USNWR 2012 Best Colleges Rankings (Prediction)

drax12 · August 30, 2011, 12:56am

One small correction:

The 25th %-ile student at UCLA would probably be more in the line of 3.75/4.05/1750, not the 1590 I stated earlier. Good grades, pedestrian scores.

Phantasmagoric #451:

You don’t remember what you stated?

Essentially … “UCLA is a Cal wannabe.” They are completely different schools, and as I said before, UCLA’s closer to being UCSB than Cal. I don’t think this is necessarily coincidence on the part of the adminstration. And ask UCLA alumni and students … there aren’t a lot of these who’d want UCLA to be like Cal.

Source of the bold…

You’re questioning whether there are more underperforming schools in the LA area? It’s a trend on this board to question something that is obvious and reply, “Source?,” and if you can’t see this, I can’t help you. 



The Bay Area has 7.5 million people, while LA has less than 4 (although counting Riverside and others brings that number up). You also did not explain how this is even relevant. The fact that the local area has more underperforming high schools says little: it doesn’t mean that the low-performing students at these schools are applying (these schools do have higher-performing students), it doesn’t mean that they are getting admitted, it doesn’t mean that they are choosing the local school. IIRC, Berkeley enrolls more students from LA than the Bay Area.

Are you serious?

You’re going to justify and propose that Cal has more people in its general area of the Bay than UCLA has just in LA proper? If you’re going to justify this, why don’t we just restrict things to Berkeley and LA itself.

Give me a break… ;)

Simple:

1) The population of the state of CA is bottom heavy, with more in SoCal than in NorCal. I’m sorry you’re having a hard time seeing this.

2) There are more poor communities in SoCal than in NorCal, the poor communities that immediately surround Cal notwithstanding.

Look at the Bay communities:

2a) Marin, generally wealthy.

2b) The SF Peninsula Area, South Bay: mostly wealthy with arguably two of the richest counties in the US: San Mateo and Santa Clara.

2c) East Bay, some poor, absolutely, see above, but some wealthy places like Orinda, Danville, and parts of Fremont, Pleasanton, Alamo, etc.

LA County has numerous poorer communities including in the city itself. If for nothing else, the more people -> more poor people, but add that the county has numerous dirt-poor communities within and without the city.

Source for what? This, I presume?

Simple…

Here’s a wealthy high school in LA county, [Palos Verdes Peninsula HS](<a href=“http://www.pvpusd.k12.ca.us/penhi/collegeacceptance/collegeacceptance2010.pdf”>http://www.pvpusd.k12.ca.us/penhi/collegeacceptance/collegeacceptance2010.pdf</a>). UCLA rejected 30+ 2100 or > SAT’s and the average uw gpa of these 30+ was 3.68, with a >> 4.0 wgpa. UCLA decisions start on page 64.

In fact because they are out of the school’s proximity, UCLA has been extremely harsh on the Palo Alto high schools, Gunn and PA and for Santa Clara and San Mateo’s high schools in general. Part of this is both Gunn and PA having extraordinarily high uw gpas with 3.9’s and + corresponding to the 90th %-ile and maybe even lower.

This scenario takes place within all the wealthy areas throughout the state, ie, UCLA rejecting highly qualified students from wealthy hss in favor of top-tier grads from underperforming hss with significantly lesser stats, under a two-tiered system of admissions wrt pure stats. There are btw undoubtedly wealthy hss from middle class communities: I’m thinking Granada Hills HS; definitely the Cerritos hss might be others, where the students flourish.

I agree:

College grads are usually pretty wealthy or at the worst are middle class -> cgs, middle-upper class usually begetting 2nd or > generation college grads.

This is not a problem. You’re explaining something again that has an elementary theme behind it.

However, I couldn’t disagree more ardently that it has nothing to do with grades and scores. Poorer, 1st generation students usually attend underperforming schools which means lower w grades and scores and even lower uw grades.

My gist, and again, I feel I have to repeat myself … that UCLA does indeed have a larger burden wrt the specialized part of admissions of the two u’s that admits at-risks (with lower stats) from its localized area (because it’s more costly for these students to have to travel for school when they could be given the option of commuting to school.). This along with the above demographics within CA, north and south, should show that UCLA takes more of these students. Add taht UCLA will deeper into the bag of lower stat students within this subset than Cal. Looking at probably the greater number of rejects from these wealthy hss in favor of lower stats vis-a-vis UCLA and Cal should easily prove this.

Here’s a quote from one of the random articles:

Donor-Advised Fund
UCLA will manage the money as a “donor-advised fund,” [even though it really isn’t] with no less than 50 percent of the proceeds [of the total $200M] going to UCLA and the rest to be spent in Los Angeles and around the U.S., said Rhea Turteltaub, vice chancellor of external affairs for UCLA, in a telephone interview today. A committee composed of UCLA and community leaders will be formed to solicit inquiries from charities. 

The university system has no set purpose for the funds and may use the money for scholarships, faculty and research, most likely as a stimulus to prompt other gifts, Turteltaub said. [I don’t know what this means exactly, the part about ‘to prompt other gifts’… possibly the U creating a bigger fund-raising department?] “What’s great about a gift of this nature is that it’s flexible, but it wouldn’t go into basic operating funds,” Turteltaub said. “This isn’t budgetary replacement money.”

GoBlue81 · August 30, 2011, 3:41am

CollegeBoard data is not official and is often found to contain some errors. UVa has not published its 2010-11 CDS yet.

The UVa Today article is official. However, it is 2011-12 data. To be fair, you have to compare it to Michigan’s 2011-12 official data. Are you comparing the same year?

I already said that the 84% is an anomaly. Michigan’s number has always been above 90% while UVa’s number has always been below 90%:

“In 2006-2010, Michigan numbers were: 90%, 92%, 92%, 92%;
compared to UVa’s: 86%, 87%, 88%, 89%”

Your comparison is simply not fair. If you insist on comparing year by year, you must then conclude that UVa is less selective than Michigan (based on this one metric alone) in the past years until 2011-12.

I’d readily conceit that UVa has significantly lower acceptance rate. However, acceptance rate is not a good measure of selectivity when your enrolled student bodies are virtually even. Show me statistically how UVa has a better student body if you don’t agree.

Michigan’s higher acceptance rate is more due to its stubborn admissions practice (e.g., rolling admissions, refusal to use waitlist).

drax12 · August 30, 2011, 3:55am

Let me rephrase the following as I was trying to multitask concurrent with posting. Btw, I agree with the study that says that multitasking actually takes longer because of the relearning needed to restart each individual task midstream. And of course there’s an actual decay of the relearned task midstream as there’s nothing like starting and completing the task in one solid block as manifest by my disjointed prior post.

Wrt to UCLA taking more at-risk students and with a greater deficit of stats as compared to Cal, mainly wrt scores:

My gist, and again, I feel I have to repeat myself … [is] that UCLA does indeed have a larger burden wrt the specialized part of admissions of the two u’s that admits at-risks (with lower stats) from its localized area (because it’s more costly for these students to have to [go away to college, having to dorm or to find adequate housing near campus] when they could be given the option of commuting to school.). 

This along with the above [stated] demographics within CA, north and south, should show that UCLA takes more of these students [and has a larger “burden” than Cal does within this specialized set]. 

Add [that] UCLA will [dig] deeper into the bag of lower stat students within this subset than Cal [as manifest by the stat differential, say, at the 25th percentile of matriculants for each u, which each u could undoubtedly improve upon wrt pure stats]. 

Looking at probably the greater number of highly qualifed rejects from these wealthy hss [by UCLA vis-a-vis Cal (because UCLA receives the greater amount of applicants)] should easily prove this [based on the hypothesis that rejected students with the highest stats are replaced by those with lowest who’ve enrolled. (And no, the greater no. of applicants to UCLA doesn’t mean that the increase is of lesser quality.) There are just pockets where UCLA does better. OC is an example. And both do have a decent portion of auto-rejects, though holistics might bring them back from the reject to a second-look pile.]

Still not what I wanted, but I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it.

phantasmagoric · August 30, 2011, 5:33am

drax12,

Then support your original argument. I have attempted to by offering statistics on population, because you refuse to support your assertions. If you don’t accept such support, then provide the support necessary to validate your claims.

Really, this is a basic rule of debate.

… and the rest is rationalization and assumption. I did not ask for your assumptions. I asked for a source - the implicit assumption being that you provide a reputable source that supports your claim. You have refused to do such. I can only conclude that you have no basis for your claim and therefore should not have asserted it. I’m not saying the claim is wrong, but rather that you have no legitimate reason to believe it, and therefore it is not a valid part of your argument (already filled with holes and falling apart).

…again, more rationalization and assumption rather than hard, concrete evidence and support. Please, spare me your petty attempts to prove your point. Just give a legitimate source and we can stop debating this side point.

Should, but does not. “Should” is not a valid argument. You have shown that you don’t know what constitutes a valid argument. Just because general facts about the demographics of CA suggest support of your point does not mean that such is the case. You have not shown that the underperforming students in such high schools apply to college, that UCLA gets a higher proportion of them, that UCLA accepts more of them, or that UCLA manages to enroll more of them. I’m not even asking that you prove each one of these points, just that you show some reason for believing that UCLA has more ‘at-risk’ students. You have not, although I’ve offered a way for you to do such. Either support it through the way I’ve offered or find another way; unless and until you do that, your point holds little validity.

drax12 · August 30, 2011, 9:39am

No it’s not; we’re not beholden to any such standard on this message board. You can accept the things that I present as facts or reject them. If you question/deny something so basic and elementary as the idea that there are more people in LA County than in SF Bay, then I can’t help you.

I’m going to try to be as nice as I can… You’re probably not from CA, right?

Of course I refuse to provide information on things people with commonsense know to be fact.

I provided a link for the high school in question, PVP HS…

I would have provided similar links for the high schools in Santa Clara & San Mateo, but they don’t exist, and Naviance is not a reliable measure because only certain portions of students self report. Statfinder can provide some of this info, but it’s general info without specific detail.

Most public high schools and the vast majority of private ones don’t release info similar to the one that PVP has done; otherwise, I would have provided it. In fact, PVP is entirely unique in the absolute detail in documenting its students to their outcomes.

A lot of this stuff comes from students with high stats in anguish because they were rejected by UCLA. UCLA is a public school and really has no basis to reject some of the students that it does (without my commentary on those whom it accepts, the at-risks).

Some of this stuff is anecdotal on my part having heard these stories, and some of this is born out in newspaper stories from the Merc, the Chronc, the LA Times, the San Diego Tribune. The same applies to Cal, obviously.

Btw, I asked for support from one of your statements in my prior post … the one about UCLA administration ceding that it essentially needs to improve its faculty. Where is it?

And you obviously ceded the Dream Fund as being unrestricted … because the article that cut and pasted said it was.

Is this a diversionary tactic to end this conversation? If it is, that’s okay, fine. But realize that we shouldn’t have to go about proving everything; otherwise everything will have a relative basis of truth behind it, and everyone will question everything.

Okay, cool, you’ve repeated yourself a handful of times already…

More than whom? Cal? People within the UC realize this to be fact.

Again, you’re asking for support of something all people accept to be fact.

Okay, fine.

Now answer mine above and we’ll be done.

Blah2009 · August 30, 2011, 4:41pm

collegeboard data is accurate and reflective of the CDS with enrolled data. The current data on there is for 2010. So his comparison is apt. UVa is more selective than Michigan.

Furthermore, you yourself state

“I’d readily conceit that UVa has significantly lower acceptance rate. However, acceptance rate is not a good measure of selectivity when your enrolled student bodies are virtually even. Show me statistically how UVa has a better student body if you don’t agree.”

if UVa has (which it doesn’t based off of collegeboard) an equal student body to Michigan with a lower acceptance rate. How does that alone not make UVa more selective? That’s some bizarre (or lack thereof) logic you are trying to use. Less spots, same applicants = harder to get in.

“Michigan’s higher acceptance rate is more due to its stubborn admissions practice (e.g., rolling admissions, refusal to use waitlist).”

That last bit is also misleading as Michigan does have a waitlist. hell Umich placed 9,409 people out of 31,613 people who applied in 2009 to 2010 on a waitlist. You might be trying to say it admits less almost no one from the waitlist (yet UVa places less people on a waitlist and accepts less than Umich also).

<a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning;

phantasmagoric · August 30, 2011, 8:01pm

drax12,

I never said that. I gave you actual statistics about LA (the city) and the Bay Area, and also admitted that including nearby areas would put it ahead of the Bay Area. But again, this wasn’t meant to be a serious argument: I was attempting to explain what your point is, because you patently refuse to support it.

I am from California, and just stating that it’s information that’s commonsense and fact, etc. does not make it so. There is nothing commonsense about LA having more underperforming high schools, or that more underperforming students are applying to college, or that they’re applying to UCLA, or that they’re enrolling, or most of all that they’re enrolling at higher rates than at Berkeley and therefore UCLA has more at-risk students. None of this is obvious. All I’ve done is ask for a simple source establishing your point. You still have not done that and instead have thrown a tantrum saying that it’s my fault for not having commonsense, my fault for not simply accepting everything you say as true by definition with no need to offer evidence, etc.

Are you really not aware that a single data point proves nothing? It’s a single example.

I thought I already had, but I got that from Campaign UCLA. One of the stated goals is the improvement of the faculty through endowed professorships and research grants. There are plenty of other sources that discuss the continued improvement of the faculty explicitly.

If you give me a source for your assertions, I’ll give you a link to this. It’s kind of rich that you’re demanding a source, when I’ve been asking the same of you for most of this discussion, and you still haven’t provided anything. And if there’s anything that’s ‘obvious’ that everyone knows is a fact, it’s that UCLA is always trying to improve its faculty. There is not one single top university that isn’t striving to improve its faculty. Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, etc. all have great faculties, but they’re still improving them.

Regardless, I have an explicit statement from UCLA leadership, so as soon as you give me a source that will definitively prove that UCLA has more at-risk students, or as soon as you retract your statement because you find that there’s no evidence to support it, I’ll give you the link to this.

No, I didn’t. The article I posted did not say it was unrestricted - it is earmarked for specific purposes. Perhaps your definition of ‘unrestricted’ is different from most everyone else’s?

I figured you were having trouble understanding me, so I thought I’d say it a few times.

Again, you can’t support your assertions, so you just pretend that everyone knows it’s true so that you don’t have to support them. If it’s so obviously true, it’d be easy to come up with a source supporting your point, wouldn’t it? Yet here we are.

drax12 · August 30, 2011, 11:16pm

How’s this for a terse question: Did you even read my last two posts?

1) You seemed to have forgotten that to compare the size of SF Bay to LA proper wouldn’t be fair to the argument. You should have compared SF Bay with its many counties to LA County in the least. Doesn’t this make at least a bit of of sense, by including the Valley, the Southbay of LA, the San Gabriel Valley, etc? I don’t think it would be fair to include, for instance, OC because UCI would be able to do its part in taking at-risks in that county. I’m giving you the many counties of SF Bay and only ask that you include the County of LA. Hence my response in a prior post: if you want to compare city to city, let’s say, Berkeley and LA. The closest UC to UCLA would be UCI, followed by UCR/UCSB/UCSD. UCSB actually lessens the burden of UCLA in the LA county by taking a lot of at-risks within the city itself. But still there’s a lot of territory with a great population center that UCLA has to cover. Cal has Davis more inland in Sacramento, and UCSC south of the Bay.

2) In the one prior to the last, I cut and pasted an article that said the fund was ‘flexible,’ etc. UCLA labeled it as ‘donor specific,’ only because Mr. Kerkorian wanted a charitable element, something to the effect that ‘at least 50% of the fund would be to UCLA,’ and the ‘rest for charitable causes.’ These are the only stipulations he made.

3) Because it appears you haven’t read my last two posts, just about all your following stuff blows up. Not even worth addressing any of this, especially the part wrt the Dream Fund.

4)

Not worth it, I’m not here to play games, and especially too, because it’s quite evident UCLA takes more at-risk students than Cal. We’re just going to have to disagree on this.

5)

You’re stuck in a loop wrt the centers of population of CA, which is nonsensical … your denying that LA County has more people than SF Bay, a fact that I don’t think 99.9% of the people would deny or question … along with much of it being indigent immigrants … many of these immigrants being of Hispanic background … and there are more of them within LAC than SF Bay … places like Compton, and Willowbrook, and Watts are now heavily, overwhelmingly Hispanic … whereas much of the immigrant population in NorCal might be of Asian background (not saying there isn’t a growing Hispanic population lest you put words in my mouth) … and many of them decidedly non-indigent … places like Fremont, San Jose, SF, etc … this should prove that UCLA has a much larger burden of taking at-risks in its locale than Cal in its own. How’s that? ;)

4) Single data points? Hardly, there are numerous students within this high school. It is a single hs, but a great study as to how UCLA (and Cal) handle a top-tier RPI 10 ranked hs. And these trends to follow at all the other 10-ranked hs as at Palos Verdes, PVP’s sister school. And also, there are numerous articles of top-tier students that UCLA (and Cal) denied from thoughout the state. Add various posters on this board stating that their sons and daughters were denied from UCLA with impeccable stats. Again, one has to buy into the replacement idea by forwarding this this hypothesis: that those rejected students with the highest stats are replaced by those matriculants with the lowest under the guise of ‘holistics’… this shows that UCLA makes huge exceptions for the at-risks for the sake of economic diversity (because AA is outlawed in CA). Cal does it also but doesn’t make as much room as UCLA for this subset. This is clearly manifest by Cal having lesser amounts of Black and Hispanic students of all the UC’s. And again, lest you misconstrue my statement here wrt a hint of AA: indigent many times means immigrant Hispanics first and the secondarily multi-generational Afro-Americans.

Even better? ;)

mantori.suzuki · August 30, 2011, 11:17pm

It’s so refreshing to see a discussion about college rankings that doesn’t degenerate into a…

Um, nevermind.

phantasmagoric · August 30, 2011, 11:29pm

drax12,

No, I understand that. There just is no reason to believe that Berkeley is drawing only from that area, while UCLA is drawing from LA, etc. That’s the basic flaw in your argument - that somehow, because there are more underperforming high schools in the area, the local school is going to have more at-risk students. You have not shown this.

Some of it would go to medical research, some to charitable causes and community programs, etc. That is not the definition of ‘unrestricted.’

No, it isn’t evident. What statistics have you offered that show that UCLA has more at-risk students? None, as far as I can see. They have roughly the same amount of Pell Grant-receiving students, and roughly the same amount of first-generation students, the two most common definitions of at-risk students. If you don’t think that these statistics paint the whole picture, then offer more statistics that show that UCLA does indeed have more at-risk students. Provide a source for it as well.

Nope - read closely. I said “LA (the city).” Not LA county. The city.

Who cares? You said there were more underperforming high schools and therefore UCLA enrolls more at-risk students. You then gave a single high school as an example and are extrapolating from there, without any additional evidence to support that extrapolation.

You haven’t proven that, and it wouldn’t matter if you did, unless UCLA and Berkeley drew the majority or all of their students from those schools. I assume they don’t. ;)

Anecdotal evidence does not an argument make. But I think you know that.

Still waiting on that source. In the meantime, [here](<a href="http://evc.ucla.edu/reports/streamlined_plan_100106.pdf]here[/url]'s">http://evc.ucla.edu/reports/streamlined_plan_100106.pdf)'s</a> the document I mentioned - notice that UCLA’s centennial plan focuses a lot on recruiting top faculty. But anyone could’ve guessed that without seeing UCLA’s formal plan.

beyphy · August 30, 2011, 11:58pm

source? ;)

phantasmagoric · August 31, 2011, 12:16am

^ haha, just for kicks: [Fallacy:</a> Hasty Generalization](<a href=“http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html]Fallacy:”>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html)

mantori.suzuki · August 31, 2011, 10:50am

If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies that I am right.

drax12 · August 31, 2011, 2:03pm

At least were making progress. Youve asked me several times to provide support of some of my prior posts that:

1) The population centers of CA is more dense towards SoCal rather than NorCal, or as I said, the state is more bottom heavy.

2) That there are more people in the LA area than SF Bay to which one of my posts you shot back this response:

Then this conversation took place:

What Im not real enamored of in our prior conversations is you always link specific paragraphs and sentences, which generally take my quotes way out of context. And your memory is more suited to the things you quote of mine, with your often forgetting some of the other more important points that I make. I dont feel real strongly about this, so dont consider this a important point unless you continue doing this. ;)

Continuing on:

Breakthrough Point 1

Im glad were finally on the same page. UCLA has a greater population from which to draw in a localized setting. And this was done with absolutely no support or linkage on my part.

Breakthrough Point 2

Your quote in your recent post in which youre quoting me:

This leads me to believe youve ceded that there are more underperforming high schools in the LA area … let me say LA County or LAC, just to prevent any future confusion.

This is obvious:

1) Because there are more people in LAC, UCLAs area, than in SF Bay, Cals area.

2) Because there are more indigent in LAC than in SF Bay, pockets around Cal and in SF, notwithstanding.

For two, I cited that there are more indigent immigrant Hispanics who move into LAC than SF Bay. Amongst other things: migration patterns are more towards areas closest to the native country from which these persons migrated: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, SoCal. Make sense?

A school becomes underperforming because it becomes underfunded. These schools become underfunded because I am right … scuse me, because theres not enough of a tax base to keep these (public) schools up to par. And many of these schools in LAC are immigrant heavy.

Now the last points per above and now here:

1)Does UCLA take more of these indigent, first-generation US citizens (and certainly non- wrt the Dream Act kids), first-generation, at-risk (lower stat) types than Cal?

2)Not only this, but does UCLA reach deeper into the bag of lower-stats students for these at-risks, than Cal?

Taking at-risks into u is more of a localized element than a state-wide thing. This is, again, Im repeating myself, because the u wants to give the option to an at-risk student to be able to commute rather than that student having to dorm or look for adequate (read: cheap) housing around a farther away campus. Make sense?

The LA Times about four years ago ran a story of a immigrant girl from San Pedro HS (LAC HS) who was rejected by SDSU, and all the other UCs other than UCLA, and also received acceptances from CSULB and CSU Dominguez Hills. Notice the theme? The local UC and the two local CSUs.

One of the top feeder schools to Cal that have a lot of at-risk students is Oakland Tech. Naturally, the top feeding to UC school is naturally Cal, with the other UCs not taking nearly as many of OTs students. The same for students from Richmond, which is near the Cal campus.

The same can be said of most of the underperforming high schools in LA wrt feeding more to UCLA than the other UCs.

It isnt a Pell Grant % thing. And my definition of an at-risk student is: anyone who has a greater chance to drop out unless he/she is mentored, tutored and brought up to speed with the rest of the student body. These are general terms, and it usually follows those admitted with lesser stats, usually significantly lower stats.

I dont think therell be a breakthrough point three in which youve finally come to realize that there are more at-risks at UCLA than Cal. Ive read this before in UC articles, but I dont have any real references to these admits of UCLA vis-a-vis Cal, other than looking at the school reports at statfinders site.

I cant help you here. But it would be news if UCLA and Cal rejected so many PVP and PV HS students because admissions at both dont like the students there. ;)

Here is how admissions to UCLA and Cal operate:

<ul>
<li>How the student best performs within the resources provided at his/her high school.</li>
</ul>

In other words, to those students who are given much, PVP, PV, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Diamond Bar, Arcadia, Menlo School, La Costa, Torrey Pines, Sunny Hills, and on and on … much is expected in return as far as taking the bulk of APs the school offers, scoring higher on the SATI and subject tests, and even having a higher uw gpa.

In other words, UCLA and Cal dont admit so much more as to the quality of school. So this leaves many numerous top-tiered students from top-tiered high schools in the dust.

But this isnt my central theme here, only to show that top-tiered students are rejected in favor of really low-stat, at-risk students under a replacement hypothesis, which you can accept or reject.

Wrt Dream Fund and the quote I posted:

Donor-Advised Fund 

UCLA will manage the money as a donor-advised fund, [even though it really isnt] with no less than 50 percent of the proceeds [of the total $200M] going to UCLA and the rest to be spent in Los Angeles and around the U.S., said Rhea Turteltaub, vice chancellor of external affairs for UCLA, in a telephone interview today. A committee composed of UCLA and community leaders will be formed to solicit inquiries from charities. [Donor advised because of the general stipulation that 

The university system has no set purpose for the funds and may use the money for scholarships, faculty and research, most likely as a stimulus to prompt other gifts, Turteltaub said. [I dont know what this means exactly, the part about to prompt other gifts… possibly the U creating a bigger fund-raising department?] Whats great about a gift of this nature is that its flexible, but it wouldnt go into basic operating funds, Turteltaub said. This isnt budgetary replacement money.

Donor advised because:

no less than 50 percent of the proceeds [of the total $200M] going to UCLA and the rest to be spent in Los Angeles and around the U.S.

This is about as general as one can be within a donor advised setting.

I dont see a mention of improving faculty under the Cal, Stanford and Harvard models. There doesnt have to be a model in mind is my point. Presidents of us with independent thought want to improve their faculty without pointing to other models. Doesnt this make sense?

GoBlue81 · August 31, 2011, 3:03pm

It’s fine with me if “selecitivity” is NOT EQUAL to “higher quality”. My point of contention is that acceptance rate is not a good indicator of the quality of enrolled students. For example, Chicago’s acceptance rate used to be around 40%. Nobody said Chicago was not selective.

It cannot be “accurate and reflective of the (2010 UVa) CDS” siince it has not been published yet.

In any case, my only contention is that you are claiming that UVa has higher “top 10%” students based on a single data point, which happens to be an anormaly for Michigan. If you insists on that, you must also agree that UVa is less selective than Michigan (based on this one metric alone) in the past years until 2010-11.

“In 2006-2010, Michigan numbers were: 90%, 92%, 92%, 92%;
compared to UVa’s: 86%, 87%, 88%, 89%”

That’s right. What is the point of putting 9,000+ on the waitlist? What is the point of getting on the waitlist? There are many years where Michigan admitted no one from the waitlist. Clearly the waitlist is not part of Michgian’s admissions strategy. It is not counting on using the waitlist to balance acceptance and estimated yield. Michigan stubbornly clinges to its old fashioned admission practices, hence it over admits and over enrolls.

california_life · September 5, 2011, 8:00pm

Anyone else find it annoying that US News chose to delay the release of the annual rankings this year? And by about a month?

discussion · September 8, 2011, 7:29pm

[2012</a> Best Colleges Preview: Top 10 Business Programs - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/09/06/2012-best-colleges-preview-top-10-business-programs]2012”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/09/06/2012-best-colleges-preview-top-10-business-programs)

seems like the top 10 preview list for the undergrad business programs is out. bye bye Indiana U!!

bruno123 · September 9, 2011, 6:41am

The [top 10 best engineering programs preview](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/09/06/2012-best-colleges-preview-top-10-engineering-programs”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/09/06/2012-best-colleges-preview-top-10-engineering-programs</a>) is also out !

englishjw · September 9, 2011, 9:40am

The top ten Liberal Arts Colleges (in alphabetical order) have also been released:

[2012</a> Best Colleges Preview: Top 10 National Liberal Arts Colleges - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/09/09/2012-best-colleges-preview-top-10-national-liberal-arts-colleges]2012”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/09/09/2012-best-colleges-preview-top-10-national-liberal-arts-colleges)

englishjw · September 9, 2011, 9:44am

The only change in the top ten LACs is the inclusion of Claremont McKenna (11th last year) and the exclusion of Davidson (tied for 9th for 2011).

Thread		Replies	Views
College Rankings from 2066 Applying to College	16	84	April 16, 2021
2022 USNews Rankings posted College Search & Selection	543	60688	November 22, 2021
Columbia USNWR 2008, #10 Columbia University	159	161	April 17, 2021
USNews Best Colleges 2013 - Stop speculating! College Search & Selection	125	234	April 15, 2021
2008 USNEWS Leaked! College Search & Selection	49	75	April 15, 2021

USNWR 2012 Best Colleges Rankings (Prediction)

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

USNWR 2012 Best Colleges Rankings (Prediction)

Related Topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US