<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</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>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>
[quote]
a 30 point spread is huge in SAT terms
[/quote]
</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>
[quote]
that the USC freshmen class has eclipsed UCLA and Cal, and has done so for at least 5-10 years and continuing
[/quote]
</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>
[quote]
no one really buys that "superscoring" argument, which is based upon tons of unproven assumptions.
[/quote]
</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>