<p>If UCR had the record of accomplishment of UCB over the last century it would be attracting the UCB level students. Harvard is H not only because of today but the last 300 years. Both continue to be among the elite universities in the world. It matters hardly at all which one has higher SAT score for freshmen.</p>
<p>Hawkette, the problem with the SAT is that it is not standardized. Like GPA and class rank, it varries from school to school. At some schools, most of the students prepare for the SAT for years. They take it several times. They enroll in one or two prep courses. And then, the university further refines their SAT scores by superscoring those results. At other schools, most students never prepare for the SAT. They take it once. And even in the case of students who take the SAT more than once, they will not superscore. In such cases, the former has a significant advantage over the latter.</p>
<p>Alexandre, are you suggesting that Michigan reports its SAT/ACT scores differently from Cornell to the U.S. News and reads the instructions for the survey differently as well?</p>
<p>Why should the **criteria **used for admissions influence the manner in which the scores are ... reported.</p>
<p>By the way the differences between Michigan and Cornell are about 30 points on each section of the SAT and exactly one point on each section. Since the ACT is almost never supercored, the obvious parallels in the differences should burst that hot air balloon of superscores yielding such an advantage. </p>
<p>And, I think that a statement about the SAT not being standardized is bound to rise a few eyebrows among the people who have some understanding of ... standardized tests.</p>
<p>barrons,
You don't go to school over a century. You go to a school for four years. What happened at ABC school 50 years ago is ancient history. Schools change, faculties change, but your college relationships with your fellow students last for the rest of your life and, in many cases, extend into all aspects of your life. </p>
<p>Alexandre,
The SAT is, by far, the most standardized figure available for college admissions officers. If you know anybody in the admissions process at a top college, talk to them about how they use the standardized test scores and how they interpret them in the context of an application. I think you will find much greater support for using this number than you realize at most of the top schools. It is just a single data point, but I also think you will find that adcomms are a lot more savvy than you give them credit for in determining what that SAT score means for that applicant. I think you will also learn that the standardized test scores have a high correlation to other parts of the application. There aren’t too many kids with a 2.5 GPA and a 2250 on the SAT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I hope you will agree that for observers like you and me, there is no better proxy for evaluating student strength.
[/quote]
Hawkette, I agree that it is a proxy of student strength...BUT only when making a comparison of SAT scores among students that took them under the same circumstances (i.e. single sitting, no test prep).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Re your preference for UC Berkeleys breadth of academic offerings and your perception of good faculty, that is great
for you
[/quote]
Yes, Berkeley is great for a number of factors...its breadth of academic offerings and phenomenal faculty matter to me. It's not my perception that the faculty is good....it is! You do have a habit of placing qualifiers for every statement of praise.</p>
<p>What privates do you think offer a better breadth of academic programs and stellar faculty than Berkeley? I can tell you it ain't Emory, WUSTL, Duke, and USC.</p>
<p>Re faculty, are you more interested in faculty that are famous within academic circles or faculty that teach well? If the former, then I agree with your statement. If the latter, in the only survey that I know of that actually asked specifically about classroom teaching, UC Berkeley did not place at all anywhere in the rankings-Emory, Wash U and Duke were all ranked in the Top 25.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You don't go to school over a century. You go to a school for four years. What happened at ABC school 50 years ago is ancient history. Schools change, faculties change, but your college relationships with your fellow students last for the rest of your life and, in many cases, extend into all aspects of your life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course it has an impact. The faculty and students that attend currently are attracted to a university for reputation...which takes decades to build up.</p>
<p>And if you doubt reputation is the BIGGEST factor, look at all the posters with thread titles: "What schools are best for ___________". Hawkette, they aren't asking, "What schools have the highest average SAT scores, and smallest class sizes". Reputation in one's intended major or university as a whole is huge. It's the way our society is.</p>
<p>Let's go back to the car analogy:<br>
Hyundai builds a super car and by objective data is the same as Ferrari. Hyundai might sell more of these cars at a discount to the Ferrari. Oh and for arguments sake, let's Hyundai has the same manufacturing standards for materials and construction as Ferrari. But, people will scoff - because they wouldn't pay the premium for the Hyundai name, like they would for the Ferrari. Hyundai doesn't have the history that Ferrari does.</p>
<p>"Alexandre, are you suggesting that Michigan reports its SAT/ACT scores differently from Cornell to the U.S. News and reads the instructions for the survey differently as well?"</p>
<p>Yes Xiggi, that is exactly what I am saying. Take student X. She has taken the SAT twice and got the following results:
Test I: 700 v, 740 m
Test II: 750 v, 690 m</p>
<p>The only SAT record on student X in Michigan's admissions system would read 700v and 740 m (1440 combined). At Cornell, the record would show 750 v and 740 m (1490 combined). And since that's what the records show, that's what will be reported. Of course, in many cases, superscoring won't make a difference and in many other cases, superscoring can make a significant difference.</p>
<p>"Since the ACT is almost never supercored, the obvious parallels in the differences should burst that hot air balloon of superscores yielding such an advantage"</p>
<p>Glad you braught that up. The mean ACT score at Michigan is 29 and the mean ACT score at Cornell (and Brown) is 30. The mid 50% ACT range at Michigan is 27-31 and at Cornell is 28-32 (at Brown it is 27-33).</p>
<p>Brown and Cornell have mean SAT scores roughly 80-100 points higher than Michigan. I doubt 1 point on the ACT is worth 90 points on the ACT. 30-40 points maybe, but not more. As you can see, superscoring does make a difference, albeit not a great one. </p>
<p>And Xiggi, that's just half of the problem with comparing SAT/ACT scores. The other problem is the importance attached to the actual exam by the universities and the students attending those universities. Whether you like it or not, students attending most flagship state schools (Cal, Michigan, UVa etc...) do not prepare nearly as much for the ACT/SAT as do students attending major private universities (like the Ivies, Chicago, Duke, MIT, Northwestern, Stanford and the top LACs).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Re faculty, are you more interested in faculty that are famous within academic circles or faculty that teach well? If the former, then I agree with your statement. If the latter, in the only survey that I know of that actually asked specifically about classroom teaching, UC Berkeley did not place at all anywhere in the rankings-Emory, Wash U and Duke were all ranked in the Top 25.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>According to a survey via the same methods you despise the PA score. Also, this survey was conducted in what? 1995? As you just said, faculties change. Perhaps during that time they've hired more research oriented professors - like UVa has been attempting.</p>
<p>According to USNWR, PA score does include questions related to faculty teaching:
[quote]
Peer assessment (weighting: 25 percent). The U.S. News ranking formula gives greatest weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school's undergraduate academic excellence. The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we consult-presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions-to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching. Each individual is asked to rate peer schools' academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hawkette, the SAT is standardized, but the way universities and students approach the exam varries from university to university and the way universities report SAT scores is not at all standardized. I was not referring to the test itself but to the way the test scores at universities are interpreted. I think my post made that pretty clear.</p>
<p>I've heard many times that the SAT is not indicative of how well someone does in college. I've also heard that one's HS GPA is more closely correlated with college GPA and overall success (how one measures this I don't know). Is there any data for this?</p>
<p>If it makes any difference, I think that SAT's ARE a decent measure of one's capabilities/intellect/whatever, but only until a certain point. I think it's much more valuable to group SAT scores (i.e 2150+, 1900+). Then again, I know many, many students here that scored well on their SATs and are struggling in college...</p>
<p>kyledavid80- Ugh its frustrating debating with people like you. Unless you think EVERYONE can get a perfect score on the SAT, your argument crumbles. The SAT is a yardstick and for 99+% of us (including myself), we can study as much as we want and NEVER score A 1600, we will improve and at some point plateau. YOU may be capable of a 1600, but that would make you an anomaly.</p>
<p>I took the GMAT powerprep and scored a 490. I studied my butt off for a few months, took the test and scored a 670. Can I score a 700? yes, I think I can if I study a TON more. Can I score a 750 or 800? I think that these scores are past my intellectual capasity. I had similar results with the GRE-raising my quant score by 190 points between the two times I took it, but I'm sure a 1600 GMAT isn't in the cards for me. I'm pretty smart, but not that smart, at least in the IQ sense of smart. That's OK with me.</p>
<p>Tomslawsky, you said it yourself. Preparing extra hard for the GMA improved your score by 200 points. Nobody is saying that taking a prepcourse will guarantee improvement, but the more students prepare for the SAT, the better they do on it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes Xiggi, that is exactly what I am saying. Take student X. She has taken the SAT twice and got the following results:
Test I: 700 v, 740 m
Test II: 750 v, 690 m</p>
<p>The only SAT record on student X in Michigan's admissions system would read 700v and 740 m (1440 combined). At Cornell, the record would show 750 v and 740 m (1490 combined). And since that's what the records show, that's what will be reported. Of course, in many cases, superscoring won't make a difference and in many other cases, superscoring can make a significant difference.</p>
<p>"Since the ACT is almost never supercored, the obvious parallels in the differences should burst that hot air balloon of superscores yielding such an advantage"</p>
<p>Glad you braught that up. The mean ACT score at Michigan is 29 and the mean ACT score at Cornell (and Brown) is 30. The mid 50% ACT range at Michigan is 27-31 and at Cornell is 28-32 (at Brown it is 27-33).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if that is exactly what your are saying, I'd suggest to delve a bit deeper in the reporting instructions of the Common Data Set. </p>
<p>Alexandre, I believe that you are confusing the admission criteria and the reporting process. Your confusion stems from thinking that scores are reported as 1440 or any combination of scores. The reality is that scores are reported INDIVIDUALLY and in your example there is no reason for the scores to be reported as you posted. </p>
<p>Case in point: "Test I: 700 v, 740 m and Test II: 750 v, 690 m" would be reported as 750 Verbal and 740 Math, and this at BOTH Michigan and Cornell. </p>
<p>Why would Michigan be the only school in the country that does NOT report its strongest scores. And, fwiw, how would they possibly decide to pick between the two scores in your example without MISREPORTING their Math or Verbal averages? </p>
<p>Again you are simply confusing the admission policy of using the highest scores on one sitting and reporting the scores correctly to the government and to the Common Data Set organization. </p>
<p>Fwiw, you also seem to have missed my point about the convergence of the ACT and the SAT. In my example, the ACT and the SAT both presented a similar difference between Michigan and Cornell (30 SAT points or 1 ACT point.) What this means is that the similarity of the difference confirms that the scores are reported in a similar fashion and that the stories of the different methods of **reporting **are as baseless as they are misleading. A true canard!</p>
<p>Sorry!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Peer assessment (weighting: 25 percent). The U.S. News ranking formula gives greatest weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school's undergraduate academic excellence. The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we consult-presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions-to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching. Each individual is asked to rate peer schools' academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that is why some of us find the stratospheric scores at universities where the stated dedication is RESEARCH so hard to reconcile, especially if teaching is vastly abdicated to an army of assistants with widely ranging levels of aptitude, teaching credentials, and oral skills in our language.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, the SAT is basically an IQ test and you can only study your way to the ceiling of your intellectual potential. If your potential is a 1350, you can under prepare and score a 1200, but you can never score over a 1350, no matter how much studying you do.
[/quote]
If you truly believe that SAT is a measure of your IQ ... then you must conclude that Asian American have higher quantitative IQ ...</p>
<p>Xiggi, you are the one who is confused. All universities keep records of just one verbal and one math score. The rest are not included in their records and therefore, not included in their CDS. Schools that don't superscore would report significantly lower SAT averages than schools that do superscore.</p>
<p>And I am not sure I understand your point about the ACT to SAT conversion. Michigan's mean SAT is 1320. Cornell's is 1400 and Brown's is 1430. And yet, somehow, the ACT averages between those three schools are virtually identical. </p>
<p>And you also forget the second part of the issue. Students at Cornell and Brown and any private university, prepare much, much, much, much harder for the ACT/SAT than do students at schools like Cal and Michigan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Xiggi, you are the one who is confused. All universities keep records of just one verbal and one math score.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All universities keep records of just one verbal and one math score.? Is that really so? And, again, how would Michigan decide which scores to "keep" in your example? Gordian knot, isn't it!</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you also forget the second part of the issue. Students at Cornell and Brown and any private university, prepare much, much, much, much harder for the ACT/SAT than do students at schools like Cal and Michigan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I did not forget that point; it was not relevant to mine that was merely addressing the mechanics of reporting of scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Reputation versus perception of reputation
[/quote]
PA measures reputation via factors that are important to the academics completing the survey. Sure, you can question the validity of the survey related to aspects you think may be more important for undergraduates. However, the only reason why you guys hate the PA is because it does not favor the universities that, in your perception, provide a "better undergraduate experience".</p>
<p>University professors are hired and achieve tenure based on the quality of their academic research. Only LACs and smaller, non-research oriented universities may hire professors because someone is a "great teacher". Academic research is more visible and is more respected among academics. Therefore, they will assign a higher PA value (i.e. more distinguished) according to the factors that make a university more distinguished to them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
especially if teaching is vastly abdicated to an army of assistants with widely ranging levels of aptitude, teaching credentials, and oral skills in our language
[/quote]
But you guys always say that the universities with the highest PA scores have more distinguished graduate school reputation, and that the grad students at these universities are the cream of the crop. So, now you're saying they're poor teachers? I thought Hawkette said you learn most from your high SAT scoring peers...well, the grad students at these universities are high SAT scoring peers.</p>