US News 2009 Rankings Speculation Thread

[kyledavid80]

<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

</p>

<p>Those who sent in their SIRs had a median SAT score of 2060. Notice that this says “Fall 2008 Freshman Profile”:</p>

<p><a href=“http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp[/url]”>http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>By the way, Cal has about a 98% retention rate. That 2% is negligible in determining medians and averages. And even if it were significant, those who drop out are typically those who weren’t up to par anyway, so Berkeley’s median/average would actually rise if the weaker students dropped out. In other words, your claim is working against your argument. ;)</p>

<p>

a 30 point spread is huge in SAT terms

</p>

<p>Haha, what? 30 points? You’ve gotta be kidding me… Caltech’s median SAT (2250) is about 30 points above Princeton’s (2220). Is that still huge?</p>

<p>

that the USC freshmen class has eclipsed UCLA and Cal, and has done so for at least 5-10 years and continuing

</p>

<p>“Eclipsed”? How is 30 points “eclipsing”? Cal still has higher averages, and it always has.</p>

<p>I also find it funny that you say 10 years, since 10 years ago, USC wasn’t even ranked in the top 40.</p>

<p>

no one really buys that “superscoring” argument, which is based upon tons of unproven assumptions.

</p>

<p>“No one”? Plenty do. And your arguments are largely unproven, too. (30 points significant? Eclipsing UCLA and Cal? What?)</p>

<p>Cal still beats USC in pretty much every measure (faculty, student quality, class sizes, library holdings, etc.). UCLA is more comparable, and USC definitely doesn’t “eclipse” UCLA, either.</p>

[toledo]

<p>Let me be the first to predict Ohio State will move up a notch or two, even though I’m not a big fan of the school.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

Cal still beats USC in pretty much every measure (faculty…

Berkeley faculty vs. USC faculty:
National Academy of Science Members:
Berkeley: 130
USC:10</p>

<p>National Academy of Engineering Members:
Berkeley: 85
USC: 20</p>

<p>Current Nobel Prize Winners:
Berkeley: 7
USC: 1</p>

[TeamUp]

<p>That Cal refuses to admit USC is harder to get into nowadays, regardless of your graduate schools, Nobels, etc. Stanford, btw eclipses both schools, but you have to admit there is no appreciable difference among the student bodies at Cal, USC or UCLA…</p>

[Cervantes]

<p>Of course there’s no appreciable difference among the student bodies at Cal, USC or UCLA. That would be like saying Columbia’s students are better than Penn’s students which are better than Dartmouth’s students. It would be ridiculous. I’m not 100% sure which is harder to get into these days, but I’d vouch that most kids in the top 10% of their class who got into USC would get into Berkeley and most kids who scored above a 1900 on their SAT who got into Berkeley would get into USC. They may be more selective for different applicants, a kid with a higher SAT and a lower GPA would stand a greater chance at USC than Berkeley and a kid with the reverse would stand a greater chance at Berkeley than at USC. In addition, one must account for the different colleges at both universities. Though, all things being equal, they are about tied in selectivity.</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>^^ I agree with most of what you said, but since Berkeley has higher average SATs, I wouldn’t say that a student with low SAT and high GPA is more likely to get in.</p>

<p>Not to mention USC gives preference to legacies and practices AA, whereas Berkeley does neither. The differences in athletic recruitment also make their admissions differ.</p>

<p>

That Cal refuses to admit USC is harder to get into nowadays, regardless of your graduate schools, Nobels, etc.

</p>

<p>What do you mean “Cal refuses”? It’s just a few people, some with no Berkeley affiliation, pointing out the obviously wrong statement that USC is harder to get into than Berkeley. (And what does grad school have to do with this? Everyone knows Berkeley’s way harder to get into than USC for grad school…)</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>Shouldn’t the differences in average GPA for UCLA/UCB and USC factor into selectivity?</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>I don’t have exact GPA’s but…</p>

<p>Berkeley: 93% had h.s. GPA of 3.75 and higher
UCLA: 91% had h.s. GPA of 3.75 and higher
USC: 53% had h.s. GPA of 3.75 and higher</p>

<p>Berkeley: 98% in top 10th of graduating class
UCLA: 97% in top 10th of graduating class
USC: 86% in top 10th of graduating class</p>

<p>These numbers are all from the college board’s website.</p>

[kartrider360]

<p>collegeboard doesn’t really update their info though…</p>

[juliushark]

<p>when are these rankings coming out?</p>

[phurley93]

<p>i heard that they come out online on the 22nd</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>

collegeboard doesn’t really update their info though…

</p>

<p>It does, but it lags by one year. I doubt the stats are drastically different for this year.</p>

[TeamUp]

<p>Interesting you mention USC uses AA, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard that. I’m not certain you are correct or are just presuming that, lol. On the other hand, isn’t Cal’s emphasis on GPAs its end run around the SATs, now that Prop 209 is in effect? Arguably, the focus on GPAs is the easy way to avoid the AA debate, since we all know you can get a perfect GPA at many, many lousy public schools in Calif. The SATs are a more objective measure of selectivity, IMO. BTW, I believe Stanford does use AA, and has done so for decades.</p>

[mia305]

<p>reversepsych: Tell the kids that get killed each year in attempted muggings that it’s not dangerous. Yes, it happened again this year. And, if you think morningside heights is what manhattan is all about you know nothing about manhattan. However you are very close to the GW/ New Jersey and the Bronx, so enjoy. /s/ a fifteen - year resident of the upper east and west sides.</p>

[Cervantes]

<p>USC uses AA as do almost all the selective private schools in the nation save Caltech.</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>

Interesting you mention USC uses AA, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard that. I’m not certain you are correct or are just presuming that, lol.

</p>

<p>See this:</p>

<p>

This university is also firmly committed to complying with all applicable laws and governmental regulations at the federal, state, and local levels … which mandate that special consideration be given on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, Vietnam veteran status, disability, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic which may from time to time be specified in such laws and regulations.

</p>

<p>In other words: “Yeah, we practice affirmative action.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://policies.usc.edu/policies/equalopp120198.pdf[/url]”>http://policies.usc.edu/policies/equalopp120198.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

On the other hand, isn’t Cal’s emphasis on GPAs its end run around the SATs, now that Prop 209 is in effect?

</p>

<p>What? No, Cal has had an emphasis on GPA for a long time, since it knows that it’s much more predictive of potential success than any other measure. This is the general philosophy of public universities…</p>

<p>

Arguably, the focus on GPAs is the easy way to avoid the AA debate

</p>

<p>To avoid the AA debate, Cal emphasizes “context”–the environment in which a student has grown up. This puts more of an emphasis on socioeconomic status, which is often (but not always) a proxy for race.</p>

<p>GPA has nothing to do with it. You’re grasping at anything to support your frivolous argument.</p>

<p>

since we all know you can get a perfect GPA at many, many lousy public schools in Calif.

</p>

<p>Funny thing, since as important to Cal as GPA is the rigor of the course load–including AP, IB, and honors classes, which up the rigor and difficulty of obtaining said “perfect GPA” even at a lousy public school.</p>

<p>By the way, USC also draws heavily from those lousy public schools. In fact, I’d say it draws more heavily on them than Berkeley does, since USC draws many students from inner-city public schools in LA.</p>

<p>Oh wait, no it doesn’t–rich legacies are preferred. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

BTW, I believe Stanford does use AA, and has done so for decades.

</p>

<p>That’s true. What’s your point? Sounds like an appeal to authority argument. FWIW, Stanford generally gets first dibs (as well as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and MIT) on the top URMs. USC and Cal generally get the others. This isn’t to say you want find amazing URMs at USC and Cal–it’s just typically that they choose HYPSM over those two. (I have a Hispanic friend who just chose Cal over Harvard and Yale, though.)</p>

[DonnaL]

<p>I assume people know that the 2009 edition is on sale at newsstands today, at least in New York City?</p>

[Cervantes]

<p>

Funny thing, since as important to Cal as GPA is the rigor of the course load–including AP, IB, and honors classes, which up the rigor and difficulty of obtaining said “perfect GPA” even at a lousy public school.</p>

<p>By the way, USC also draws heavily from those lousy public schools. In fact, I’d say it draws more heavily on them than Berkeley does, since USC draws many students from inner-city public schools in LA.</p>

<p>Oh wait, no it doesn’t–rich legacies are preferred.

</p>

<p>What about the girl in Stand and Deliver who had an interview at USC for a scholarship?? </p>

[foldedpaper]

<p>can someone post the rankings please?</p>

[DonnaL]

<p>I posted the top 25 national universities and liberal arts colleges in another thread, at <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/553348-usnwr-rankings-out-friday-august-22-2009-all-ranking-obsessed-out-there-4.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/553348-usnwr-rankings-out-friday-august-22-2009-all-ranking-obsessed-out-there-4.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;