<p>
[quote]
please include means, standard deviation, confidence interval and a proper hypothesis analysis. and i suggest P<.05. and i am not going to answer any more ad hominem attack.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would...if I had the data. It's hard to do anything without data other than form very very loose hypotheses...</p>
<p>"Had you taken any calculus-based stats you would know that the sample variance distribution of any randomly sample (with N>40) is a bell curve. You don't scare me."</p>
<p>Are you assuming that college admissions are completely random? They are not. </p>
<p>At extremely selective schools, even a random sample of admitted students will give you a curve that doesn't follow the normal curve since so many students get 800 on the tests. The random samples will be chosen from the SAT score range of ~760-800, which does not follow the normal curve at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unless you are suggesting that college admissions are completely random (which they are not), your statement that SAT scores at every college follow a bell curve model is wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They don't follow a <em>perfect</em> bell curve, but for comparing two schools it would be okay to give bell curve models since both schools would be skewed to the left a little. This is for the sole purpose of comparison. The average SAT score is not very far off from the median SAT score... showing that the curve isn't that far off from a normal curve.</p>
<p>If you want to skew my graph a little more to the left, then fine. Do that to both the HMC and Berkeley curve and you'll see for our purpose it doesn't make a difference.</p>
<p>atomic:</p>
<p>it's a pretty graph, but how do you KNOW that it doesn't reach its peak at 790 and tail left -- you are ASSUMING an equal distribution. Take a Psych class, and you'll better understand testing subject at the high end of a curve. :)</p>
<p>Berkeley Standardized Test Performance
SATM: 96%>500, 83%>600, 50%>700
SATV: 93%>500, 73%>600, 33%>700</p>
<p>Average Verbal SAT: 644
Average Math SAT: 680
SAT - Verbal Range (25-75%): 580-710
SAT - Math Range (25-75%): 620-740</p>
<p>So the approximate M median is 680, approximate V median is 645</p>
<p>680 vs. 680? 645 vs. 644? This looks like the SAT score distrubution for Berkeley isn't skewed very much at all! Granted, I made the assumption about the median being the average of the 25/75 scores, which it isn't exactly, but it's close enough for our sake.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd Standardized Test Performance
SATM: 100%>500, 99%>600, 87%>700
SATV: 100%>500, 95%>600, 65%>700</p>
<p>Average Verbal SAT: 705
Average Math SAT: 765
SAT - Verbal Range (25-75%): 680-760
SAT - Math Range (25-75%): 740-790</p>
<p>So the approximate M median is 765 and the approximate V median is 720.
Thus for Math it isn't skewed very much at all (what I compared in the graph). And for verbal it is a little skewed.</p>
<p>So for our purposes I think my simplification was fine and effectly shows my point.</p>
<p>"Are you assuming that college admissions are completely random? They are not. </p>
<p>At extremely selective schools, even a random sample of admitted students will give you a curve that doesn't follow the normal curve since so many students get 800 on the tests. The random samples will be chosen from the SAT score range of ~760-800, which does not follow the normal curve at all."</p>
<p>Actually, you'll find the variance of any randomly selected population to have a normal distribution. It also holds for the world, nation, state, and college populations. The problem with using the SAT as the measure is that it has an upperlimit. That is, it is not a continuous domain. Therefore, subjects in the population with an 800 or higher will have a probability that can be found by:</p>
<p>∫1/(s√(2π) e^[(x-500)/2s^2] from 800 to ∞</p>
<p>notice that this value is larger than</p>
<p>1/(s√(2π) e^[(300)/2s^2]</p>
<p>
[quote]
From what I saw, the SAT scores of the average Mudder are still higher than the SAT scores from a 75th percentile Berkeley The average Mudder's scores are even higher than a 87.5 percentile Berkeley student. Like I mentioned before, our math scores don't look as good because we hit the top of the scale at 75th percentile with 800.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Need I remind you of what I posted again?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley: 710-800 verbal, 740-800 math (since 75th is 710/740, top 25% must have higher than this), so average of roughly 760 and 770
HMC: For 2003 incoming students, the average SAT Verbal score is 700; average Math score is 750.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The top 25% of Berkeley students not only have higher SAT scores (notice this is 0% - 100%, not 25% - 75% that I'm using for Berkeley), but a higher percentage of them rank top 10% of their class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're using sketchy statistical analysis. We all know that SAT scores at colleges follow a bell curve model. So you are cutting the top fourth of that bell curve off and failing to mention that a majority of the SAT scores are more lower than higher. The lower scores scores in the lower 700s occur more frequently. So you compare that with the mid 50% of Mudd students, which means that at our 75th percentile the bell curve height is still pretty high. I think I'm going to make graphs and I'll get back to you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sketchy statistical analysis eh? Then I must accuse you of poor graph-drawing. According to your graph, only a handful of students at Berkeley actually got a perfect score on the math section. That is far, far from fact. There are many students with a perfect score on math because it is simply not very difficult. The bell curve doesn't go to completion but simply drops until it hits a wall (of 800). Even you yourself said that 25% of Mudders score 800. Then why does the graph approach 0 as SAT score approaches 800? Shouldn't at least 25% be clustered at 800?</p>
<p>Last but not least, you forget that Berkeley's top 25% is several times larger than Harvey Mudd's entire population. So let me draw a better graph for you:</p>
<p>
[quote]
With the whole GPA thing, obviously something is going on there. Do you really think 99% of Berkeley students were in the top 10%? By your logic that would make Berkeley more exclusive than HYP. Even though Mudd only has ~90% of students in the top 10%, I think it's obvious that the AVERAGE Mudder performed at a higher level than the AVERAGE Berkeley student.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now we get to the heart of the matter. You aren't really interested in coming to a conclusion based on objective data, are you? Whenever the data doesn't go your way, you just make up some excuse just so Harvey Mudd looks better. So if the data doesn't favor Harvey Mudd, "something must be going on here" right? I mean, there is no possible way that Berkeley could have more students percentage wise in the top 10% of their class than Harvey Mudd, because that conflicts with your beliefs, and anything that conflicts with your beliefs must be wrong, right? And if published data by the universities themselves go against your beliefs, then the published data must somehow be wrong, right? Hey, I didn't publish the data. If you think it's fishy, go complain to Berkeley's Office of Student Research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
here's a little fact:
i would put more time into defending myself through exceptional data scouring and regressional modeling...but hey, i'm a very busy person. i have work to do and i don't have time to argue with some ftards about SAT scores and junk.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, you had better watch your language on the boards. I said your posts resembles trolling because they are heavily biased and contain fallacious comparisons (such as comparing 2001 figures with 2005 figures). I don't appreciate unsolicited personal attacks, and I don't want to have to report your post.</p>
<p>As to the original question from the OSS, Cal, UCLA and USC each have such different cultures and surroundings that will affect you maybe as much as the academics. If possible, visit. If not research each campus and the area it is in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sketchy statistical analysis eh? Then I must accuse you of poor graph-drawing. According to your graph, only a handful of students at Berkeley actually got a perfect score on the math section. That is far, far from fact. There are many students with a perfect score on math because it is simply not very difficult. The bell curve doesn't go to completion but simply drops until it hits a wall (of 800). Even you yourself said that 25% of Mudders score 800. Then why does the graph approach 0 as SAT score approaches 800? Shouldn't at least 25% be clustered at 800?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your sad attempt at a graph is flat our ridiculous and misleading. It's essentially the same as mine except you for some reason decided to put TOTAL SAT scores instead of PROPORTION. When comparing two schools, why wouldn't you use a proportion? So basically your graph is the exact same as mine except tries to make Berkeley look better because it is dozens of times larger than Mudd. Well, I'm glad you agree with the basic shapes of the curve that I made, but you are trying to present a misleading graph.</p>
<p>Hey, I can play your game too. Mudd is obviously more selective because it only accepted ~600 applicants last year!!! Berkeley accepted thousands!</p>
<p>Oh wait... Berkeley is dozens of times the size of Mudd... dang... guess we should consider the acceptance RATE? Because in order to compare colleges we use proportions and rates?</p>
<p>Yes, if you go to Berkeley class of 2010 you will find probably find a thousand students who are as bright as the average Mudder. But won't you also find thousands upon thousands of students who are NOT as bright as the average Mudder? Berkeley's size goes both ways. Like you were saying, you can't just ignore all the less intelligent-than-the-average-mudder students at Berkeley and the fact that they are the majority.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now we get to the heart of the matter. You aren't really interested in coming to a conclusion based on objective data, are you? Whenever the data doesn't go your way, you just make up some excuse just so Harvey Mudd looks better. So if the data doesn't favor Harvey Mudd, "something must be going on here" right? I mean, there is no possible way that Berkeley could have more students percentage wise in the top 10% of their class than Harvey Mudd, because that conflicts with your beliefs, and anything that conflicts with your beliefs must be wrong, right? And if published data by the universities themselves go against your beliefs, then the published data must somehow be wrong, right? Hey, I didn't publish the data. If you think it's fishy, go complain to Berkeley's Office of Student Research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Anyone would raise an eyebrow at that data. I know the UC system has certain connections to high school rank... like if you are in a certain top % you are guaranteed acceptance to one UC. If you want to believe that Berkeley students were the most successful high school students in the country, more successful than places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, etc, because of a skeptical 99% figure then go on believing it.</p>
<p>I never said it wasn't possible that Berkeley could have a greater proportion of students in the top 10%. Don't put words in my mouth. Realize that the amount of students in the top 10% isn't necessarily the end all, be all figure for student achievement in high school curriculum. Berkeley students could simply come from less challenging schools for all you know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your sad attempt at a graph is flat our ridiculous and misleading. It's essentially the same as mine except you for some reason decided to put TOTAL SAT scores instead of PROPORTION. When comparing two schools, why wouldn't you use a proportion? So basically your graph is the exact same as mine except tries to make Berkeley look better because it is dozens of times larger than Mudd. Well, I'm glad you agree with the basic shapes of the curve that I made, but you are trying to present a misleading graph.</p>
<p>Hey, I can play your game too. Mudd is obviously more selective because it only accepted ~600 applicants last year!!! Berkeley accepted thousands!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Proportions? I think we long ago threw proportions out the window when we started comparing top Berkeley students to all the Harvey Mudd students. Hey, I agree with you that the average Harvey Mudd student has better stats than the average Berkeley student. I wholeheartedly agree with you that Harvey Mudd is more selective; I never said it wasn't. I was simply refuting someone's claim that the top Berkeley students aren't as smart as Harvey Mudd students. I think that's a pretty ridiculous statement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, if you go to Berkeley class of 2010 you will find probably find a thousand students who are as bright as the average Mudder. But won't you also find thousands upon thousands of students who are NOT as bright as the average Mudder? Berkeley's size goes both ways. Like you were saying, you can't just ignore all the less intelligent-than-the-average-mudder students at Berkeley and the fact that they are the majority.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, I agree with this too. I was simply trying to show exactly what your first sentence says: that there are plenty of students at Berkeley who are as bright as the average Mudder, if not brighter. Sure, there are many more who I admit, frankly aren't very smart. But there is also a sizable population within Berkeley that does comprise of very intelligent students.</p>
<p>According to PrepHQ:</p>
<p>Berkeley Average HS GPA = 3.94/4.00</p>
<p>HMC Average HS GPA = 4.0/4.00</p>
<p>There you go, another way to measure student achievement in high school classes.</p>
<p>I never said that the top Berkeley students weren't as smart as the top Mudd students. I completely agree that if you take the top 750 Berkeley students, they are completely comparable to Mudd's class. My argument is just based on proportions of the student body. It's good to point out for prospective students that a difference between Mudd and Berkeley is:</p>
<p>At Berkeley the top kids are extremely bright, but there will be a lot of other kids who aren't as bright that you'll have to sift through to find the extremely bright ones. This can be a negative if you are an extremely bright student because classes might be slowed down.</p>
<p>At Mudd, a majority of students are extremely bright, and you really won't have to do much sifting. Which I admit is sometimes a negative because you don't have as many less bright students to distinguish yourself against in classes and you'll constantly feel unintelligent because there aren't many people who appear to be below your intelligence level like you were used to back in high school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone would raise an eyebrow at that data. I know the UC system has certain connections to high school rank... like if you are in a certain top % you are guaranteed acceptance to one UC. If you want to believe that Berkeley students were the most successful high school students in the country, more successful than places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, etc, because of a skeptical 99% figure then go on believing it.</p>
<p>I never said it wasn't possible that Berkeley could have a greater proportion of students in the top 10%. Don't put words in my mouth. Realize that the amount of students in the top 10% isn't necessarily the end all, be all figure for student achievement in high school curriculum. Berkeley students could simply come from less challenging schools for all you know.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said before, the UCs are very numbers driven in their admissions, which is why that number is so high. Hey, it's very possible that Berkeley students simply come from less challenging schools. But I'm not going to start to question the numbers themselves. I think it's a little farfetched to suggest that maybe only 85% or 80% of Berkeley's students are in the top 10% of their high school class, even when the data indicates otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to PrepHQ:</p>
<p>Berkeley Average HS GPA = 3.94/4.00</p>
<p>HMC Average HS GPA = 4.0/4.00</p>
<p>There you go, another way to measure student achievement in high school classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Would you mind sharing your sources for HMC's average HS GPA? I doubt it's unweighted, unless 100% of the student population got straight As. I believe UC Berkeley's average GPA is around 3.9 uw and 4.2 weighted.</p>
<p>I got it from a site called prephq.com which is made for my high school Students have accounts on it and can see information about schools as well as data plots for past years students (their sat scores, gpas, and whether or not they got accepted). I don't know if there is another source somewhere out there that is public, and I'm not sure how they calculated it. I just mentioned it to point out that there are differing ways to show student academic strength than just the top 10% statistic.</p>
<p>"If you want to believe that Berkeley students were the most successful high school students in the country, more successful than places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, etc, because of a skeptical 99% figure then go on believing it."</p>
<p>How is it not believable that 99% of the SB at Cal were at top 10% of their graduating class? It's not difficult to be in the top 10% of your high school graduating class.
And how does that statistic show Cal has more successful high school students than HYPMS? Isn't a large proportion (>75%) of the SB at HYPMS valedictorians or salutorians at their high schools? Keep in mind that valedictorians and salutorians are at the top 1% of their graduating high school class. The difference between the top 1% and the top 10% is huge, which essentially means, yes, Cal is not as selective as HYPMS. So with that in mind, why do you find it hard to believe that 99% of the Cal SB were in the top 10% of their graduating class? Is it because only ~90% of the SB at HM were top 10% or you don't believe any statistic posted by the University of California as a whole?</p>
<p>Oops, the mother site is [mod note: no links to other college admissions sites allowed! Sorry!] actually, but I don't think it's public.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is it because only 75% of the SB at HM were top 10% or you don't believe any statistic posted by the University of California as a whole?
[/quote]
Actually it's more like ~90% at HMC.</p>
<p>I never said I didn't believe the statistic. I don't believe Berkeley is lying, but they might be finding the top 10% differently from other schools. Being in top 10% is not hard, but there are tons of great recruited athletes at Berkeley, AA students who would get a boost despite lower ranks, kids with great hooks, etc. I just find it really hard to believe that only 1 in 100 students was not in the top 10% of their hs. Keep in mind that there are private schools where being in the top 20% is quite an accomplishment. Not to mention California is full of magnet schools which send tons of kids to Berkeley. Top 10% at a magnet school is certainly not "not difficult."</p>
