<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)" </p>
<p>The ACT has been around for decades and is much more popular in the midwest than other regions. While the SAT is indeed more popular as a whole, it is DISPROPORTIONATELY more popular at elite universities. </p>
<p>For example, even at Northwestern, a midwestern school, 86% submit SAT scores while less than half submit ACT scores.</p>
<p>The numbers are MUCH MORE lopsided in favor of SAT at elite schools in the north east and the west coast....lopsided even when you control for the fact that the SAT is more popular than the ACT.</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."</p>
<p>Obviously UMich is a top school and clearly superior to UC Irvine, my point is that vs. UCLA, its a gray area...and UCLA is a bit more selective, while UVA clearly is more selective. UVA and Berkeley are the best publics at the undergrad level--in my opinion.</p>
<p>JW, if by selectivity, you mean % accpted, yes, UCLA and UVA are more selective than Michigan. however, if by selective you mean quality of the student body, I would have to disagree with you. Michigan, UCLA, Cal and UVA all have roughly equal student bodies. Mean SAT scores at those schools are between 1290-1330, mean unweighed graduating GPA of entering students at those schools is roughly 3.8 and about 80%-90% ofr the students graduated at the top 10% of their high school class.</p>
<p>What separates them in terms of overall academic quality are resources (libraries, labs, endowment, operating budgets etc...), faculty, research, curriculum, ties to industry and graduate programs etc... At any rate, all 4 schools are excellent, but like I said, it is hard to make a case against Michigan being one of the top 2 state schools.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, I am not maligning the entire state of California...I am merely stating a fact. Graduating in the top 10% of one's class at many California high schools means very little. The same can be said of the High Schools in all the states...but in California, it is a little more pronounced. </p>
<p>So I will stand by my initial statement. being ranked in the top 10% of one's class in Michigan, on average, is more telling that being ranked in the top 10% of one's class in California.</p>
<p>"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>"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>"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>:) All of these are valid points! Alexandre, nobody is arguing that UMAA is not a good school. But when you start making wild statements such as top 10% in Cali is equal to top 50% in Michigan, it is transparently wrong. UCIrvine is a great school, with student stats and admittance rate very much equal to UMAA. The SAT score of 1310 is also wrong....the mid point is 1260. Thus the everage UMAA student has an SAT score of 1260 SAT. This is a good score and something that doesn't need to be inflated. Obviously UCIrvine is lower by a few points, but as you said, the difference doesn't really matter.</p>
<p>1) I never said that the top 10% of California student equal the top 50% of Michigan students. I recall reading that, but I am not the one who wrote it.</p>
<p>2) The mean SAT score for Michigan students is 1310. the range is 1200-1420. 60% of Michigan students submit SAT scores and that is the range and mean. I do not know where you got the 1260. </p>
<p>Golubb, I suggest you learn more about universities before comparing two such vastly difference insitutions. You only make yourself look ridiculous.</p>
<p>There is a huge difference between 1210 (80th percentile) and 1310 (90th percentile). In fact, there are half as many 1310+ scores as 1210+ scores.</p>
<p>By the way, I just checked the numbers for the 2004 freshman class according to the NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics), and they are as follows: The mean SAT score at UCI is 1195, not 1210. And the mean at Michigan is 1325, not 1310. I realize that's insignificant, but at the end of the day, the mean at Michigan is higher than at UCI and similar to Cal, UVA and UCLA.</p>
<p>UC Irvine
SAT I Verbal 520 620 (mean 570)
SAT I Math 570 680 (mean 625)
SAT mean 1195
ACT Composite 22 27 (mean 24.5)
ACT English 21 27 (mean 24)
ACT Math 23 29 (mean 26)
ACT Composite mean (25)</p>
<p>UC Berkeley
SAT I Verbal 570 700 (mean 635)
SAT I Math 620 740 (mean 680)
SAT mean 1315
ACT Composite 23 30 (mean 26.5)
ACT English 22 30 (mean 26)
ACT Math 25 31 (mean 28)
ACT Composite mean (27)</p>
<p>UCLA
SAT I Verbal 560 690 (mean 625)
SAT I Math 600 720 (mean 660)
SAT mean 1285
ACT Composite 23 29 (mean 26)
ACT English 22 30 (mean 26)
ACT Math 24 31 (mean 27.5)
ACT Composite mean (26.5)</p>
<p>UVA
SAT I Verbal 610 710 (mean 660)
SAT I Math 620 720 (mean 670)
SAT mean 1330</p>
<p>Michigan
SAT I Verbal 580 700 (mean 640)
SAT I Math 630 740 (mean 685)
SAT mean 1325
ACT Composite 26 31 (mean 28.5)
ACT English 25 31 (mean 28)
ACT Math 26 30 (mean 28)
ACT Composite mean (28)</p>
<p>Golubb, as I have urged you many times in the past...first learn, than write. I hope you do not carry your false sense of confidence with you to college. I guarantee you that with your attitude, you will not get far with professors.</p>
<p>golubb: The top 10% of California public school students does not equate to the 10% of Michigan (but I still don't think you can inflate the numbers to compare the top 50% of Michigan students equal to the top 10% of CA students- that number seems ridiculously inflated- although it may be true should anyone come up with legitimate data, and this is something that Alexandre did not say). CA has simply one of the worst public schools overall compared to the nation, and the UC's, which biasly favors CA students, is comprised of these students. That is why the upper tier UCs (Cal and UCLA) must choose an even greater select few at the very top percentage to be able to compete against the other college institutions. You cannot compare straight percentages (10% CA to 10% Michigan) without taking into account the various other factors involved- this is where you're confused- selecting the top 10% of students from a pool of those with greater academic preparation will logically be stronger than the top 10% of students from a pool of less academically prepared students. I personally don't believe you can make the comparison on the basis of solely SAT's (a variety of factors goes into ones ability to do well on these exams as well), but the fact that the quality of CA public schools is one of the worst is a known fact and is undisputable and will continue to worsen because the governator decides that he wants to cut spendings at the educational level, particularly the upper institutions, forcing the UCs to come up with their own means of making ends meet by raising tuition prices. </p>
<p>Here is an article from a site that mirrored the original Los Angeles Times article should you need some more convincing golubb:</p>
<p>Well, I too must rescind my statements as I found another article (although outdated- 2002), but growing up in CA and watching the news, I've grown up accepting the fact that CA public schools are among the worse in the nation. But how CA's rank compares to other states was something I was murky about. </p>
<p>The highlighting point of the Detriot Free Press article in 2002 is:</p>
<p>"California, which has very tough state standards, had the second highest number of failing schools after Michigan." </p>
<p>How this number has changed over these past 3 years, I don't know. With this in mind, I would say you must look at SAT factors, and other measures that remains constant throughout the nation to use as a means of comparison, and it seems as if Michigan has the SLIGHT edge in this light, although CA is not far behind (CA's 10% definetly not equivalent to the top 50% of Michigan).</p>
<p>I believe Bush's unfunded mandate, No Child Left Behind, is the cause of all this commotion. Clearly both California and Michigan were atop the nation in the quality of their educational ability not too long ago until Bush came around punishing schools who don't meet a national standard by dumbing down their standards and rewarding states which lower/ DUMB down their standards so that more students are deemed as "passing" when really no change has occured. At least CA and Michigan has the integrity to maintain their strict standards as beacons to the nation that there are still states that value their pupils' education as oppose to the shameful acts of states such as Arkansas (which really shouldn't be their fault for conforming to the system in order to get badly needed funds according to the standard of some f#$ked up system). There is an unpartisan (real word?) opposition to this travesty of a bill which both Republicans and Democrats now oppose (this definitely did not turn out the way Bush presented it to back in his 2000 election).</p>
<p>I think I digressed from the point of this thread in my last post (which I tend to do alot). I don't know what I'm talked about anymore in the second post and how it connects w/ the other things- essentially, in my opinion, Michigan is comparable to the top tier UCs (LA and Cal), but personally, based on the profile of my peers that UCI accepted (yes this is a narrow-minded, biased outlook), I'd say Michigan has the advantage after looking at the stats posted by Alexandre.</p>
<p>The role of the UC's is to educate the top 12.5% of the 'state's high school' class, i.e., all students combined, not individual schools. Being in the top 10% of a low-performing school does not meet this criteria, and won't even get a kid into UCSC or UCR. That is why, a low performing school may only send one kid to Berkeley/UCLA, while a private prep school or high achieving public school will send 50+ kids each year. (The top 4% for each HS are guaranteed admission to the UC's, but only Merced and Santa Barbara.)</p>
<p>You can get a fine education at either school. Michigan is definitely more famous and probably a little better academically. Michigan definitely has better athletics and the school spirit that goes with all that. UCI definitely has a lot better weather.</p>
<p>Pick whichever one suits you best. You can go far in life with an education from either one.</p>
<p>I am not sure about Pell grants Bluebayou. I know there aren't that many. Over 60% of Michigan students come from families with household incomes over $100K. Unfortunately, there aren't many poor kids that attend Michigan.</p>
<p>Claridge, it is hard to say which department at Michigan is the strongest. At the undergraduate level, Anthropology, Architecture, Business, Classics, East Asian Studies, History, Economics, English, Engineering, Languages, Mathematics, Music, Near and Middle Eastern Studies, Nursing, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology and Sociology are all ranked among the top 10 nationally...in many cases among the top 5. </p>
<p>Of course, the Medical and Law schools at Michigan are also very highly regarded...but they are obviously not undergraduate departments.</p>
<p>If I had to name the top 4 departments at Michigan that are open to undergraduates, I would have to say Business, Engineering, Political Science and Psychology. </p>
<p>But I cannot really think of a single department at Michigan that is not ranked among the top 25 nationally...so even the weaker departments at Michigan are strong relatively speaking.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, I really don't know. You seem to know more about this subject that I do. </p>
<p>I only know what I read. I have often read that California students struggle in national level Math, Science and Reading tests. </p>
<p>I also just find it a little odd that close to 100% of the students at UCR, UCI, UCD, UCSC and UCSB graduate in the top 10% of their class. Those are decent schools to be sure, but still, it seems a little extreme.</p>