<p>Note the difference in how UVA and UCs look at SAT scores. UVA (and every other school I can think of) add the highest scores from each INDIVIDUAL section together to come up with a composite SAT score for that applicant. UCs on the other hand, only take the highest ONE-SITTING score. </p>
<p>So suppose a person took the SAT three times and got:</p>
<p>M700 V700 W680 the first time
M700 V680 W700 the second time
M670 V700 W710 the third time</p>
<p>Note how the above is a very plausible scenario</p>
<p>UC Berkeley would interpret this person's score as being 2080 while UVA would interpret this person's score as being 2110 (700+700+710). </p>
<p>If you factor this disparity into US News' SAT reporting, all the UCs should have at least 20 points added to their reported SAT range. With this in mind, UVA would be far off from Berkeley in terms of SAT alone.</p>
<p>I don't understand why UC turns a blind eye to these kind of issues....it puts us at a disadvantage when we try to lure top applicants into our schools. I have no doubt that this policy came about as an attempt to "level the playing field" for under-represented minorities who most often times take the SATs only ONCE. HOWEVER, other schools don't play by these rules and hence we suffer in the rankings.....it would make a big difference if the 75th percentile for the (old) SATs were 1470 instead of 1450 for Berkeley...at least in the minds of most potential students who look at the aptitude of their peers and at USNEWS rankings when deciding whether or not to enroll at Berkeley. </p>
<p>Tell me what you guys think.....I think it's time for an aggressive policy change that will allow us to lure more top applicants and still manage to bring under-representative students into the campus.</p>
<p>That's very plausible. There is a one hundred point discrepancy between my best from single sitting and best combine score (based on two tests).</p>
<p>Yeah, 2330 for my composite and 2250 for my 1 sitting. I think the UCs should change this as most top schools take composite and UCs are just putting themselves at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>I'd be fine with the UCs reporting to US News and other services the best composite while making decisions based on the best single sitting. What would the consequences of that be? While it would make it lower than it could be, it would be higher than the current system.</p>
<p>There also other ways some school have of tweeking the stats. For example, some private schools have a policy of admitting weaker candidates (often legacies) into the spring semester or winter quarters, which keeps their profile/SATs/GPAs out of the averages reported.</p>
<p>Other issues: generally poor marketing/packaging in things like campus visits, brochures and so forth. </p>
<p>One school that does well there is Haas, which addressed head on a lot of the numerics involved in ratings.</p>