<p>In the meantime:</p>
<p>PA of Berkeley 4.7</p>
<p>PA of Michigan 4.5
PA of Duke 4.4</p>
<p>:-)</p>
<p>^ What are a few tenths of a point among friends? :p</p>
<p>Rjk forgot to read the title of this thread. That begs a good question: Would UMich still be in the top 30 without the PA score?</p>
<p>^^^Probably not. Then again it would still be ranked above Duke in every international poll.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet a 700 plus 700 is apparently enough to put you in the top 3/4 of the class at Princeton on that metric.</p>
<p>Look, I’m not the one “exalting” these scores. I’m merely responding to tk21769 who says we ought to exalt these scores in looking at where high-scoring applicants end up going. I’m merely pointing out that if we look at where high-scoring applicants go, the fact is huge numbers of them go to the top state flagships; more, in fact, than go to schools like Princeton which enroll but a precious few.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, a high-scoring Berkeley undergrad might or might not take that intro-level 100-person Poli Sci class, but whether she does or not, the high-scoring Berkeley undergrad is going to accelerate into upper-level classes very quickly and might very well end up in graduate-level classes alongside elite-level graduate students in one of the top political science departments in the world by the time she’s a junior and senior. But we’ve been over all this ground before. I’m responding to tk21769’s somewhat novel argument that we can tell which are the best schools by looking at where the top test-scorers enroll. And I’m pointing out that you can’t determine that by looking at SAT/ACT medians and averages, because in fact many of the schools that have very high SAT/ACT medians and averages actually enroll very very top test-scorers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not everyone at Princeton is an academic superstar. A quarter of Princeton’s entering class have sub-700 SAT CR scores. A quarter of Princeton’s entering class have sub-710 SAT M scores. If we buy xiggi’s argument that 700+ SAT scores are just not very impressive, then it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that a full quarter of Princeton’s entering class is academically just sub-impressive. They are not all academic superstars, not by a longshot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ummm . . . maybe because an overwhelming majority of UC Berkeley undergrads are California residents and a strong majority of Michigan undergrads are Michigan residents and as such they can attend an in-state public top-10 law school (UC Berkeley, Michigan) at a lower price (and less hassle, because they don’t need to relocate) than it would cost to attend a top private law school? I haven’t examined the stats, but I suspect an awful lot of Berkeley undergrads end up at Berkeley Law, and the same for Michigan grads at Michigan Law. Same for med school at Michigan; Michigan medical school takes a very large number of Michigan grads. Not sure about Berkeley on the med school front. And it shouldn’t be surprising that Michigan and Berkeley don’t send a lot of students to top MBA programs because they both offer outstanding BBA programs at the undergrad level that are pretty much carbon copies of what one would get in a top MBA program; I assume the students most interested in business self-select into BBAprograms as underrads and have no need for graduate-level MBA raining.</p>
<p>But there could also be differences in the interests of the undergrad students. Michigan’s common data set shows 16% of its bachelors degrees are in engineering, 10% in psychology, 8% in biosciences, 6% in business, 6% in visual and performing arts, 3% in computer science, 3% in math, 3% in health professions (I assume this is the nursing school), and 2% in education (the ed school). These are undergrad programs that traditionally aren’t big feeders to law schools; they represent well over half of Michigan’s undergrads. At Princeton, in contrast, the same majors represent about 1/3 of the bachelors degrees awarded, and a far higher percentage of undergrads major in fields like social sciences (27%), English (6%), history (6%), public affairs (6%), and philosophy (4%) that traditionally are big feeders to law schools because . . . well, frankly, because they don’t offer great employment prospects with a terminal BA.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Clinton, I am not sure what your statement is supposed to mean. Perhaps it is a weird use of the top 3/4 of the class? Perhaps a misreading of the statistics? </p>
<p>Either way a 700 plus 700 probably does NOT land a candidate ABOVE the 25th percentile, because most scores tend to be lopsided. Given the 75th percentile numbers, it would not unheard to see 700/790 or 800/710 scores.</p>
<p>I am certain about the nature of our argument. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I said was,
“In my opinion, admissions selectivity actually is one of the best metrics we have.”
That leaves open the question of how to express it in a way that best represents what we’re trying to assess.</p>
<p>Xiggi wrote:
</p>
<p>At Princeton? That’s counterintuitive. Princeton can have its pick of double-800 scoring apps; why would they stoop to taking “lopsided” scores at the 700 level?</p>
<p>Some people can be outstanding at certain things but only excellent at others. If you had an applicant who designed a predictive marketing algorithim, earned a 790 on math, but “only” a 690 on reading would you say that he’s less prepared to excell than someone who got two 800s on a test that has a relatively poor predictive ability.</p>
<p>They’d be a top candidate at 99% of the colleges in this or any other country. But, it doesn’t address the question of what “most” Princeton admits look like nor is a 690/790 score particularly lopsided in the larger scheme of things.</p>
<p>Admittedly, I skimmed this thread, but I haven’t seen anyone address the most glaring issue with the USNews ranking… that it does not contain a single metric on the success of their graduates… not one. </p>
<p>You can make all the analogies to car/truck manufacturers and their supply chains or manufacturing techniques that you want. But the bottom line on how that truck maker does is how well their trucks perform in the real world. Do they haul what is expected? Do their owners value them? How do they perform compared to trucks made by other truck makers? Will buyers pay a premium for them? How does their value change over time, compared to others? Etc, etc, etc…</p>
<p>This is addressed in some salary rankings, but those rankings completely miss the intangibles that USNews tries to address. </p>
<p>And a lot of things you guys are implying are “metrics” are actually subjective opinions. Just because someone may be experienced with an university and knows details about it, their assessment is still their subjective opinion. They are subjectively weighting things they know about the school, including biases they may not even be aware of, and presenting that as some sort of official and dependable value of the school, when it is not.</p>
<p>That data is actually valuable, but only as an element of a larger picture. Unfortunately, USNews feeds us that one element and makes believe it’s the only thing that should concern us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Spend enough time contributing to the SAT Prep forum, or talking to people who make a living tutoring students, and you will start to realize that the lopsided scores are the norm. For instance, many students, especially foreigners, have a difficult time to increase their reading scores meaningfully above 700. On the other hand, they find it quite easy to approach a perfect 800 on the Math section, and score very well on the formulaic Writing section. </p>
<p>However, regardless of the above, please understand that my point was not about the number of 800/700 but really about the fact that students who score around 700 on BOTH Math and Verbal are hardly shoo-ins at Princeton, and definitely in a worse position than a student who has a 790/800 to match a 700/710 score. </p>
<p>But I do not mind if you happen to disagree with my conclusions that are not based on idle speculation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The definition of success is probably dependent on who is doing the defining. I would guess most CC people would define success as getting top scores, going to top schools, getting the most prestigious jobs with the best pay possible. Most people however would define success as being a happy and productive member of society and a person’s community. On that scale, the elite schools would have no advantage whatsoever, maybe even a disadvantage. Top lawyers and doctors are generally miserable people. I’ve been around enough of both to know this is true, at least in my world.</p>
<p>Xiggi wrote:
</p>
<p>Again, you’'ve managed to avoid answering the question : How many of these lopsided Math scorers are getting into Princeton ?</p>
<p>+1 skiblack. You might want to use the happiness index or other measure besides pay. Does society really need another banker more than another good teacher?? Corporate lawyers over chefs?</p>
<p>Maiki and skiblack - see post # 70 (last paragraph), 73, and a few beyond that. The subject has not been overlooked, but you are most welcome to join the discussion.</p>
<p>[Best</a> Colleges Ranking Criteria and Weights - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/09/best-colleges-ranking-criteria-and-weights]Best”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/09/best-colleges-ranking-criteria-and-weights)</p>
<p>The PA score is one of many factors.
Selectivity is another. However, selectivity only counts for 12.5%.
Nevertheless, the top 20 would not look very different even if selectivity counted for 100%. Of the 23 national universities ranked in the top 20 (including 3 ties), only 3 would rank (slightly) outside the top 20 for selectivity alone.</p>
<p>Just as buyers with the most purchasing power bid up the prices of scarce, high-quality goods, students with the strongest credentials (after examining their many options) drive down the admit rates, and drive up the average stats, of what they conclude are the best colleges. Most of them understand that good outcomes depend largely on their own efforts. Still, they gravitate towards colleges with smaller classes, better-paid faculty, higher graduation rates, better aid, better facilities. Therefore, the composite of 3 selectivity factors usually is a pretty good proxy for the overall US News rank.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re assuming that they’re not attending those programs because they weren’t admitted to those programs, an assumption which you have no evidence for.</p>
<p>Those Cal, UMich, and UVA graduates might have been admitted to top law schools in high numbers too, but just decided to enroll at their own law schools because it was less expensive, they didn’t want to leave the area, etc. All of those universities have T14 schools, so it’s not too much of a stretch.</p>
<p>Also, there might just be biases against public university students. Or it could be because publics have lower grade inflation, etc.</p>
<p>Basically it could be a ton of reasons, it’s not necessarily because they’re not admitted to TLSs.</p>
<p>HYPS skim the cream. That’s why they do so much better in grad admissions. They aren’t educating students any better. Cal’s faculty and grad students match or exceed HYPS. Sure, the average SAT score of the class is lower because the class is a BIGGER cohort. </p>
<p>Higher SAT scores don’t relate to intelligence. They relate to higher incomes and more resources for coaching.</p>
<p>Well the reason people go to college is to get a really good job and make as much money as they can. So they should just make the rankings based on how much money students that graduated get after maybe 3 years. And what amount of them actually have jobs cause some won’t. And all colleges should have to do standardized tests and that would prove what colleges actually teach good. Schools and learning are weird. My one cousin has a masters degree and she is so geeky you can’t even talk to her and she doesn’t even make any money or work a real job. And my other aunt teaches at a really well know university and teaches grad students and she said the school wont let her give out lower then Cs. So basically if you fail every test and don’t go to any classes you get a C.
And the other problem I got with graduation rates is this. It doesn’t tell you that people dot a degree in what they wanted. So if you went to a university for engineering and switched to English then you still got a degree from the university but not what you went there for.
But the colleges that get good rankings from that magazine use that for their advertising. They are like yay we were # whatever and that makes us so good when it doesn’t really mean anything or not a lot.</p>