<p>
</p>
<p>IMO there is one other difference and its much more important than superscoring. UC purposely gives admission bonus points to low income, first gen kids; indeed, 33% of each campus are Pell Grantees. Since SAT scores correlate nicely with income, it is highly likely that the top UC campuses (Cal & UCLA) are negatively affecting their stats by admitting such applicants. (Not saying its a bad public policy, it just hurts in the USNews ranking.)</p>
<p>Many studies have been completed analyzing the predictive value of SATs for subsequent college success-which is the putative reason that colleges use SATs. In reality the best indicator of subsequent college success, is ability to sustain a steady high GPA.<br>
In other words, success in college is based on sustained steady performance. This is a US-wide (not just UC-wide) stat.</p>
<p>by accepting greater numbers of oos students who pay substantially higher fees, the UCs are trying to find ways to maintain and pay for the current level of education. Many UC faculty support greater numbers of oos students because it is hoped to reduce the rate of fee increases for in state students. At the same time, many UC faculty are concerned that the university stays focused on providing education accessible for in state students.</p>
<p>bluebayou:
By ‘only difference’ I was referring only to the published incoming average SAT score when used to compare to the same metric for other colleges - not any other admission criteria. Since the actual SAT scores are the same across the country and not subject to regional ‘inflation’ the only other difference when trying to compare one with another is when one college superscores and one doesn’t. Then the comparison isn’t apples to apples.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but I would submit that they only care about their own career prospects and pocketbooks – faculty are just not that altruistic. They don’t care where the money comes from – instate or out of state – as long as it comes.</p>
<p>U-dad: yeah, I get that. But AV dad was trying to say (I think) that the sub-1800 scores for admitted students with a 3.8 indicate grade inflation. While I totally concur that earning a B in a College Prep class ain’t that hard, my point was that UC purposely admits kids with low test scores, due to social factors, unrelated to gpa. For example, the Pell Grantees at Cal/UCLA are 2x that of UMich or 3-4 x the number at UVa.</p>
<p>bluebayou - Yes, I agree that the UCs pay attention to other factors besides just the test scores - social factors such as first gen colllege, single parent, etc.</p>
<p>To throw a few more numbers in here to put things in context, here are the average numbers for the top 2 UCs and the least selective 2 UCs since it’s hard to discuss the UCs as a single entity (the numbers are from fall 2009 admits) - </p>
<p>Campus: GPA - SAT
UCB: 4.15 - 2033
UCLA: 4.16 - 2010</p>
<p>UCR: 3.61 - 1666
UCM: 3.53 - 1623</p>
<p>Maybe I’ll poke around some other colleges’ websites to see if there’s a huge difference from the UCs between the GPA/SAT.</p>
<p>Good points bluebayou. </p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad: Personally if I was reviewing applications a 3.8+ GPA with a composite SAT of 1800 would be a red flag to me. The UC’s have their criteria, other schools have theirs. The UC’s aren’t the only schools that discount test scores. They also do a pretty good job with GPA weighting. There are plenty of high schools that add one point for honors and 2 points for AP’s. How many schools actually go to the trouble of recalculating GPA’s? UC does a good job of communicating their priorities and making it very clear where to put your effort to get in. At most schools it’s a “holistic” mystery. </p>
<p>Regarding superscoring, I haven’t seen any studies that show how much difference it makes. I know DS took the SAT 3 times and each successive sitting WAS his superscore. No difference whatsoever.</p>
<p>^^ On the superscoring, if the kid increased the scores in all 3 categories on each sitting then yes, superscoring would be the same as the regular score, but it’s not unusual for a kid to have one of the 3 components decrease in a subsequent sitting while the other components increase which is when they’d benefit. It’s a numbers game but it’s just important for people to understand what they’re looking at assuming they care about that stat.</p>
<p>bluebayou, I understand your frustration and skepticism. I have children that have completed college, but I still have college age children. One still in the UC system. I am also UC faculty.</p>
<p>And yes, some of us UC faculty are that altruistic (or that naive, if you prefer). We certainly do not teach at a university or at a UC for the salary. UCs pay less salary for similar levels of achievement and success than other universities. We are at a UC because of our teaching and research passion. We are at the UC for the incredibly high quality of students and faculty colleagues. </p>
<p>In addition, I bring in all the federal and private grant money that supports all of the students and staff in my lab. I bring in the grants that pay my salary (UC sets the level of my salary, but I fund that salary with grant support).</p>
<p>ParAlum:</p>
<p>Not frustrated all, but thank you for your concern.</p>
<p>But I did notice in your post a lack of any comment about instate tuition/fees/rates. Specifically you mentioned that you are at UC for teaching (some are, many are not) and research (a given at a research Uni), and incredible students and faculty. All of which is psychological as well as financial income == pocketbook issues.</p>
<p>My point, which your post reinforced, was that (high quality) students are (high quality) students, and faculty don’t care if they are in or OOS, as long as they are “high quality.” Moreover, faculty don’t care how much the students pay – nor should they, for that matter. As long as there is plenty of money to endulge in your “research passion” and that of your colleagues – not too many Lit faculty bring in big research bucks – you are good to go.</p>
<p>btw: not picking in faculty. I do think that the Legislature and Regents are derelict in their duty to the state, however. IMO, Merced is UC’s Field of Dreams, i.e., build it and they will come" as is the emphasis on OOS admissions.</p>
<p>AVHS Dad:</p>
<p>Okay, I found a couple of stats but it’s not comprehensive and only a sample size of 3 so not much of a comparison but -</p>
<p>UCLA (25/75 percentile on the SAT)
570/680
600/730
580/700
GPA 4.24</p>
<p>UVA
600/710
630/730
610/710
GPA 4.11</p>
<p>UMich
590/690
640/740
600/700
GPA 3.75</p>
<p>This sure indicates that the stated GPA of UCLA compared to UMich is higher for similar SAT scores which I think makes your point. UVA is closer to UCLA on how they state the GPA. So yes, the GPA needs to be considered in context. That doesn’t change the point of increasing selectivity or competetiveness criteria but it does mean that the GPA as stated at one college or system might not be equivalent to the GPA stated at another college. It doesn’t really mean that much since the different colleges are using different GPA criteria and the important point is that within a particular system that they be consistent from year to year if anything’s to be concluded about how the GPA scores of incoming students are rising.</p>
<p>Just reiterating that the UC method GPA calculation can really boost your GPA a lot! I had a 3.76 UW from a very competitive, well-known private school. However, my UC GPA soared over a 4.0! That is a BIG increase, IMO - just a combination of eliminating freshman grades and weighting classes makes a big difference. For example, there are some classes at my school that aren’t AP/honors, but they still receive more weight from the UCs because they have been deemed rigorous enough. There are all sorts of reasons why UC GPAs are so high. My SAT score was a 2280, FWIW.</p>
<p>Bluebayou,
you might be surprised by much of the dialogue ongoing in faculty academic senate meetings. Much of the faculty and much of the discussion is focused on maintaining accessibility for CA residents (which translates into minimizing fee increases). Faculty are often frustrated and feel at odds with administration and legislature. Plus, the faculty are as diverse in their opinions for solutions as the general CA voting public. </p>
<p>As an aside many of us faculty have real incentive as parents and CA residents to hoping fees stay low. Unlike most other state or private universities, our children pay the same fees as all other CA residents. There is no discount or preferential financial aid. As a parent of a large family, I very much feel the pain expressed by many on these posting.</p>
<p>so PA, if I understand correctly: faculty are concerned about “accessibility” for Cal residents but still support accepting more OOS kids? Isn’t that what is typically called ‘goal conflict’? What good does it do to keep fees low if Cal residents can only get into Merced? :)</p>
<p>btw: If I was a Regent, I would support free tuition for faculty brats.</p>
<p>some off the cuff comments:
in most UC’s >95% of the undergrads are CAL state residents. Since the legislature and regents aren’t finding ways other ways to keep tuition low and maintain same quality of education, the choice is maintain numbers of CAL state students as is but increase fees at a steep rate or to slightly decrease the numbers of CAL state students (won’t change much average GPA and scores required for state admittance and out of state GPA/scores for out of state are always higher than in state) and subsidize the cost of in state students with much higher out of state fee rates.</p>
<p>I think this is termed being between a rock and a hard place…</p>
<p>If there wasn’t a concern for in state accessibility, there really wouldn’t be any need to consider increasing out of state enrollees. The answer would be just to increase instate fees steeply-there is sufficient demand for enrollment. This latter answer is very disfavored among most UC faculty-as a group we tend to favor maintaining accessibility (translate: we favor finding any creative way to stem rate increases for in state resident students).</p>
<p>
According to the chart in this link UCLA and UCB are both in the top 10 (numbers 2 and 3) for prof salaries for public universities -</p>
<p>[Where</a> Professors Make the Most - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=“Where Professors Make the Most - The New York Times”>Where Professors Make the Most - The New York Times)</p>