<p>I know the major public school posters on this site like to gripe about how the SAT and Alumni Giving statistics favor public schools, but I want to talk about the statistic which accounts for a large percentage of the selectivity rating: whether a student was in the top 10% of his high school. I believe a clear public school bias exists with this statistic.</p>
<p>From my observation, the top public schools like UVA, UMich, Berk and UNC have an unfair advantage because of this statistic since they value grades much more than the strength of the student's HS curriculum and test scores. AND BOY DO THESE STUDENTS KNOW THIS!</p>
<p>A lot of the really smart kids in my high school and other high schools based on friends from other schools I've talked with took a really demanding curriculum and attained less than a 3.9 UW GPA after taking 5-10 AP classes. In my high school, this would have already put you out of the "Top 10 Percent". However, most of these kids went to top private schools like Penn, Duke, Columbia, Chicago, etc. that were a step below HYPSM because they had phenominal test scores and a very strong curriculum whose academic rigor mitigated their "weaker" grades.</p>
<p>Most kids I've talked to who were sure about going to UVA or UMich took a much less challenging courseload in order to maximize their GPA. They also got significantly lower test scores but still got into these top public schools, where their presence boosted their school's selectivity rating because they were in the "Top 10 Percent".</p>
<p>I think HYPSM kids have perfect GPAs and test scores for the most part so it doesn't really affect them. However, I think the next rung of top privates besides maybe Penn suffer a lot in comparison to the top publics(UCLA, Berk, UMich, UNC and UVA) due to this high school rank rating.</p>
<p>Wait, how is that a bias for public institutions?</p>
<p>Stanford, MIT, and Caltech and other top private institutions have 95%+ of their students in the top 10% of their class.</p>
<p>UMICH has 94% of their students in the top 10%, UNC has less than 90%, UVA is around 88-90%. The UC system has such a large number of students in the top 10 because they receive too many applications. Also, look at their demographic. 90% of their student bodies are unhooked applicants. </p>
<p>I don’t see how this is an advantage for public universities. Private institutions are more selective than public institutions. Public institutions also admit many more applicants, athletes and they have to commit to state demands. The USNWR favors Private Universities in all aspects. Selectivity, Alumni Giving Rates, Graduation Rates, Financial Resources, etc. </p>
<p>For example UMICH admits low-income disadvantaged people in detroit. These students have significantly lower test scores grades, etc. Private institutions admit who they want. They super score standardized tests, and are subject to their own shady methods to increase their number in the ranks. Publics like Michigan don’t super score the SAT’s. Michigan values the strength of ones curriculum, but not to the extent that privates do. There is so much competition at prestigious privates that most students have to have taken rigorous course load. Look at Michigan’s acceptance rate. 50%, UVA is 27%, UNC is 30-34%, UCLA is 23%, Berkeley is around the same. Their acceptance rates are much higher. MIT: 12% or less, Stanford: 10% or less, Caltech 15% or less.</p>
<p>This is what I think. Not sure if I made sense here.</p>
There is something wrong with your high school’s ranking system if it is based entirely on unweighted GPA. So you are saying the valedictorian in your high school may not be the smartest kid in his/her class? Well, I am sure many high schools rank according to weighted GPA so their top 10% students are truly deserving.</p>
<p>Besides, Michigan gives more weight to the strength of your curriculum. Here is proof. In the old point system, there is a spread of 12 points (-4 to 8) based on the strength or your curriculum whereas the difference between 4.0 and 3.9 GPA is only 2 points.</p>
<p>
Btw, were most of those really smart kids rejected by Michigan?</p>
<p>I think what the OP is really trying to say is that the student bodies at a lot of the sub ivy private schools are much stronger than the student bodies at large research U he mentioned.</p>
<p>OP wrote: "I think HYPSM kids have perfect GPAs and test scores for the most part so it doesn’t really affect them. However, I think the next rung of top privates besides maybe Penn suffer a lot in comparison to the top publics(UCLA, Berk, UMich, UNC and UVA) due to this high school rank rating.</p>
<p>What do you all think?" </p>
<p>I think that you are profoundly misinformed. The notion that anywhere close to a majority of HPYSM students “have perfect GPAs and test scores” is obviously false. One minute with the USWNR rankings would show this. </p>
<p>Moreover, the Naviance data I have seen from UVa indicate that UVA bases decisions on a weighted GPA, which gives extra credit for AP courses. OP, please provide your evidence showing that UMich, UNC and UVa “value grades much more than the strength of the student’s HS curriculum and test scores.” I hope it is more than just personal anecdotes.</p>
<p>Lol. I bet at least 50% of vals aren’t the most intelligent in their class. There are many, many factors that could make an intelligent student get a lower grade, while making a slightly less intelligent student get a higher grade.</p>
<p>^That’s definitely true to some extent, but I think that when you rank by UW GPA rather than weighted, you’re almost forcing the valedictorian spot away from people who take the most difficult course-loads. But I will be the first to admit, as a (prospective) valedictorian, that I am not the smartest in my class. That’s not to say that I haven’t earned it.</p>
<p>Oh, and I definitely agree with the OP to some extent. In my school, the people at the top of the class (ranking by weighted GPA) are, for the most part, headed to elite private schools ie Georgetown, Northwestern, UPenn. The people headed off to top public schools, ie UNC and UVA, are primarily athletes, who also have fairly good grades but aren’t very high-ranked.</p>
<p>You must admit that most of the students headed off to public universities are smart or well qualified. Most of them are not athletes. Maybe not to the same extent as those headed to elite private universities, but I think that students that get into top public universities like UCLA, UC- Berkeley, Michigan, UNC and UVA can get into some private elites. Especially if you look at the average accepted stats by the universities.</p>
<p>You are incorrect about Berkeley. All applicants are ranked according to UC gpa. Thus, honors/AP students tend to rise to the top. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, half of California high schools don’t rank students. Second, UC does not care if/how a HS ranks its students. As a noted above, UC recalculates each gpa based on UC criteria, with bonus points for AP/IB/UC-appoved honors courses. Thus, a 4.0 uw student majoring in basketweaving from HS x could easily be in the third decile when UC reweights the grades, and ignores the basketweaving courses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, your real beef is with your high school district.</p>
<p>Well, one explanation for why the UC top 10% is so high is that only the top 1/8 or so people in all of California are eligible for the UC system.</p>
<p>Also, everybody in Texas in the top 10% is eligible to go to UT.</p>
<p>ring<em>of</em>fire,
people with “weaker” grades can no longer get into Penn. check out the latest USN; 99% of their freshmen were in the top-10%, higher than UCB/UCLA.</p>