<p>Wow, I just fell off my chair again:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^Prove me wrong. There is no real quantifiable difference between Duke and HYPSM students while there exists a major one between Duke and Michigan.</p>
<p>lesdia, please look up the definition of “compares favorably” then come back and repost your comment about how Duke compares to HYPMS (and particularly Stanford) correctly</p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>Stanford mid 50% SAT: 1340-1540
Duke mid 50% SAT: 1340-1530</p>
<p>Stanford mid 50% ACT: 30-34
Duke mid 50% ACT: 30-34</p>
<p>lesdiablesbleus, Stanford is superior to Duke where it matters…reputation, faculty and resources/facilities. Stanford is a consensus top 5 university in the US…Duke is not. </p>
<p>Duke is on par with schools like Chicago, Cornell and yes, even Michigan. Each of those universities is unique and has its own strengths and weaknesses, but they are equal in terms of overall quality and reputation. A rational person will choose between those universities based on preference and fit, not because one school is better than the other.</p>
<p>Coolbrezze. Your command of the english language is less than adequate. You have proven that over and over again with each post here on CC. Frankly, I’m pleased that Michigan didn’t accept you. It would have given fodder to lesdiablebleus ridiculous claims about students at the U-M.</p>
<p>(whispering) It doesn’t look good to critique other people’s command of the English language when you have two mistakes in your own post. (English language, missing apostrophe after lesdiablesbleus to indicate possessive) Carry on!</p>
<p>Alex,
This is fun.</p>
<p>With regard to your claims in # 197,</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In your view, superscoring is a dirty secret. In my view, the dirtier secret is that you persist in portraying U Michigan’s numbers as un-superscored when a 6th-grade level mathematical comparison would strongly suggest that they are. The dirty fact is that while schools may not utilize SAT superscoring in admissions, they still will use it in their data reporting.</p></li>
<li><p>For numbers of students taking SAT and ACT, the facts are:</p></li>
</ol>
<p>53%, 85% Ohio State
42%, 81% U Michigan</p>
<p>92%, 30% Brown
91%, 38% Duke
63%, 50% Vanderbilt</p>
<p>As a reminder, here is how they compared:</p>
<p>SAT CR 25/75</p>
<p>540-650 Ohio State
590-690 U Michigan
660-750 Duke
650-760 Brown
660-750 Vanderbilt</p>
<p>SAT Math 25/75</p>
<p>580-690 Ohio State
640-740 U Michigan
680-780 Duke
670-780 Brown
690-770 Vanderbilt</p>
<p>SAT Writing 25/75</p>
<p>540-640 Ohio State
600-700 U Michigan
660-760 Duke
660-770 Brown
660-750 Vanderbilt</p>
<p>ACT 25/75</p>
<p>25-30 Ohio State
27-31 U Michigan
30-34 Duke
28-33 Brown
30-34 Vanderbilt</p>
<ol>
<li>On class sizes, the data is pretty clear on the institutional differences for small and large classes. There are large discrepancies. I have not seen any data that breaks this out by year in college. If you have, please post. Otherwise, I think your statements qualify as mere conjecture.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>One important theme that I think bears repeating is that as class sizes decrease and subject material difficulty increases, the value of strong classroom peers also increases. This is a major positive for the colleges with the stronger, deeper student bodies. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Enough with your observations about your college experiences almost two decades ago. They’re not a proxy for what goes on today any more than mine might be. Heck, during your time back in the early/mid 1990s, Michigan was still a state with a functioning economy. As we’ve seen, the world changes and even in academia as many colleges have seen their competitive position change over the last two decades.</p></li>
<li><p>I’m pretty surprised that you would label Ohio State’s student body as equal to U Michigan’s. Even I wouldn’t do that. In fact, I don’t think it’s even that close a call. It’s clear that you’re willing to pay a very high price so that you can sustain your pretensions to inclusion with the likes of Brown, Duke, Vanderbilt, etc. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>JA,
Please post where I said that a college’s undergraduate academic environment has anything to do with its baseball team. Such obvious fabrications/mischaracterizations do nothing to advance your arguments. Please desist from further postings of such falsehoods.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, rjkofnovi’s grammatical mistakes are minor. If you read Coolbreeze’s previous posts, he doesn’t have a basic command of subject-verb agreement and doesn’t know how to write clauses and phrases properly. He will start college in the fall. That is scary!</p>
<p>hawkette:</p>
<p>you forgot Cal in your tables, non-superscored (for xiggi’s sake)… :rolleyes:</p>
<p>M: 640/760
CR: 590/710
W: 610/720</p>
<p>^ Thank you, blue. Tread carefully though. Xiggi might decide to whisk this thread off to the graduate school forum.</p>
<p>
Hawkette, I think John was referring to your desire for a college to have a nationally relevant athletic scene. Rice University is “nationally relevent” in baseball.</p>
<p>^^not a chance. xiggi is a cyber-bud!</p>
<p>
Why are factors like reputation(academic?), faculty and resources/facilities more important than the strength of your peers? This is your opinion but you insist on masquerading your value judgment on this website like it’s a fact.</p>
<p>Duke’s faculty is top-notch and the resources that the university has are absolutely incredible. No student can claim that he/she has a lack of opportunities at Duke and would be better off at HYPSM.</p>
<p>[Duke</a> Engage : Home](<a href=“http://dukeengage.duke.edu/]Duke”>http://dukeengage.duke.edu/)
Every summer, 350 Duke students have the opportunity to immerse themselves in an unique community service experience locally in the US and internationally in more than 23 different countries. No such formalized program exists at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and MIT. I’m sure these universities have more than enough resources to allow their students to have these same type of opportunities but it would take some initiative on part of the students since no organized structure for domestic/international civic engagement exists at these schools. I could probably count on my figures the number of Michigan students that have this sort of experience.</p>
<p>[Duke</a> Study Abroad : Home](<a href=“http://studyabroad.duke.edu/]Duke”>http://studyabroad.duke.edu/)
Nearly 50% of Duke students study abroad. I don’t think any other prestigious national university besides Dartmouth can compete with that figure. Michigan certainly can’t.</p>
<p>“Why are factors like reputation(academic?), faculty and resources/facilities more important than the strength of your peers?”</p>
<p>I dunno, maybe because student body selection occurs before anyone even sets foot there, whereas the other measures pertain to what the institution itself provides to them once they get there?</p>
<p>Given that you are an individual, with your own particular academic strength either way, wouldn’t you want to know what the institution itself would provide for you personally? Whether or not you are (trivially often) smarter than someone else who happens to be also studying there, possibly in a different college altogether.</p>
<p>If I were that gifted of a student, I would certainly want to attend a university where I would be challenged by a strong faculty first and foremost.</p>
<p>
I agree with this statement, Duke has outstanding resources and opportunities offered to their students and facility.</p>
<p>I would suggest that there just might be a relationship between study abroad and student family wealth.</p>
<p>^ and to SAT scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Study abroad is often cheaper. Tuition in most nations is much lower than the US (at least, it was for me in England). Even after factoring in travel expenses…I personally saved money studying abroad. If you’re on financial aid, it should make no difference really as they simply write you a check to pay for your tuition or whatever you want (at least, that’s what Duke does). They just calculate your tuition + living expenses (including plane tickets) and give you a check to cover everything minus your EFC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now this I agree with. Definitely those with the means can pay for classes, etc. to boost their SAT score.</p>
<p>
Then everything is meaningless, no data can be used for anything, the whole system is rigged, and these discussions are totally useless (which is actually about the truth.). Because certainly there is also a relationship between overall academic performance and wealth, and so Harvard and all the Ivies are only good because they have disproportionately wealthy students. Blah!</p>