US News 2009 Rankings Speculation Thread

College Search & Selection
141

<p>
[Quote]
To KyleDavid:</p>

<p>I admire your defense of your alma mater

[/Quote]

He goes to Berkeley's rival school...</p>

<p>
[Quote]
however, the stats you posted cannot be compared to USC and/or UCLA because USC, at least, has not yet published its SAT profile for the class of 2008. You compared Cal's 2008 class with USC's (and UCLA's) entering class of 2007. USC's admit SAT rate for this year is well over 2100, btw, but that does not count b/c it does not include matriculated students, and USC's classes do not begin for weeks.</p>

<p>That suggests that Cal's median score of 2060 is for admittees, not matriculatees, which is a huge difference (classes don't even begin until August 21, 2008, so Cal's published stats are misleading and unconfirmed).</p>

<p>We shall wait and compare notes later, after USC and UCLA have posted their 2008 statistics and you confirm that Cal's stats were for matriculated students ONLY.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>College</a> Search - University of California: Berkeley - Cal - SAT®, AP®, CLEP®
College</a> Search - University of California: Los Angeles - UCLA - SAT®, AP®, CLEP®
College</a> Search - University of Southern California - USC - SAT®, AP®, CLEP®</p>

<p>Note, all this data is for the class of 2011 from Collegeboard, perfectly comparable. So, Berkeley's SAT scores are higher than UCLA's on ALL sections (and top 25% and bottom 25%) by a margin of 20 pts per section. Berkeley's Top 25% is roughly equal to that of USC's (Berkeley wins on math by 20, USC wins on CR by 10, they tie on writing) and USC does have the upper hand (by 30 pts per section) on the Bottom 25%. HOWEVER, USC practices superscoring while Berkeley does not. Considering, as it stands that Berkeley and USC's median SATs are for all intents and purposes tied, this leads me to believe if Berkeley practiced superscoring the minute differences between the SAT scores at Berkeley and those at USC would be changed into a sizable advantage for Berkeley. Lastly, when you consider that Berkeley is considerably larger than USC, for Berkeley to still have the SAT advantage over USC is pretty remarkable. The only national research universities in California that have an SAT advantage over Berkeley are Stanford and Caltech.</p>

142

<p>
[quote]
Caillebotte:</p>

<p>Data coming in from this year will not be revealed in USNWR because it is 2008 information and USNWR's 2008 edition has data collected from 2006 so I believe the 43% increase will be reflected in the 2010 edition.</p>

<p>Believe me, Graduate and retention is given far more weight in USNWR than Selectivity.</p>

<p>The grand total of Selectivity is 15% and selectivity comprises 50% test scores of enrollees, 40% graduating in the top 10 percent, and 10% ratio of accepted students to applicants.</p>

<p>10% of 15% is 1.5%...which is kinda small when you think of the impact of graduation and retention (20%) has on USNWR ranking.

[/quote]

Ah my bad. Didn't know about the one year lag. Despite the fact that selectivity comprises only a small portion of the criteria, I still think U of C will rise.</p>

143

<p>Cervantes: I went to Stanford, and I think the "super" SAT argument is a red herring. The bottom line is, USC has eclipsed Berkeley and UCLA in terms of overall quality of entering freshmen, something I find remarkable but not too surprising given USC's focus on raising the bar. I would say that's been the case for at least 5 years. I think last year USC was 3rd after us and Harvard in total funds raised, incidentally.</p>

<p>Stanford also takes the highest composite SAT scores.... So at this juncture in time, we are first (followed by Cal Tech) and then USC, Berkeley, and UCLA in overall quality of entering freshmen.</p>

<p>Well done, USC; you guys did what I never thought possible. Well done, indeed.</p>

144

<p>I think that the rankings shouldn't be made so misleading when competition is so close. </p>

<p>Like why not go ahead and put... 1. HYP instead of being like "We got one slightly bad rec from a former janitor at H and they didn't send us cookies."</p>

145

<p>As an aside, there are several reasons why the SAT "superscoring" debate is a red herring:</p>

<p>First, statistics prove that taking the SAT multiple times does not appreciably increase one's scores; second, merely because any school, including Stanford or Harvard or USC, takes the highest composite score does not mean, ipso facto, that the applicants took the SAT several times; third, there is no way to determine precisely how many applicants to USC or Stanford took the SAT multiple times; and fourth, even assuming those applicants took the SAT multiple times, the median SAT spread between Cal and USC and Cal and Stanford (40 to 100 points in 2007) is just too wide to account for multiple test taking, given my first point above.</p>

146

<p>I hope that the rankings become more ironed out this year: I believe that a few, certain schools are underrated, while some others are overrated.</p>

<p>Let me explain: I think that Columbia is underrated, since it has academics on par with Yale, and it is located in Manhattan, which simply is a combo that's tough to beat. Many people seem to overlook the fact that New Haven is no New York, and one's college experience is just as much shaped by the city one finds oneself in as the institution one attends. Because no other city can even come close to the cultural and financial offerings of New York, such a factor ought to be taken into consideration. I also think that both Columbia and UChicago, with their extensive core curriculum courses, provide a stellar education for all students attending, which leads me to suggest that Penn is somewhat overrated and bolstered by Wharton's status.</p>

147

<p>Columbia is in NYC to the same sense that Astoria Queens is in NYC. In fact, it's considerably easier, quicker and safer to get to midtown or downtown from Astoria than from Morninside Heights/Harlem. None of the things that people come to NY for are in or around Columbia. No restaurants, no night life, no shopping, no cultural enrichment that is not provided by campus organizations. In short, it's far from everything and, it's dangerous and depressing. And you want to upgrade Columbia because it is in NY?</p>

148

<p>Can someone explain to me why these rankings matter so much? Does it affect applicant pools, selectivity...what? I mean, surely schools cannot change that much from year to year.</p>

149

<p>Caillebotte:</p>

<p>As for the Chicago discussion, do note that last year, Chicago's percentage of top 10% in HS rose by 3 percent. This year, it rose another 3 percent. Since this is worth 40% of the Selectivity rating, this is pretty significant.</p>

<p>Also, the $100 million donation will go toward undergrads, so it should count significantly under financial resources next year, if not this year.</p>

150

<p>I love how that poster up there said that Columbia should be ranked higher than Yale because it has as good academics and is in NY. And then went on to say that "one's college experience is just as much shaped by the city one finds oneself in as the institution one attends." As if the "institution one attends" (pretentious much?) is solely shaped by its academics and its academics alone. Extracurriculars do not exist. Student life does not exist. There is no such thing as fun. Except for in NYC. Fun is there. And Columbia is there. So obviously Columbia is fun.</p>

151

<p>
[quote]
First, statistics prove that taking the SAT multiple times does not appreciably increase one's scores

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I don't know which statistics you're looking at, but College Board's data indicated that to me.</p>

<p>
[quote]
second, merely because any school, including Stanford or Harvard or USC, takes the highest composite score does not mean, ipso facto, that the applicants took the SAT several times

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe over half of the students who take the SAT at least once take it twice (as per the College Board).</p>

<p>I daresay that most students (probably much more than half) applying at competitive colleges like Stanford and Harvard will have taken the SAT more than once. Of course, this is speculation; I don't think there's any precise data on this.</p>

<p>
[quote]
even assuming those applicants took the SAT multiple times, the median SAT spread between Cal and USC and Cal and Stanford (40 to 100 points in 2007) is just too wide to account for multiple test taking, given my first point above.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, the door swings both ways on that one. You have just shown (or attempted to argue) that none of it is certain; you have not shown, definitely, that the data would point toward your viewpoint, and so such a conclusion is not logical. For all we know, the uncollected data on these specific colleges could indicate that those multiple tests taken could account for the spread in the median SATs. Given your first point, it isn't logical, since your first premise is wrong. And even if it were true, it's a flawed point, since even if multiple sittings didn't improve the national average's scores, we don't know whether that's the case for those applying to competitive colleges such as Stanford, Harvard, Cal, USC, etc. or whether that's the case for those admitted, or whether that's the case for those who choose to attend.</p>

<p>I don't think this whole "superscoring issue" is a red herring at all--if it were so trivial, why would colleges do it? I think it's more than a little difference.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think that Columbia is underrated, since it has academics on par with Yale

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, plenty of schools have academics on par with Yale's...</p>

<p>
[quote]
it is located in Manhattan, which simply is a combo that's tough to beat.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, it's not. I personally would hate to go to school in Manhattan. With a ~70k/sq mile population density, Manhattan is one of the worst places to go to college IMO. Believe it or not, not everyone is dying to go to school in NYC. In fact, I know more people who don't want to than those who do.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because no other city can even come close to the cultural and financial offerings of New York, such a factor ought to be taken into consideration.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think it's more important to note how much "culture" a person can take in. There comes a point when there's far more that a person can conceivably do. And I can tell you this: San Francisco, "culturally inferior" to NYC, is more than enough for me.</p>

<p>Financial offerings? Not everyone's interested in that sector.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I also think that both Columbia and UChicago, with their extensive core curriculum courses, provide a stellar education for all students attending,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some students hate core curricula, so they don't apply. I don't think anyone's education is harmed by not having them. I know Columbia's and UChicago's cores really made me not want to apply. (And so I didn't.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
provide a stellar education for all students attending, which leads me to suggest that Penn is somewhat overrated and bolstered by Wharton's status.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A hop, a skip, and a jump in logic there. ;)</p>

152

<p>I have seen no credible studies that taking the SATs multiple times improves one's scores appreciably, certainly not of the magnitude that presently exists between the matriculants at Stanford and USC and Caltech vis-a-vis UCLA and Cal.</p>

<p>I am certain, however, if Cal's median SATs were higher, they would argue that "superscoring" is irrelevant. We all know, however, that this debate is largely Cal's own doing since in the aftermath of Prop 209, the UofC, in order to attract minorities (aside from Asians), must de-emphasize the SATs and emphasize GPAs. Now suddenly the SATs are irrelevant and overused, GPAs are more indicative of college performance, and we need to move away from standardized tests, blah, blah, blah. It's all very result-oriented for Cal's benefit politically, don't you agree? Fortunately, Stanford, USC, Virginia, all of the Ivies, Chicago, and virtually all other competive schools refuse to drink that Kool-aid.</p>

153

<p>
[quote]
None of the things that people come to NY for are in or around Columbia. No restaurants, no night life, no shopping, no cultural enrichment that is not provided by campus organizations. In short, it's far from everything and, it's dangerous and depressing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's really not that big a deal to catch the 1 downtown. No, Columbia isn't in the best part of Manhattan, but it's still in Manhattan. "Culture" is not that far away.</p>

154

<p>
[quote]
I have seen no credible studies that taking the SATs multiple times improves one's scores appreciably

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd link you to the College Board data, but I don't have it on hand. Perhaps someone else does.</p>

<p>
[quote]
certainly not of the magnitude that presently exists between the matriculants at Stanford and USC and Caltech vis-a-vis UCLA and Cal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And as I indicated before, you would need a study not on general SAT retaking, but on that at those schools you mention.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am certain, however, if Cal's median SATs were higher, they would argue that "superscoring" is irrelevant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For one, it's really petty to use such a tactic in a debate; not only does it fail to prove your point, but it stings of an ad hominem attack more than anything.</p>

<p>That, and your point doesn't make sense at all; if Cal's SAT median were "higher," they'd call it irrelevant? What? It would just make the SAT median higher, so they wouldn't.</p>

<p>Either way, according to Cal, for enrolled freshmen this year, the median SAT is a 2060. That's pretty damn good, I'd say.</p>

<p>
[quote]
We all know, however, that this debate is largely Cal's own doing since in the aftermath of Prop 209, the UofC, in order to attract minorities (aside from Asians), must de-emphasize the SATs and emphasize GPAs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What? Cal has always de-emphasized the SAT.</p>

<p>However, I have no idea where you're getting that it's de-emphasized GPAs. According to its CDS, GPA is rated "very important" (highest on the scale). The average UW GPA of entering students is a 3.9, and the average W GPA is a 4.4. ~95% had above a 3.75. How that is "de-emphasized," I don't know.</p>

<p>UCs have long held the philosophy that GPA is far more significant in predicting student success than the SAT is. That's why, in 2005, they nearly eliminated the SAT from UC's requirements (until the College Board beefed up the SAT significantly).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Now suddenly the SATs are irrelevant and overused, GPAs are more indicative of college performance, and we need to move away from standardized tests, blah, blah, blah.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know how this is "sudden"--it's been in place long before Prop 209.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's all very result-oriented for Cal's benefit politically, don't you agree? Fortunately, Stanford, USC, Virginia, all of the Ivies, Chicago, and virtually all other competive schools refuse to drink that Kool-aid.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Tbh, I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. (Once again, a hop, a skip, and a jump, don't you agree?)</p>

155

<p>As a New Yorker--and an alum of one of Columbia's grad schools--I completely disagree with mia305's assessment of the Morningside Heights area. </p>

<p>It's not as happening as downtown Manhattan, sure, but there are plenty of restaurants and bars. The Upper West Side (and I lump Morningside in with the UWS, which a lot of people do) is an incredibly lovely, mostly residential area filled with brownstones and unbeatable delis/bagel joints. (H&H!!)</p>

156

<p>Also, wouldn't you agree that Cal's median if you include superscoring would be higher than that of Cal's without? It must be! And Cal's median (without superscoring) is 2010 while USC's with superscoring is 2040. (All this available from Collegeboard's last year data) If you think superscoring won't change 30 points you haven't taken the SAT's in awhile. In addition no one is arguing that Cal's SAT scores are higher than Stanford's or Caltech's. Indeed Caltech beats Stanford by at least 70 points and Stanford beats Cal by at least 100. Oh and Stanford and Caltech, as almost all top national universities, superscore.</p>

157

<p>^^Yeah, mia305: How is it dangerous to walk about 20 feet from the Columbia campus get on the subway and take one train straight to downtown NY??? Saying that it is dangerous is laughable.
Also, Morningside Heights is not that bad of an area. A lot of bookstores, coffee places, restaurants, stores, and Van Cortlandt park is great. </p>

<p>It only gets sketchy if you get off at 125th instead of 116th... And there is not much going on farther down than around 105th for a while. Besides that, it's a nice area.</p>

158

<p>Can someone explain to me why these rankings matter so much? Does it affect applicant pools, selectivity...what? I mean, surely schools cannot change that much from year to year.</p>

<p>They may not matter so much but they're fun to read and speculate about. Live with it.</p>

159

<p>You keep stating that Cal's entering classes, which don't begin until this Thursday, have a median SAT score (total) of 2060, yet we all know that this does not include those who will actually matriculate; i.e., show up, enroll, and actually remain until a few weeks into the academic year until the full shakeout is determined (including drop outs and those who end up elsewhere). Let's see what the other schools, including UCLA, Stanford and USC, publish as their matriculating 2009 freshman classes and then we can continue debating.</p>

160

<p>Cervantes, a 30 point spread is huge in SAT terms, and you guys just cannot admit or fathom the fact that the USC freshmen class has eclipsed UCLA and Cal, and has done so for at least 5-10 years and continuing; and no one really buys that "superscoring" argument, which is based upon tons of unproven assumptions. USC is closing the gap with my alma mater, to be sure. There comes a point where you just have to live and let live. I understand it hurts, but hey, that's the breaks, so that old disco song goes....</p>