<p>Ahh. That sounds familiar. You might be right about that.</p>
<p>Did anyone narrow the list down to the top 10??</p>
<p>According to USNews,</p>
<p>Top eight are Berkeley, Michigan, UNC, Virginia, UCLA, William and Mary, Georgia Tech and UC San Diego. </p>
<p>I tend to agree with that. After those eight, there is big dropoff.</p>
<p>There is no drop-off from those to Wisconsin and in many ways it is better than many of those.</p>
<p>I too think USNews is right on with the top 8 public colleges/universities for what it does rank. Many schools draw regional OOS students for reasons like cost, admissions requirements, or majors. I know UDelaware has a large OOS percentage because it is near states with lots of students who can afford OOS tuition. Other schools play the cost card, and then there are those that are just excellent schools that just happen to be public. Maybe it is more of a Top 8 than a Top 10 in this case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dropoff in what, exactly?</p>
<p>Wisconsin, Texas, and Illinois easily beat every school on that list except Berkeley and Michigan, and are at least on par with UCLA and UCSD, in terms of academic breadth and depth and # of highly ranked academic programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this list too, and I’d add Wisconsin and Texas to round off the top 10.</p>
<p>
On the contrary, I don’t think there is a set “top 10.” </p>
<p>Schools like Washington and Illinois are easily on par with virtually any public except UCB or UM. </p>
<p>The ONLY justification one could have for excluding them is selectivity – and it’s amazing how quickly those hypocritical posters will throw selectivity out the window when comparing beloved Berkeley or Michigan to more selective privates.</p>
<p>^ Berkeley (and perhaps Michigan too) would compare very well with the top privates in selectivity, save for HYPSM. However, the thing that many people don’t understand is that admissions to these 2 schools is different from say, Dartmouth or Rice. Berkeley admits students on per department basis. So, it’s harder to get into Berkeley if you’re applying for computer science as oppose to history or politics.</p>
<p>
UM isn’t on par with Berkeley.</p>
<p>Berkeley = 4.7</p>
<p>Michigan = 4.4</p>
<p>Or in Football.</p>
<p>^ Right. In the long sweep of history, Cal football can’t hold a candle to Michigan. There are occasional aberrational years. Like the last two.</p>
<p>RML,
I agree that there are pockets of student strength at all publics that compares to the universe of Top 20 privates. Cherry-picking students from certain areas (engineering, undergrad business schools) probably supports this. Does UC Berkeley or others separate out this info, including for those colleges or majors that are “left behind” in such a comparison?</p>
<p>Here is some more comparative data for the nominated publics:</p>
<p>TEACHING </p>
<pre><code> S/F , USNWR Teaching Rank , State University
11/1 , 6 , WILLIAM & MARY
11/1 , na , U WASHINGTON
13/1 , na , OHIO STATE
14/1 , 11 , U N CAROLINA
14/1 , na , GEORGIA TECH
14/1 , na , CLEMSON
14/1 , na , PURDUE
15/1 , 11 , UC BERKELEY
15/1 , Lost , U VIRGINIA
15/1 , 11 , U MICHIGAN
15/1 , na , U PITTSBURGH
16/1 , na , UCLA
17/1 , na , U ILLINOIS
17/1 , na , U WISCONSIN
17/1 , na , PENN STATE
17/1 , na , U TEXAS
17/1 , na , VIRGINIA TECH
18/1 , na , U MARYLAND
18/1 , na , U GEORGIA
18/1 , na , INDIANA U
19/1 , na , UC SAN DIEGO
19/1 , na , U MINNESOTA
20/1 , na , U FLORIDA
</code></pre>
<p>hawkette,</p>
<p>Here’s a cut-and-paste of middsmith’s post. Please take note that the data are from enrolled students. enrolled students’ stats are usually lower than accepted students’ stats. And Berkeley does not superscore. Imagine if it does. Also notice that each college at Berkeley has different average/cumulative SAT scores, signifying my previous claim that each college at Berkeley requires different level of academic requirements. For example, the admit rate at COE at Cal is less than 20% and the SAT scores of the admitted students are almost comparable to those students admitted at Caltech. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>RML,</p>
<p>Several things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I concur that there is a subset of students at UC Berkeley that are in the same statistical range as those at highly touted privates, eg, Caltech, Harvey Mudd. I believe that the same could be said of other publics with strong engineering reputations, eg, Georgia Tech, U Illinois, etc. </p></li>
<li><p>Engineeers only make up 16% of the enrolled students. L&S students comprise 69% of the entering freshmen. I think it is this much larger group of students that is likely materially less competitive compared those you might find at top non-engineering privates. For example, using your numbers, the SAT 25/75 for L&S is 1170-1410. This is similar to what you’d find at a place like GW (1190-1370). A Top 20 private without engineering like Emory scores far higher (1310-1500). </p></li>
<li><p>Also, don’t forget that there is a huge transfer population at UC Berkeley (more than 2000 more students per year to go with the 4100 freshmen). Nothing wrong with taking transfers, but my strong suspicion is that this group is not nearly as statistically strong as the freshmen cohort.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>RML,</p>
<p>I also think that the superscoring argument could be BS. Some schools argue this point to try to explain away lower selectivity, but after looking at a lot of numbers from different schools, I think this may be a dodge and I reach a different conclusion. </p>
<p>Not using superscoring in the admissions process does NOT automatically mean that the schools don’t use it in the presentation of their CDS data. My guess is that some (maybe even the great majority) do. </p>
<p>One way to smoke this out is to compare the ACT data (which is not superscored) with the SAT data. As UC Berkeley does not report ACT data, we can’t use them. But UCLA does and here is how it compares:</p>
<p>UCLA Reported ACT 25/75 Enrolled: 25-31</p>
<p>From the Collegeboard SAT to ACT Concordance Tables:</p>
<p>ACT score of 25 = 1150 single point indication (range of 1130-1160)
ACT score of 31 = 1380 single point indication (range of 1360-1390)</p>
<p>If your theory about superscoring were accurate and it’s not being used in the presentation of the SAT data, then you would expect the reported SAT range for UCLA to be lower than the proxied ACT-to-SAT range of 1150-1380. In reality, it’s 1170-1410. My instincts tell me that these SAT numbers reflect superscoring and the 20-30 point bump that I estimate it provides. </p>
<p>I presented similar data for a lot of schools in a thread a few months ago. As you can see, the thread did not get much notice or comment, but it probably deserves a lot. </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/786775-sat-act-concordance-impact-superscoring.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/786775-sat-act-concordance-impact-superscoring.html</a></p>
<p>It will be interesting to see what kind of PA hit Berkeley is going to take in the next few years. They really need to get their endowment up and raise tuition. I see they already are doing the latter.</p>
<p>I cannot defend UCLA as I’m not familiar with the school, but for Berkeley, I’ll try.</p>
<p>If you don’t believe that superscoring would boost one’s school’s data, then it’s up to you. But you’re the first person who does not believe it can’t boost data. </p>
<p>Now, several things you forgot, hawkette.</p>
<p>First, Berkeley does not put more premium on SAT scores than they do HS ranking.
A valedictorian with manageable SAT scores, say 2000, is likely to get into Berkeley than a student who has a perfect SAT score of 2400 but is ranked in the top 50% of his HS batch.</p>
<p>Second, Berkeley values the potential of the students.
Berkeley evaluates and considers that those students who have less access in life, such as those from the lower middle-class or low earners, still have potential to grow intellectually. Studies conducted by Berkeley scholars (which was already shown here, I believe) have shown that those students who have access to the best education and yet only achieved above average academic records tend to be outperformed by those late-bloomer students, or those students who have less access in life yet were getting excellent marks in the classrooms and are doing fantastic results out of their meager resources. When these students are trained well, provided well, etc, there is no reason that they can perform well. Whereas those that have already been trained well yet have only achieved below excellent, can’t do so much anymore. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure where you got your numbers but the 25/75 SAT scores for Berkeley’s L&S are not 1170-1410, but 1200/1460. That’s not substantially lower than Emory’s, and considering that Emory superscores and Berkeley doesn’t, the gap/difference narrows even more. In addition to that, these Berkeley students were ALL in their top 10% of their graduating class. Only about 60%(???) of Emory students are from the top 10%. Now, if you’d add up Berkeley engineering’s data, Emory’s stats would even look pity-full.</p>
<p>And, please, don’t make it appear that Emory and Berkeley are on the same league. They’re not, despite your stats. Whatever stats you’d come up with to try to brand Berkeley as something that belongs to the level of Emory, the truth will show that Berkeley is head and shoulders superior and prestigious than Emory. They’re not in the same league. Berkeley is in a league above Emory’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The one good thing about PA is that it can’t be bought. Some would probably try to manipulate the results, but the end results would always reflect the view and voice of the majority. </p>
<p>School reputation takes years upon years to build. Olin College students’s stats would easily outnumber Chicago’s or Berkeley’s or Duke’s, but it will take years upon years beofre Olin will outperform Chicago, Berkeley and Duke in prestige and respect as a community of learners and scholars. </p>
<p>Berkeley has never been rich. It has been running on a limited budget since time immemorial. If Berkeley will function with very little money, it will still survive for sure and would eventually succeed from it. If Berkeley runs with plenty of money, it will blow the lower ivies’ prestige away.</p>
<p>RML,
- My mistake on the presentation of the SAT 25/75. I used middsmith’s data that you posted above and added the first two numbers (normally CR and Math, but in this case, he presented it as CR, W, and then Math). </p>
<p>The correct calculation using middsmith’s numbers (which I assume you agree with because you posted them), for the 25/75 for CR and Math for L&S is 1190-1450, ie, sort of a cross between GW (1190-1370) and Brandeis (1290-1450). Very good scores to be sure, although, to be fair to GW and Brandeis, UCB’s numbers would likely be significantly diluted with the addition of the transfers who make up another 30-40% of the class. As noted earlier, Emory’s 25/75 is 1310-1500 (and let me state that I’m not using Emory for any particular reason except that it is a Top 20 private ranked close overall to UC Berkeley; the same standardized test comparison would be true for any of the USNWR Top 20).</p>
<ol>
<li>Re the matter of superscoring, I don’t claim that they are not a benefit. As my calculations from the SAT-ACT concordance thread show, superscoring usually provides a modest benefit.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>What you seem to be missing is that I believe that the CDS data that you are seeing from many schools IS superscored, regardless of their admissions policies about the use of superscoring. </p>
<ol>
<li>Re your comments about the competitiveness of Emory’s student body I agree that Emory’s student body is not in the same league as the L&S student body at UC Berkeley. LOL-Emory’s student body is better. Your comments/perspective are very representative of how partisans of highly-ranked public colleges try to extend their school’s reputation within the closed world of academia to the realities of the college admissions process and how this translates into a quality student body. Sorry, but they aren’t the same thing.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>I’m not saying that they aren’t quality students at UCB’s L&S or other colleges. Of course there are, but in looking at the student body as a whole, IMO Emory’s is much stronger statistically. And while I don’t think it’s particularly important, for the record, Emory’s Top 10% number is not 60% as you guessed above. The most recently reported number is 88% (same as Cornell, better than U Chicago, and very close to Duke and Stanford). </p>
<p>I really think that you don’t understand how many good students and good colleges there are all over the USA. That fact does not make UCB or other publics “bad,” but I think it’s clear that you need to spend some time researching and discovering more about other schools. It could be a revelation as you’ll come to see the quality that exists from the breadth of student strength to the intimacy of their learning environments to the substantial wealth that underlies and sustains their services to undergraduates. </p>
<p>And I’d request not denigrating Emory or other Top 20 privates. On the factors that most determine the UNDERGRADUATE experience (strength of student body, size of classroom, teaching, and institutional resources dedicated to undergraduates), the comparisons are not in your favor. Furthermore, I prefer that this thread not devolve into another vain attempt to promote a single school.</p>