<p>jags861: Though California's primary education ranks very low when taken as a whole, consider both that California is the most populous state and, partially as a result, California's schools run the gamut from very weak to very strong. Most Cal's admits come from the very strong, anyway.</p>
<p>morsvenit,</p>
<p>yes i do understand that there is a big spectrum of good and bad in california - HOWEVER - i'm pretty sure every university of california campus has at least 95% of its undergrad population in the top 10%. The schools arn't small. Obviously there are people who go to crappy schools who are in the top 10% at one of the numerous uc campuses - including berkeley.</p>
<p>I have lived in Virginia. Outside NOVA it's pretty rural and backward.</p>
<p>Barrons, no love for Richmond or Virginia Beach? :( I'm glad to see that you believe all of Virginia, and by extension UVA, is full of hicks, rednecks, and ignorant countryfolk. Generalizations are always a good idea.</p>
<p>PS. We send the hicks to Blacksburg, to go to VT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
while you may argue then that cal has 99% of its undergraduate class in the top 10% - one could also argue that california has one of the weakest primary education system in the country - while virginia has one of the best.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You could very well argue that, but I would ask you this- how many of the kids at the best UCs, especially Berkeley and UCLA, are coming from the worst, even the slightly below average public schools in CA? Not that many compared to the above average to great ones (such as schools that send 30-60 per year).</p>
<p>Could you show some reputable UVa data about the SAT scores? I can't find anything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if you go by sakky's view, then uva has a more talented undergraduate body than cal, 25-75% sats are 60 and 40 points higher respectively.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't recall sakky's ever saying that UVa has a more talented undergraduate body than Berkeley's. Here are the 25 - 75% SATs, from both school's most recent common data sets (the data the schools themselves publish), 2005-2006:</p>
<p>UVa: 1220 - 1430
Berkeley: 1220 - 1450</p>
<p>Also, keep two things in mind that skew the SATs in favor of UVa:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Berkeley takes in nearly twice as many students, so the average SAT is bound to go down a little.</p></li>
<li><p>Berkeley takes the best ONE SITTING score while UVa takes your best COMBINED score.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Now, on another thread I was made aware of this link:</p>
<p>Which reports UVa's 25 - 75% as 1280 - 1490. I'm not sure why there is a discrepancy. The simplest explanation seems to be that the mid 50% SAT rose sharply from the entering 2005 class to the entering 2006 class. But I have not found data for the 25 - 75% SAT score of Berkeley's 2006 class so until someone posts it here the fairest comparison would be Berkeley's 2005-2006 CDS and UVa's 2005-2006 CDS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
while you may argue then that cal has 99% of its undergraduate class in the top 10% - one could also argue that california has one of the weakest primary education system in the country - while virginia has one of the best.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhh, when I argue that Berkeley has 99% of its undergraduate class in the top 10%, that's fact. It's a reported statistic. I have not seen anything that says California has the weakest primary education system in the country, or that Virginia has one of the best. Please provide a link to something that would suggest this.</p>
<p>Besides, the population of California is much larger than that of Virginia, so Berkeley can take more top students, EVEN IF California does not have as many top students as Virginia in terms of percentage only.</p>
<p>
[quote]
oh and while i won't argue that uva's faculty is "worse" than cals - even though i believe that professors at uva or at cal (or at almost any school) can more than adequately teach any class in the undergraduate curriculum to a level at or above their students' level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So can the professors at Virginia Western Community College. So now are you going to say that the faculty at Virginia Western Community College isn't worse than the faculty at the University of Virignia?</p>
<p>
[quote]
oh and overall resource wise, uva's endowment is larger on a whole - and nearly 3x larger than the student/endowment ratio of cals (about 175000/student vs about 61000/student).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, you're right about this. UVa does have a larger endowment, and larger endowment per student. This is a valid point. I'm just going to say that more endowment doesn't necessarily mean better education. No one is going to argue that Harvard offers five times the education that Columbia does, or that Yale offers eight times the education of Berkeley.</p>
<p>Anyway, I do think there are some things UVa do better than Berkeley, but not the ones you pointed out.</p>
<p>The first US News poll was based on a simple question: "list the top ten universities, and the top ten colleges." The university with the most mentions (Stanford) won.</p>
<p>I remember the president of Stanford pointing out how absurd it was that anyone would have left Harvard off the list of top ten universities.</p>
<p>Still, the issue sold well, and turned into an annual money-maker for US News. The criteria have grown progressively more elaborate since that time, and are subject to change radically from year to year; hence Cal Tech's inconsistent rating.</p>
<p>Institutions of this size and caliber don't change much from year to year.</p>
<p>The rankings are consistent for schools within the top 10 and within the top 20 etc. as in schools in these ranges don't usually change, just move up and down within each group...and the US News inputs into the formula have been changed a bit since 1990 I think, which would explain how certain schools get screwed (publics)</p>
<p>UVa gets one quarter the state funding that UCB does so that would offset any advantage in the money from endowment. It also earns much more off of research funding for general uses--about twice as much. UVa gets more in tuition due mostly to the heavy OOS enrollment (which helps make up for the poor state funding)</p>
<p>viccisstudes-</p>
<p>I don't really have time to go digging through a million websites. BUT i will reference some peoples statements on this website which i take to be true.</p>
<p>according to my stats on the UVa admissions website, (and i think we've gone through this before, but maybe a different thread) UVa's 25-75 SATs are 1280 - 1490. <a href="http://www.virginia.edu/undergradadmission/profile.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.virginia.edu/undergradadmission/profile.html</a></p>
<p>Im sorry cal hasn't posted its 2006 sats yet - they should get on it,</p>
<p>According to Alexandre "all state universities (including Michigan, UIUC, UVA and Wisconsin) use the "single sitting method" to compute SAT averages, which really hurts them in the rankings." - <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=217087&page=5%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=217087&page=5</a></p>
<p>Also, I'm aware berkeley accepts nearly 2x as many applicants as UVa, but it also has more than 2x as many applications - so that should negate the problem of having "more students, lower sats".</p>
<p>When I was referencing sakky, I was merely stating that if you go by his POV that having a more talented student body makes for a better school - then UVa has a more talented student body - at least with regards to the SATs. </p>
<p>Education wise -
virginia - 7, california - 46</p>
<p><a href="http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm</a> - methodology based off of this book. <a href="http://www.morganquitno.com/booksinfoED.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.morganquitno.com/booksinfoED.htm</a></p>
<p>Also, I would say that a teacher from western virginia polytech school or whatever has the knowledge to teach all the undergrads whatever they need to know. Obviously there are more distinguished faculties out there, BUT it doesn't change the fact that a professor has a ph.d. - and therefore is more qualified than any of his students. When looking at similar schools - a more distinguished faculty isn't necessarily a "better" one...especially when looking at schools like uva, cal, michigan, wisconsin, unc, etc.</p>
<p>vici:</p>
<p>IMO, the reason that Cal's SAT scores are lower than other top Unis is related to the fact that they accept ~33% low income kids, in contrast to UVa, which recently was only 6%. And, regardless of your opinion of the SAT, scores are clearly directly correlated with income. If you could adjust for the Pell Grantees at each school, Cal's stats would climb, significantly; Sakky has opined about the bottom of the class for a long time. Thus, while the total school range maybe lower, I would submit that the top 25% is significantly higher.</p>
<p>Jags: perhaps Alexandre was incorrect on the single sitting. According to UVa's website: "We use the highest score on each part of the SAT I and the highest composite score on the ACT."</p>
<p>"2. Berkeley takes the best ONE SITTING score while UVa takes your best COMBINED score."</p>
<p>On the profile of UVa admission website, UVa takes combined score. But it's the single sitting score on US.News. on this link, UVA's database (<a href="http://www.web.virginia.edu/IAAS/data_catalog/institutional/cds/current/admissions.htm#current)%5B/url%5D">http://www.web.virginia.edu/IAAS/data_catalog/institutional/cds/current/admissions.htm#current)</a>, UVa didn't say they used the best of each section. UVa says they use the best of each section on the newest data though.</p>
<p>Berkeley's undergraduate education is not superior to that of UVa in any way, UVa's undergraduate education is not superior to that of Berkeley either. They are very different schools. Tons of UVa kids would be feeling MISERABLE if they go to Berkeley, and vice versa. The two schools attract two different kinds of people. Decision should be based on fit.</p>
<p>I hope Cal posts it's new stats on SAT soon. </p>
<p>BTW, though everyone can bash W&M's graduate schools, even Barron once ranked W&M for the best for a public undergraduate education. And here on this forum, we are talking about undergraduate education.</p>
<p>infighting among the publics! <em>goes to grab popcorn</em></p>
<p>i like how ohio fell 11 spots in 1 year on that link that jags861 gave for the smartest state....i guess some really stupid people moved there...shows the credibility of the survey.</p>
<p>actually dvlfnfv5, the methodology is listed on the page.</p>
<p>as you can see, even a simple thing such as a budget cut could significantly alter a states ranking by adversly affecting nearly every factor in the methodology. Therefore, it is quite easy for statewide changes in ranking year by year. california's budget crisis seems to be a very strong indicator on why california would be at the bottem of the list.</p>
<p>Bottom of the top 25 list, jags861, or bottom of the full list? Anyway, one thing to keep in mind is non-state funding as well, which significantly changes overall funding. I also think Berkeley's descent started long before any sort of budget crisis in the state of California.</p>
<p>california's statewide k-12 education system was ranked 46/50 for the most recent year the study was done. 50 being the worst.</p>
<p>Like I've said in another thread, who's going to Berkeley (and UCLA), the kids at the worst schools, or the average, better, and best? Search through my post for a more ellaborate response (about yesterday).</p>
<p>Oh wait, it's post #105 on this very thread!</p>
<p>
[quote]
You could very well argue that, but I would ask you this- how many of the kids at the best UCs, especially Berkeley and UCLA, are coming from the worst, even the slightly below average public schools in CA? Not that many compared to the above average to great ones (such as schools that send 30-60 per year).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In addition, many of the students at Berkeley (and UCLA) went to schools in other countries, states, or private schools within California.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't really have time to go digging through a million websites.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, you don't have to. I provided links for you. A little search isn't very hard, especially for a UVa student I'm sure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Im sorry cal hasn't posted its 2006 sats yet - they should get on it,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, they should get on it. In the meantime, we should make a fair comparison, with the data we have, which is UVa's 2005-2006 CDS to Berkeley's 2005-2006 CDS. It's not fair bringing UVa's 2006 freshman profile unless we do the same for Berkeley.</p>
<p>And, looking at both Common Data Sets, I think we can agree that the SAT scores of UVa students are not higher than those of Berkeley students.</p>
<p>On the topic of UVa's using the highest combined scores:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Results from the SAT I or the ACT (including the writing portion). We use the highest score on each part of the SAT I and the highest composite score on the ACT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is from UVa's own website, which you yourself quoted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Education wise -
virginia - 7, california - 46</p>
<p><a href="http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm</a> - methodology based off of this book. <a href="http://www.morganquitno.com/booksinfoED.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.morganquitno.com/booksinfoED.htm</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay GOOD. I've been waiting to see something like this. Another poster has posted in the Berkeley forums in the past repeatly saying that California has the nation's 2nd worst secondary education without anything to back it up. Now, I haven't looked at this ranking throughly and have no idea how accurate it is, but at least it gives us something with which to start.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I would say that a teacher from western virginia polytech school or whatever has the knowledge to teach all the undergrads whatever they need to know.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, you are saying that a Virginia community college's faculty is no worse than the faculty at UVa? In other words, the quality of the faculty (with regards to educational quality) at a Virginia community college and at UVa are the same? Let's see how many people in here (or in the UVa forums, for that matter) would agree with this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's undergraduate education is not superior to that of UVa in any way, UVa's undergraduate education is not superior to that of Berkeley either. They are very different schools. Tons of UVa kids would be feeling MISERABLE if they go to Berkeley, and vice versa. The two schools attract two different kinds of people. Decision should be based on fit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, Berkeley's education is superior to UVa's in SOME ways. But UVa also does some things better than Berkeley does. I agree that the two schools are very different and it's hard to say definitively which one is better. I just don't like it when UVa students come on to these boards and try to prove that UVa is the better school while Berkeley is horrible for undergrad, or that UVa has a better student body, etc. I'm not saying anything bad about UVa, so why can't they show a little respect for Berkeley?</p>
<p>good thread, interesting info. The difference and inconsistency in the USNWR methodolgy over a half decade or so is exposed...</p>
<p>
[quote]
IMO, the reason that Cal's SAT scores are lower than other top Unis is related to the fact that they accept ~33% low income kids, in contrast to UVa, which recently was only 6%. And, regardless of your opinion of the SAT, scores are clearly directly correlated with income.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about why UVA is in the same neighborhood as Cal with regardws to SATs. If Cal wanted to recruit based on SAT/GPAs alone, it would blow away Virginia.</p>
<p>I think it's kind of borderline scandalous that a flagship state school like Virginia only has 6% of its students from lower-middle incomes.</p>