<p>"Affirmative Action is probably the only reason he got into Duke"</p>
<p>Asians really don't count.</p>
<p>Our hearts will ever yearn
For the Purple banner waving high
For Northwestern</p>
<p>.... :rolleyes:</p>
<p>^Yeah, Duke Cornell and most elites have lots of ORMs</p>
<p>Duke is only 50% white...20something% Asian...Asian would hardly</p>
<p>barrons -
[quote]
It has been pretty well proven that SAT scores are not a good predictor of college or later success and more reflective of family income than anything else yet people here worship SAT scores by school. Hmmmmmmmm. What is the real excrement?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Otoh, it is a good indicator of how well a student understands concepts and in his/her ability to problem solve.</p>
<p>And yes, while having economic means may help a 1300 scorer get a 1380 or a 1440 scorer get a 1490 its not going to make a 1250 scorer into a 1460 scorer.</p>
<p>Plus, there are many immigrants (who range from low-income to working class to middle class) who do quite well on the SATs (more of a reflection on the importance of education or parents education level than family income).</p>
<p>prestige -
[quote]
GPA, SAT, class rank. Give me standard, objective measures over subjective measures like the PA anytime.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>GPA and class rank arent necessarily the best measures either since those measures can vary widely from school to school or from class to class.</p>
<p>Texas and other states which have guaranteed admittance to applicants in the top 10% of their class have found that such a policy has resulted in too many students who are not ready for college-level classes (esp. at the state flagship institutions).</p>
<p>As for GPA, students can opt for easy As in lower level classes (rather than taking the higher level class where the grading and competition is tougher).</p>
<p>(Hmmm why do I find myself repeating this stuff ?)</p>
<p>alexandre
[quote]
But State universities do not rely as heavily on SAT scores as private universities do, which means that many students who attend state universities do not prepare nearly as diligently for the SAT as students who attend private universities. I personally prepared a great deal for the SAT. Most of my friends who attended private universities alslo prepared a great deal (many of us even took prep courses) for the SAT. Almost all of us took the SAT several times, each time focusing on a particular section of the test in order to enhance our SAT superscore. On the other hand, most students I knew at the public university I attended never took any prep courses for the SAT and sat for the SAT just once. They knew before their college search began than they were going to attend one of the state schools in the state. They knew that the primary determinent would be their GPA. As such, they really did not sweat the SAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>alex I dont understand why you keep repeating such things (well, actually I do ).</p>
<p>SAT scores are actually more important to state universities, comparatively, than the top private universities.</p>
<p>First of all, the top private universities can fill their classes with top scorers but they dont since they take more time to look at essays, ECs, the difficulty level of school and program/classes, etc.</p>
<p>State schools have WAY too many applicants for them to look as closely at each applicant as the smaller privates do which is why most state schools use a points system (for instance, while Mich. only gives an extra point to an applicant who has an SAT score in the top range, Mich. also only gives a point for an applicant who has stellar essays).</p>
<p>Second The reason why the typical applicant to state school doesnt prepare as much for the SAT (or ACT) is that they dont endeavor to simply b/c they dont think they have to in order to gain admittance into their state school (thinking that a 1280 will guarantee them admittance).</p>
<p>While this may have been true for many state schools (Cal, UVA, UCLA and Mich. were probably the exception esp. for out of state students), things are changing as competition for gaining entrance into the state flagship universities gets more intense. Student and parents are now shocked for having gotten rejected from State U with a 1280. Theres a reason why SAT scores have increased at places like Illinois.</p>
<p>Third state schools, esp. those who are looking to move up the rankings (like Florida) do care about the SATs (which is why they have been pouring $$ into their honors programs and offer an increasing amount of merit aid).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Emory is good at Biology, Chemistry, Economics, Business, Law and Jewish Studies. We're also good at providing students with an excellent level of education featuring a gorgeous campus, in a beautiful location with excellent professors (including Jimmy Carter, Salman Rushdie, the Dalai Lama, Frans de Waal as well as many professors highly distinguished in their fields).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>pugachev Emory is a fine institution and I hardly care to get into an argument of which school is better since better is all relative (and at this level the differences arent so great).</p>
<p>And while Im sure Emory has very good programs in the areas that you have listed NU has top 10 or so programs in those areas (except for Bio and Jewish Studies) and in most of the other programs that kk listed (some of which are in the top 5 or top 1-2).</p>
<p>Usually, the programs that are best known are those in or around the top 10 (if not the top 5).</p>
<p>I appreciate K&s's posts, always logical and without being offensive.</p>
<p>Actually the UC system and the UW put much less weight on test scores than other factors. The sad schools that are trying to game the system are just trying to fool young people. They lack the quality faculty and other resources to back it up.</p>
<p>Right - that's why UC schools (not to mention Mich, UVA, UNC, etc.) just happen to have the highest test scores. lol!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually the UC system and the UW put much less weight on test scores than other factors
[/quote]
</p>
<p>O RLY?</p>
<p>UCLA:
"Rigor: Very Important
Class Rank: Not Considered
Academic GPA: Very Important
Standardized Test Scores: Very Important
Essay: Very Important
Recs: Not Considered"</p>
<p>UCSD:
"Rigor: Very Important
Class Rank: Not Considered
Academic GPA: Very Important
Standardized Test Scores: Very Important
Essay: Very Important
Recs: Not Considered"</p>
<p>
[quote]
O RLY?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NO WAI.</p>
<p>That had to be said.</p>
<p>This thread = 155.</p>
<p>
pugachev Emory is a fine institution and I hardly care to get into an argument of which school is better since better is all relative (and at this level the differences arent so great).</p>
<p>And while Im sure Emory has very good programs in the areas that you have listed NU has top 10 or so programs in those areas (except for Bio and Jewish Studies) and in most of the other programs that kk listed (some of which are in the top 5 or top 1-2).</p>
<p>Usually, the programs that are best known are those in or around the top 10 (if not the top 5).
I can't really make it much more clear that I was never arguing whether Emory or Northwestern is better. In fact, I think I've written that 3 times. The argument began with a Northwestern student saying any school outside the top 25 isn't worth ranking. I informed him that I analyzed his argument and rejected it thinking he may heed the overwhelmingly negative response to his post. Things unfolded from there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
SAT scores are actually more important to state universities, comparatively, than the top private universities (post #405).
[/quote]
Really? How do you explain the old Michigan UG admissions point system (practised until 2003):</p>
<p>1) Points awarded for SAT I test score:
1360-1600 (12 points)
1200-1350 (11 points)
1010-1190 (10 points)</p>
<p>2) Points awarded for GPA:
4.0 (80 points)
3.8 (76 points)
3.5 (70 points)</p>
<p>3) Curriculum factor:
Difficulty level=4 (8 points)
Difficulty level=3 (6 points)
Difficulty level=-1 (-2 points)</p>
<p>
[quote]
And yes, while having economic means may help a 1300 scorer get a 1380 or a 1440 scorer get a 1490 its not going to make a 1250 scorer into a 1460 scorer. (post #405)
[/quote]
Taken straight from the Kaplan website:
"Score Improvement - Kaplan students' scores improved an average of 240 points."</p>
<p>I know some private tuitors who promised more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Taken straight from the Kaplan website:
"Score Improvement - Kaplan students' scores improved an average of 240 points."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The question is, what was the average score these students began with? This is pure marketing, and you know it.</p>
<p>I think what needs to be said though is that if you don't make a 2200 or something after 3 tries, you're not going to make a 2200 on your 4th attempt.</p>
<p>i have no basis for any of this besides my own guesses and desires, so don't even bother asking why or challenging it. i know it's bs, but it's just cause i want to see how off/right i am.</p>
<ol>
<li>harvard</li>
<li>princeton</li>
<li>stanford</li>
<li>yale</li>
<li>cit / mit</li>
<li>upenn</li>
<li>duke</li>
<li>columbia.</li>
<li>dartmouth</li>
<li>uchicago</li>
<li>cornell</li>
<li>northwestern</li>
<li>brown / washU</li>
<li>jhu</li>
<li>rice / emory</li>
<li>vanderbilt</li>
<li>berkeley</li>
<li>carnegie mellon</li>
<li>georgetown</li>
<li>notre dame</li>
</ol>
<p>I know it's all marketing... and I believe prep courses are just a waste of time and money.</p>
<p>However, I do know a couple students who improved from low 1900s to high 2100s (1500 CR+M) last year. Some people just need to be shown the way.</p>
<p>Yes really--it's on it's way and the recent drop of average scores at all the UC campuses when other schools are going up is proof.</p>
<p>In a new study, Jesse M. Rothstein, an assistant professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, explores those questions in an effort to determine the SAT's usefulness to colleges in the admissions process. Among his findings is that the SAT's ability to predict a student's freshman grades is highly sensitive to that student's background.</p>
<p>He concludes that the SAT has less predictive value as an admissions tool than many previous studies have suggested. In past evaluations of the SAT as a predictor of college performance, for instance, the test explained 5.6 percent more of the variation in student's freshman grades than did high-school grades alone.</p>
<p>Yet in Mr. Rothstein's study, the figure dropped to 2.7 percent after students' backgrounds were taken into account.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the recent drop of average scores at all the UC campuses when other schools are going up is proof.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>how is that proof that they devalue SAT scores? all that means is that they're getting worse applicants or losing cross-admit battles with other schools. Penn's SAT average went down this year, too, does that mean the de-emphasized SAT scores? please don't try and construe something as proof that is clearly not.</p>
<p>the only "proof" that is available is the common data sets i posted that clearly indicate they value SAT scores very much, in the most important admissions category.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the only "proof" that is available is the common data sets i posted that clearly indicate they value SAT scores very much, in the most important admissions category.
[/quote]
So you agree that the UCs highly value the essays and consider them as important as GPA and academic curriculum ... that UC admissions are truly holistic?</p>
<p>^^ yes, according to the common data set UCLA and UCSD consider rigor, GPA, test scores, and essay all equally in considering an application. i don't remember ever arguing otherwise?</p>
<p>in fact, outside of recommendations and class rank it appears their admissions considerations closely mirror that of many top privates, when comparing common data sets.</p>