<p>the only problem with UT is that it is in texas.</p>
<p>I think the complaint against the UC rankings have to do with the fact that the huge majority of students are in the top 10% of their classes (since the UC system is designed for the top 12.5% of California students).</p>
<p>How close are the middle tier UCs stat-wise to the other universities around. For example, UCSB has a 50% acceptance rate, and an average GPA of 3.76 and SAT of 1182 among enrolled students. What are the stats like of enrolled students for other colleges ranked around the UCs?</p>
<p>the SAT is pretty low for where its sitting at. Florida has an avg sat of 1260 and its ranked in the 50's. And why are all the UC GPA's high...theres a reason for this as well.</p>
<p>can u explan this top 10% thing to me. Youre telling me that the vast majority of kids at UC-Riverside, Santa Cruz, and Merced are in the top 10% of their class? Thats a hell of alot different than my high school.</p>
<p>I don't think it is very useful to compare stats among state schools as they often have different policies about admissions than privates. Some like to give as many people as possible a shot and then flunkout 10-20% of the class. Others follow a more elite model. It gets very political in some states. I don't think it has a large impact on the overall quality of the school.</p>
<p>Yeah, it's probably not best for gauging how good a school is, but I'm still curious what the stats are like :p</p>
<p>can u explan this top 10% thing to me. Youre telling me that the vast majority of kids at UC-Riverside, Santa Cruz, and Merced are in the top 10% of their class? Thats a hell of alot different than my high school.</p>
<p>I think so. For example, UC Davis touts the stat that 95% of students were in the top 10% of their high school class. I'm not sure if those lower tier schools publish their stats, but it's probaly a pretty high percentage. I think it has a combination to do with the fact that there are a lot of poor performing students in schools, and California is a large state, and those who don't make the cut to UCs have the 23 (or whatever the number is) California State Universities to go to.</p>
<p>Ursdad ....may I ask..What is wrong with Texas? Go Longhorns..and UT is a top tier school according to US News Rankings!!</p>
<p>well it depends what you mean by top tier. Top 5? Top 10? Top 25 public?</p>
<p>Texas is ranked 46th overall and there are 13 public universiteis ranked ahead of it. In fact, I would say USNews does a diservice to the quality of Texas. Alot of those UCs aka Irvine shouldnt be ranked that high. Texas is defintely a top 10 public and I feel it is equivelant to Wisconsin, Illinois.</p>
<p>In law it is equivalent to Umich, UCB and some ivies.</p>
<p>Ah, I found the stats of Santa Cruz and Riverside, the percent of students in the top 10% according to Princeton Review:</p>
<p>UC Santa Cruz - 90%
UC Riverside - 94% (Incredible)</p>
<p>I also quickly checked Santa Barbara against Florida:</p>
<p>Santa Barbara:
Admission rate: ~53%
GPA: 3.78
SAT I - Verbal Range (25-75%): 250-640 (I assume that 250 is a typo, it's likely 550)
SAT I - Math Range (25-75%): 550-660
Top 10% of high school class: 95%</p>
<p>Florida:
Admission rate: ~53%
GPA: 3.90
SAT I - Verbal Range (25-75%): 560-660
SAT I - Math Range (25-75%): 580-680
Top 10% of high school class: 79%</p>
<p>So yeah, Florida edges out UCSB slightly in SAT, more so in GPA, with nearly identical admission rates and UCSB taking the top 10% like UCs usually do.</p>
<p>"...can u explan this top 10% thing to me. Youre telling me that the vast majority of kids at UC-Riverside, Santa Cruz, and Merced are in the top 10% of their class? Thats a hell of alot different than my high school..."</p>
<p>No, all of the UC students are not in the top 10% of their class at their high school, they are in the top 10% in the state. This is called "eligibility in the state-wide context." </p>
<p>If you are at a very high-performing high school where half the class has taken rigorous curriculum and has stats good enough to get into top universities, you are not going to get refused by UC just because you are "only" in the top 15% of your class.</p>
<p>If you are unfortunate to be stuck at a very poorly-performing high school, you could be #1 in your class and not crack the top 10% state-wide. That's why "eligibility in the local context" was instituted. No matter how lame your high school is, if you are in the top 4% of your class (I think it's 4%) at that school, you are eligible to attend a UC. Not necessarily Berkeley, though. You are only guaranteed a spot at some UC somewhere.</p>
<p>If you are at a very high-performing high school where half the class has taken rigorous curriculum and has stats good enough to get into top universities, you are not going to get refused by UC just because you are "only" in the top 15% of your class.</p>
<p>That's correct :) I got into UCSB in Fall 2003 and I was on the 60% percentile (I guess top 40%) of my high school.</p>
<p>I can't believe they put irvine and davis above UT...UT is so underrated outside of Texas.</p>
<p>My top ten privates (in no order)</p>
<p>Berkeley, UCLA, Illinois, UNC, Michigan, Texas, UVA, Wisconsin, William and Mary, and I guess UCSD or GaTech.</p>
<p>Publics, he means.</p>
<p>UC Berkeley is ranked where it is, because it has the best/most accomplished faculty of any Public school in the country and rivals any private school you can name. </p>
<p>kcirsch's list is pretty good for overall quality.</p>
<p>I think...</p>
<p>1) UVA UCB
2) UNC UMICH UCLA
3) College of WM </p>
<p>Those are the top.</p>
<p>Honorable mention:
UT, Wisconsin, GaTech.</p>
<p><strong>can't believe they put irvine and davis above UT...UT is so underrated outside of Texas</strong></p>
<p>kcirsch,</p>
<p>i think all the public universities mentioned above are great. I think they are all excellent in different ways. I think Davis/Irvine/San Diego are perhaps helped by its medical schools and research specialties. For example, UT Austin which is the flagship of the UT system generates 380 million in research funding. Engineering is especially great at UT-A. It has 44 faculty members in the National Academy of Engineering. UC Davis, on the other hand has only 7 faculty in the NAE and UCSD has 16. </p>
<p>UC Davis however, with a medical school, generates 421 million dollars in research funding and UCSD generates over 600 million dollars. UC Davis has 22 faculty members in the National Academy of Sciences. UCSD has 66 members. In comparison, UT-Austin has 11. *It is worth noting that UT-Southwestern Medical Center has 14 and the whole state of Texas has about 47-50 members in total belonging to the NAS. </p>
<p>Our perceptions of public universities, except Cal and Michigan and maybe UVA, are often clouded by our regional bias. I agree with you that UT-Austin is underrated but that doesnt make the fact that Irvine and Davis are great schools and may be equivalent to UT-A go away.</p>
<p>I wish UT's science programs was as good as it's law program :(! That would make me feel a whole lot better!</p>
<p>I am currently MAD at W&M. I drove down there and missed the session and tour, so we talked to one of the assistant admissions counselors. He basically told us that it sucks to come from out of state, there are no merit scholarships, no honors program, no opportunities, no diversity, and the environmental science program is practically nonexistant. It is <em>so</em> off my list.</p>
<p>UT Austin is probably underrated, yeah.</p>
<p>[ol]
[<em>]UC Berkeley
[</em>]Michigan
[<em>]Virginia
[</em>]UCLA
[<em>]UNC-Chapel Hill
[</em>]UW-Madison
[<em>]UT-Austin
[</em>]UCSD
[<em>]UIUC
[</em>]William and Mary
[/ol]</p>