Publics overrated in Peer Assessment rating?

Applying to College
101

<p>Looking on the Collegeboard, the average SAT ranges I find are</p>

<p>Maryland- 1180-1370
Penn State- 1100-1300
Indiana- 990-1230
Iowa- ACT 22-27 (not enough SAT scores to use)
Ohio State- 1080-1300 (60% submitted)
Minnesota- ACT 23-28
Texas A&M- 1090-1310</p>

<p>BC- 1250-1420
Tufts- 1330-1480
Wake- 1260-1410
Lehigh- 1240-1400
Rochester- 1250-1410</p>

<p>so, though maryland has a respectable SAT range, all these other publics clearly have lower ranges than the privates in question, which certainly is a big factor, whether or not the public schools can control it. After all, it is not the private schools problem that the public schools must take a certain amount of students from their state.</p>

102

<p>OK, Sternman I will explain this to you one more time. The same people that apply from cc to Haas also apply to Stern. Usually they only go to Stern if they are a)rejected by Haas or b)prefer the east coast for one reason or another. It is clear you are very insecure about your school. Also generally people who get in to Haas from cc have between a 3.9 and a 4.0. Not everybody wants to work on Wall St. I know I certainly do not want to. Relax :)</p>

103

<p>and for sternman</p>

<p>NYU- 1240-1420</p>

104

<p>yeah, umd took a big jump in terms of the lower 25%. The deferred so many people this year. Confused the hell out of councelors and students applying this year. </p>

<p>This was what BC and UMD put out this year as their class of 2010. Doesn't really matter as stated before but here it is.</p>

<p>

The Sat range on two sections would be like 1260-1400? no one really knows if the average writing was higher than the average verbal or math. If someone does have the averages i would be interested in seeing those.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>They are pretty comparable but i was surprised to see IU being that low. The quality of students is important to many people. I am going into business and i would love to go to Stern over Smith but I honestly would never take NYU over Maryland in other majors. UMD has a pretty good business school median with a 1360 on average for business majors.</p>

<p>The peer assessment rankings are accurate to show the prestige of a university. Regardless if it is just because it has good research or what not. Even if it is sports. If college professors and deans are ranking schools it is a ranking of overall thought of the school by knowledgable people. It is a better indicator of actual quality than anything US news offers. It can't be overrating schools because it is not done by weights. It is a survey by knowledgable people, more than all of the 16 year olds here. Some publics get down played due to their overall rank alone, unfairly at that.</p>

105

<p>ckmets, you're ignoring the points made earlier in the thread, how privates can exaggerate their test score ranges, and how publics can't. Publics have their forms audited each year, if they aren't accurate, they don't receive state funding, and they will have difficulty running a university. They can't take the best combined scores, they can't take the best on either test, and they have to take a certain percentage of students from their home state, even if their scores are well below average. This allows privates an unwarranted boost that publics aren't allowed to have.</p>

106

<p>Adding to the above post, I believe the BC Honors program says that the applicants are usually in the top 5% and have scored at least 1450 on the SAT (im just outside the top 5%, but got into the honors program anyway though). Thanks for posting those numbers on maryland, theyre rather impressive, im just surprised because a lot of people get in there from my school (OOS in NY), but we did have one person who chose UMD over BC for financial reasons, seems like she made a good choice. I just couldnt go to UMD because of its size, i would really prefer my school to be under 10000 kids. Nothing against the school though.</p>

107

<p>^^ Congrats on BC honors. Its shows that rankings are not always the most important. You said you gave up John hopkins because you felt BC was a better fit. I think that is great. Many of these schools are really close in the eyes of recruiters and they become only what you make of them so why not go to one you will truly like. One of my best friends is going to BC. I am going over to his house to play ncaa football 2007, UMD vs. BC, right now.</p>

108

<p>wow, if you win, ill concede UMD is the better school haha</p>

109

<p>ckmets: You listed the SAT avg for NYU. For Stern it is a bit different. Try a 1410 avg.</p>

<p>Wolves: BS post again. Privates dont' lie about scores and they have higher ones because of their competitive nature. Your post just shows that publics have to accept some "dumb" state kids.</p>

110

<p>
[quote]
If selectivity didnt determine education, then why does anyone go to Lehigh, or why does anyone go to BC, when all those kids could get into PSU easily (i did)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Selectivity determines education hmm? So are you going to argue now that the University of Chicago (40% admit rate) is a worse school than the College of William and Mary (31% admit rate)? Especially since you seem to think that private schools like Chicago are so much better than public schools like the College of William and Mary.</p>

<p>Certainly there is a trend between selective schools and good schools, but selectivity doesn't DETERMINE education.</p>

<p>
[quote]
is it just me or vicissitudes loves to use the word "evidence." it appears in every single one of his/her posts at least once. i've been reading his/her posts and it seems evidence stands out the most. you must be a science major of some sort.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, since you seem to be such a fan of my posts, perhaps you would like to reread my posts #12, 23, 35, 36, 37, and 60 in which I didn't use the word "evidence" once.</p>

<p>What I think is not that I love to use the word "evidence," but that other people don't like to use evidence. Look at all the posts in this thread alone that have wild claims without any kind of reasoning at least, to back them up (these are posts in their entirety):</p>

<p>
[quote]
'cause the people doing the peer assessment correlate that with ugrad or at least SOME of them do. they are influenced by it and of course these people ranking it have no idea what the ugrad is like, most likely they are just familiar with grad work.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So he claims the people doing the peer assessment have NO idea what the undergrad is like, and they are only familiar with grad work. Pretty silly considering they are reviewing undergrad programs. Geez, all these people must somehow not know that an undergrad program exists at these Universities.</p>

<p>Has he given you any reasoning? Anything that shows that this could be true?</p>

<p>
[quote]
us news HELPs publics is what this thread shows. peer assessment helps them more than privates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's all he wrote for his post. He didn't bother to say anything about the alumni giving, the selectivity, which all helps privates. He just said that since some private schools he THINKS should have gotten better scores (without giving us reasoning), that U.S. News helps publics.</p>

<p>Even others are fed up with this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Are you even listening to a word i'm saying or are you just covering your ears and saying "blah blah blah blah i'm not listening"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And all of this is just on the first page. I would keep going but I will have gone over the character limit like in another thread in which I posted.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is a solid and secure word that makes up for his insecure personality from attending Cal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I'm pretty insecure from attending Cal. I'll admit it has its drawbacks, like having more NYU students follow me around in every thread I post, trying to convince me that it's a better school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Professors that actually teach undergrads, more qualified students with higher high school grades and SAT scores, smaller class sizes, a better learning atmosphere (more students actually care about their grades). Its a fact that if you have better students, you will have a better school. The fact that PSU is a research powerhouse has nothing to do with its undergrad education.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thank you. This is what I was looking for. These are actual reasons why these private schools might be better than the public schools. Now we have something to discuss.</p>

111

<p>"research powerhouse" schools give undergrad students opportunities to participate in doing research. A big advantage for some - especially science majors. I say, keep an open mind to quality honors programs at big publics - where you can get smaller classes with "professors who actually teach undegrads", smart peers, better advising, and umatched research opportunities. Plus lower cost - except for those who qualify for big financial aid at privates. Publics (especially top publics like UVA and UMich) might be better for certain students. It's an individual preference!</p>

112

<p>Vicci: you're not very smart. Selectivity does not just mean acceptance rates alone. </p>

<p>"Yeah, I'm pretty insecure from attending Cal. I'll admit it has its drawbacks, like having more NYU students follow me around in every thread I post, trying to convince me that it's a better school."</p>

<p>You're the first to reply TO me. Not the other way around. I'm really tired of Cal kids trying to prove that their public CC-transferfest is actually deserving of tp 20.</p>

113

<p>I'm really tired of Stern kids trying to prove that their campus-lacking school is actually deserving of top 30.</p>

114

<p>oh no! no campus! WHAT WILL WE DO? </p>

<p>go look at haas's wall st placement vs stern's and you can apologize to me later.</p>

115

<p>Forget it...Sternman is obviously not good with logic. Stern gets the same transfer applicants as Haas does. Stern accepts the same "dumb state" students as Haas. You know, all of those dumb kids that chose to go to cc because they did not want to waste $60,000.00 on the first two years of college alone. He refuses to present anything resembling a real argument. I am pretty sure he is a teenager too which of course makes him an expert on everything. ;)</p>

<p>Do you think everybody wants to work on Wall St?? LOL</p>

116

<p>Nice fabricated lies. Go talk to the NYU admissions office 212-998-4500. They'll give you the school transfer info. Most are from 4 year universities and not CC's. </p>

<p>I lived a couple blocks from Cal so don't BS me on their cc transfers. They exist and are in full swing.</p>

117

<p>UVA takes a lot of cc transfers.
I guess that makes it a bad school...</p>

118

<p>Well Haas accepts 8% of transfer applicants. I never said they did not accept transfers. Does living near somewhere make you know everything about it? So if I lived near a library according to your logic I would know what every single book is about. ;)</p>

<p>I have spoken with a NYU Stern admissions counselor. They are my source. LOL :)</p>

119

<p>Not bad. Just not as good as say... Northwestern</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
I lived a couple blocks from Cal so don't BS me on their cc transfers. They exist and are in full swing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Many CC transfers got into good 4-year universities like UC San Diego (oh my, that's ranked higher than NYU) but chose to go to a CC to save money and so that it would be easier to transfer into Berkeley (where they really wanted to go). How many people do you know are willing to give up a good 4-year university just to go to a CC, if that will help them transfer into NYU?</p>