but they are all roughly similar, I even cited the one I used. </p>
<p>The college board also disagrees with you on this matter. Clearly an ACT score has a rough SAT equivalent even though they are different tests:
<a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/html/stat00f.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/html/stat00f.html</a></p>
<p>U of Michigan's mid 50% ACT range is 26 (1170-1200 SAT) to 30 (1320-1350 SAT). More UMich students submit ACTs than SATs (even US News lists UMich's ACT scores, not SAT), and to say that the 1310 SAT average represents the entire undergrad. student body of UMich is a misrepresentation. </p>
<p>Al asks: "So why did you use the average ACT scores of California high school students to support your point that California high school students are as good as Michigan high school students? Only 15% of California High School students take the ACT."</p>
<p>Wow. You clearly missed the point. Go back and read my post. The 11% of Michigan HS students who take the SAT represent Michigan's cream of the crop, the students considering elite out of state colleges....South Dakota, where only 5% take the SAT has average score of almost 1200...are we to believe S. Dakota high schools are that good, and that score is the true average of students there? Of course not! Alexandre, please don't tell me you seriously believe the average high school student in Michigan can score an 1140 on the SAT, and the average South Dakota student can score a 1200, when the national average is a tad above a 1000...I know you are more intelligent than this. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the 15% of California HS students who take the ACT are not the cream of the crop...but pretty much average, note the CA ACT scores are very close to the national average. </p>
<p>It is well known that students at the best colleges in the country overwhelmingly take the SAT, and not the ACT.</p>
<p>i don't understand how it's "harder" to be in the top 10% of your class in Michigan than Cali. We're talking percentage, not GPA, so unless the people are dumber out here in cali (which i doubt), it's just as hard to be in the top%.</p>
<p>jwblue,</p>
<p>Once you enter the academic world, you will know that Michigan on the overall would beat UVA and UCLA. Its graduate school is pretty prestigious and its productivity in research is high. On the average, Michigan has better faculty and graduate students than UVA and UCLA. Nevertheless, UVa is more selective for undergrad, but not UCLA, which is pretty much easy to get in.</p>
<p>michigan is a lot tougher to get into, and is just 10 times better at everything. people goto irvine because they can't get in berk,sd,la. alexandre, no need to argue about something that obvious.</p>
<p>Alexandre:</p>
<p>When looking across demographics and using a mean, it is important to understand the standard deviation. Reviewing the NCES reports that you refer to, it is clear that for 4th and 8th graders, the "average" Michigan elementary kid outperforms the "average" Calif kid on the NAEP. However, it might be helpful to reflect on the demographics of the total state population:</p>
<p>Title 1 Schools (a measure of poverty, among others): Cal = 62%, MI = 14%
Limited English proficiency: Cal 25%, MI = 26%
Eligible for free lunch: Cal 48%, MI = 31</p>
<p>Moreover, if you compare those kids that are Advanced in the academic discipline (whom, I would assume are targeting the flagship U's), the numbers are much closer:</p>
<p>Math adv: Cal=4, MI=5
Reading adv: Cal=2, MI=4 (see that Limited English stat above)
Science adv: Cal=1, MI=4 (granted, science program needs work but we just adopted standards a year or two ago, so they'll take time to work into the system)
Writing adv: Cal=1, MI=1</p>
<p>note, that these are %'s of the total surveyed population; given the fact that Cal has a much larger tail at the bottom of the bell curve due to economic and language factors, the advanced group is represented well, IMO.</p>
<p>I fully appreciate your points about the high quality of UM, and it is not equal to UCI, but, pls be careful about maligning a whole state's educational system, unless you have some facts.</p>
<p>btw: many high quality districts I know refuse to participate in the NAEP study -- too many tests already.</p>
<p>"Nevertheless, UVa is more selective for undergrad, but not UCLA, which is pretty much easy to get in."</p>
<p>UCLA easy to get into? compared to what? To UVA maybe, but not to UMich. In fact, for an out of stater, UCLA is likely harder to get into than UMich since it traditionally takes a smaller portion of its students from out of state. UCLA also has a lower acceptance rate than UMich..much lower. There is no issue with UMich vs. UC Irvine, anyone who uses a modicum of logic knows UMich is better, UCLA vs. UMich however, is a much tougher call.</p>
<p>oops, sorry, excuse my typ:</p>
<p>English limited proficiency in MI is only 3%</p>
<p>Bluebayou,</p>
<p>That was my exact point. CA has more worse schools than Mich (more poverty, immigration, etc.), but would have a greater number of better schools as well (overall higher income for the state than mich., thus more affluent areas). The average school in an average middle class suburb in either state that caters to these colleges, is going to be similar.</p>
<p>"It is well known that students at the best colleges in the country overwhelmingly take the SAT, and not the ACT."</p>
<p>I think it's just b/c the SAT is more popular. I also believe the ACTs are a relatively new test (i could be wrong) There just aren't that many ACT takers compared to the SATs. Therefore of course the "best schools in the country" have a student body whom have overwhelmingly taken the SATs. It's also well known that students at some of the not so great colleges overwhelmingly take the SATs too. </p>
<p>BTW, are you saying University of Michigan is not a top school? </p>
<p>Michigan is better than UC: Irvine by a landslide. UC:Berkeley, UCLA, and Michigan are all considered elite public schools and on the same level. How did this debate between Irvine and Mich even originate i have no idea.</p>
<p>jwblue,</p>
<p>I would not argue about the admission selectivity between UMich and UCLA since they're both public schools and pretty easy to get in if you're in-staters (I dunno whether it's easier for a Californian to get to UCLA or a Mich.resident to UMich). However, in the eye of academia, Umich reputation is higher than that of UCLA</p>