<p>Shoebox, until now I have ignored your posts in this thread for a couple of reasons. First, they are rife with unwarranted assumptions and logical flaws. (Some of these have been gently pointed out to you by other contributors.) Second, your spelling is consistently atrocious and that makes it very hard to get through your run-on sentences. Now I find you actually said "i happen to be good at writing" and all I can do is ask you to proof your posts a bit, for everyone's sake. Thanks :)</p>
<p>I think you mean run-on sentence.</p>
<p>LOL... :) Naughty!</p>
<p>I actually realize they're run ons. Its somewhat easier to lay everything out, and plus, I blow through posts pretty quickly, so I don't pay much attention to spelling and such. However, everyone gets things wrong, everyone had opinions. It's why it's a forum. But my point about the surplus not neccessarily being a number to depend on is quite true. Saying we have a $2B surplus this year doesn't mean we'll have the same next year, it depends on the states budget year to year. I DO agree that something needs to be done, because if we keep having these surpluses, no matter how big or small, its obvious the budget has room to be adjusted.</p>
<p>Well, FWIW, it's guaranteed that we won't have the surplus next year (no one said we would btw). The surplus is already being spent down and in fact, tax increases are being discussed again. </p>
<p>The proposed tax increases are generally intended to address transportation issues, not higher education, and unfortunately, there is a lot of demand for new roads. A retrograde "solution" at best IMHO. End digression.</p>
<p>Well, there's a million in one chance it is the same. But true, it's basically guarenteed, and i was just pointing out that it's hard to base recieving money based on a surplus because it isn't guarenteed. Just was stating a fact. </p>
<p>I would just like to say though, marsden, that your point about $2B left over is astounding. It just goes to show that state budgets are obviously very difficult to plan, but still. Give a few million out here and there, and it would solve some problems.<br>
And there is a large demand for roads, and i guess that's a need because with UVa staying public, the general consensus is that it might help VA retain more residents, and more residents raises the need for more roads. Maybe there should be a tax for people without children, or people above a certain income. Sure, it seems slightly unfair, but people with children in VA are most likely going to fund a VA school eventually, and so those without children could also benifit the schools in some way, even without kids. A small, miniscul tax like that could raise substaintial funds, but no one wants more taxes. What a vicious cycle.</p>
<p>I headed a task force looking into the US News methods and presented them in a report to my faculty. Dean J, we found that US News changed its formula a great deal in the early and mid years of the rankings, but have changed them very little in recent years. In fact, the standard deviation for numerical rankings in the past five years is very, very low. There are notable exceptions. Chicago climbed a great deal last year, for instance, but this has been explained as a change in their reporting procedures after meeting with US News personnel. So, methods did not create this change.</p>
<p>As for some numbers looking suspicious, I concur. Berkeley's 10% number simply looks absurd and very nearly impossible. Having said that, UVA's SAT increase this year also looks very, very odd. I asked my own admissions department what they thought, and they said that this sort of increase would have played merry hell with their yield projections. Perhaps this announced increase is real, but I'm very, very skeptical when average numbers jump 60 points, especially when the numbers were already quite high.</p>
<p>I wish someone would explain to me how Michigan is now tied with Virginia, when nearly all of its numbers are so much worse. What am I missing?</p>
<p>Well, their engineering is amazing. I've heard their business school is pretty good too. I thought about saying "well maybe UMich has a great retention rate, small class sizes, lots of alumni participation, good funding, ect, on top of tough admission standards". Then I realized its the same for UVa. So who knows. I don't go by USNews rankings really anymore. If you're in the top 25-50 of an program, theres very little difference in rankings, but instead, the difference in campus/social life/curriculum is way differs each school. So, even though UMich is tied, obviously UVa still has perks about it that make it better in some ways, but UMich may have strengths in areas where UVa falters. </p>
<p>Hah, UVa faulters. What a bad statement =P</p>
<p>
[quote]
Having said that, UVA's SAT increase this year also looks very, very odd. I asked my own admissions department what they thought, and they said that this sort of increase would have played merry hell with their yield projections. Perhaps this announced increase is real, but I'm very, very skeptical when average numbers jump 60 points, especially when the numbers were already quite high.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Honestly, I don't see how you can accuse UVa of reporting a 60 point increase in SAT scores when the 25%/75% numbers that the University reported this year were identical to the 25%/75% numbers that the University reported last year.</p>
<p>2006-2007:
SAT Critical Reading(formerly SAT Verbal) 600 710
SAT Math 620 720
<a href="http://www.web.virginia.edu/IAAS/data_catalog/institutional/cds/current/admissions.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.web.virginia.edu/IAAS/data_catalog/institutional/cds/current/admissions.htm</a></p>
<p>2005-2006:
SAT Verbal 600 710
SAT Math 620 720
<a href="http://www.web.virginia.edu/IAAS/data_catalog/institutional/cds/current/admissions.htm#2006%5B/url%5D">http://www.web.virginia.edu/IAAS/data_catalog/institutional/cds/current/admissions.htm#2006</a></p>
<p>Thought for the day- this is a quote from VT:
"Virginia Tech has decided to reinstate the transcript fee. Educational priorities dictate this change. We have endeavored to provide this service to students free of charge since 1986, but can no longer do so in light of loss of state funding."</p>
<p>In a way, every school is moving tow ards becoming private in the sense of requiring more and more private funds for what should be free .</p>
<p>I believe UMich's peer assessment scores are noticeably better, which is what keeps it up with UVA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Honestly, I don't see how you can accuse UVa of reporting a 60 point increase in SAT scores when the 25%/75% numbers that the University reported this year were identical to the numbers that it reported last year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On the other hand:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The university could raise its average standardized test scores for in-coming students appreciably if it was willing to take a disproportionately large number of students from wealthy Fairfax County, "But that's not what we ought to do," he says.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Leonard W. Sandridge, U.Va.'s chief operating officer</p>
<p>supernova:</p>
<p>Here's a link: <a href="http://www.virginia.edu/undergradadmission/profile.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.virginia.edu/undergradadmission/profile.html</a></p>
<p>In that link, SATs are reported as 1280-1490 for the entering class of 2006, which would be much higher than the 1220-1430 reported for 2005. It looks as though they have different numbers they present to prospects. In any event, as an alum, I'm happy the common data set doesn't look so ... unusual.</p>
<p>Maybe this is their way of cutting down on number of applications they recieve. Some poor kid with a 1220 now will be less likely to apply, therefor reducing the number of apps they recieve =P Totally kidding!</p>
<p>Anyways, I would go by the common data set. And although that also shows an increase, it obviously shows that those admitted don't have too much higher of SAT scores, and those that actually attend, have about the same. This simply means that those with higher scores are most likely applying to Ivies and such (probably a majority are OOS kids also) and are going to those instead. Also, the numbers are probably skewed due to the OOS kids, since they overall have much higher scores. I'm pretty sure you can see SATs for IS vs OOS, so those are the numbers that are more important, since OOS competition is getting much more competative, and at a much faster rate than IS.</p>
<p>shoebox:</p>
<p>Oh, no question the common data set scores are more reliable. You may have missed an earlier thread on this board when they changed the title on that page from "admitted" to "entering" without changing the numbers. A poster on here contacted Dean J and she said that was correct for the matriculating class. Then I contacted Dean J with some concerns and got the same response.</p>
<p>It appears that the left hand is not talking to the right.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It looks as though they have different numbers they present to prospects.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Tarhunt:</p>
<p>The numbers on the link you cited are clearly wrong. Perhaps they relate to admitted, versus enrolled, students and were inadvertently mislabeled. The publishers of college guides and the websites that provide college statistics use the Common Data Set, so prospects will get the correct information. I’m sure the University will not report numbers to US News that are inconsistent with its Common Data Set.</p>
<p>[Edit: I didn't see your post before I posted mine.]</p>
<p>tarhunt - Yes, I remeber cavalier throwing a fit over this issue because he knew it was wrong, they knew it was wrong, and nothing was being changed. Then again, I think a school like UVa has better things to be doing =P But yes, the common data set is more accurate, and I think that is is run by an outside group, therefor UVa just sends numbers and they sort it out.<br>
However, no set will ever be 100% accurate for entering students. This is because a small number are admitted, send in the deposit, attend orientation, and even go as far as set up housing, and then they never show up for classes. I know a few people there who have had their roommate just never appear, and never hear from them, or are able to contact/find them. Seems like they're mostly internationals, but all the same.
But like I said before, the numbers vary greatly, as many of the top OOS students are also admitted to Ivies and other top privates, or even chose to go IS to save money/be close/ect. Also, even some IS may say "well i'll apply to UVa because its close and I have the stats to get in" but then they get into another top school and go there instead. But I think the more important numbers to base UVa on is the entering students; any school can chose to admit only 3.8/1400+, but will all of them go there? Most likely there will be a percantage that don't. Therefor, maybe if the entering class stats stay on par, UVa will start being a tad less selective. Or maybe they'l become more selective to try to up those numbers. But this brings us full circle back to the originial topic, which is that should UVa become private to become more seletive to rise in ranks?
Frankly I think UVa is an excellent school, and their reputation over the last few decades has surely increased. People are going to be chosing these types of schools more on academics/location/cost/social life rather than "Well Berkely is two spots above UVa, so it must be the better choice". Numbers only prove it, especially at the level of numbers they have.</p>
<p>posted on 11/30/06</p>
<p>"The new CDS is out. The SAT range for the middle 50% of the ENROLLED students in Fall, 2006 is 1210-1430. Here is the link (SAT range provided in C9):</p>
<p>Some quick observations:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The University seems to have a growing gender problem as 57% of the new class is female. </p></li>
<li><p>Overall accept rate was 37% (6019/16086)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Early Decision accept rate was 41% (953/2311)</p>
<p>Yield was 51% (3075/6019)</p>
<p>Not sure of the IS/OOS breakdown of any of these numbers-does the University provide this? I seem to remember this being available in prior years.</p>
<ol>
<li>From schools that reported rank, 88% of the enrolled students were in the top 10% of their high school class."</li>
</ol>
<p>I subsequently found out that the gender problem is not new and actually reflects the % of females applying to colleges today.</p>
<p>shoebox:</p>
<p>Personally, I think schools have an obligation to provide accurate numbers to prospective students.</p>
<p>As for the public vs. private issue, it's not worth discussing. UVA will not go private. It won't happen. Even if the school weren't so focused on Mr. Jefferson, and even if Jefferson's vision was education for everyone, it wouldn't happen. However, I can certainly foresee UVA simply beginning to ignore the General Assembly more and more as funding decreases.</p>