<p>Unlike you, rebel, RML is actually citing his information. You are just pulling numbers with no citations. And instead of having a legitimate argument, you’re bashing Berkeley without even recognizing the counter argument. </p>
<p>So 25%tile CR=600, M=630, WR=610, therefore, composite 25%tile is 1840?
So 75%tile CR=730, M=760, WR=740, therefore, composite 75%Tile is 2230?</p>
<p>LOL. So not only do you have no credibility, but your argument makes little sense at all.</p>
<p>What is up with all these people arguing about Cal? Everyone knows it is ranked around 800, behind Michigan State and Caltech.</p>
<p>RML Stop digging my man. You’re embarrassing youself. Just because I’m not a computer wiz doesn’t mean my facts are wrong. You wanted to talk GPA. How is anyone gonna take you seriously after that NONSENSE. Are you kidding me??? High School GPA?? .Berkeley has been on a downward slid for years. It’s there for all to see.</p>
<p>Hey Pat, If it’s too hard for you to figure out, get someone to explain it to you real SLOOOWWWWWW.</p>
<p>Anyone with half of a brain knows that </p>
<p>So 25%tile CR=600, M=630, WR=610, therefore, composite 25%tile is 1840?
So 75%tile CR=730, M=760, WR=740, therefore, composite 75%tile is 2230?</p>
<p>is not an accurate method of determining the composite 25/75%tiles. Maybe you should think about it real SLOOWWWW and understand why that doesn’t work. </p>
<p>You should actually read Berkeley’s research on the correlation between GPA and college success (and SAT/ACT scores and college success). If you turn down your arrogance even slightly, it may prove to be an insightful resource.</p>
<p>
If you’re looking for evidence of a downward Berkeley “slid” via admission statistics, average GPA and/or average SAT scores, you won’t find it there.</p>
<p>lol on rebel11’s post. </p>
<p>Mate, I seriously think you’re the one who needs help here. lol…</p>
<p>Pat1120, rebel11’s SAT math part is probably below 300, lol…</p>
<p>Those arguing against Cal belonging to the world’s top 10 universities don’t understand the fact that its world famous because its research and grad programs, not because anyone thinks it provides the best undergrad education. Let’s put it this way: if I had a son or daughter, I wouldn’t be too keen to send him/her to UCB for a BA, but I would be perfectly happy with him/her going there to do a PhD. The main US News ranking is a college, not grad school ranking; Brown, for example, offers superb undergrad education, but its grad programs are (relatively) weak. </p>
<p>The Shanghai Rankings puts Yale outside of the world top 10 (it comes 11th) due to the simple fact that despite its enormous wealth, it is not that good in the sciences. Does this mean that the undergrad education and the prestige of Yale don’t belong to the top 5 worldwide? Nope. Regardless of its relative weakness in the sciences (at least compared with its peer institutions), its prestige and the education provided by it are second only to that of Harvard.</p>
<p>Somebody claimed that no one outside the US heard about Columbia or Berkeley, but heard about CalTech. Nonsense. As regards international prestige (and I’m talking about prestige in the eyes of Average Joe, not people in the academia, law firms, or investment banking) the schools people (at least in Europe) heard about are Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Stanford (and Oxbridge). Most people are also familiar with the names of Columbia, MIT, Princeton, Brown and Johns Hopkins. The reason is simple, these are the universities commonly featured in the news and in films/series. For example, despite being a science focused school, MIT quite often features in films: in this juncture it’s perhaps enough to mention those nutty scientists wearing MIT t-shirts who always manage to save Earth from the evil aliens. Compared to, say, Cornell, Penn or Chicago, Brown also relatively often features in films – and has a name people can actually remember…</p>
<p>“I wouldn’t be too keen to send him/her to UCB for a BA, but I would be perfectly happy with him/her going there to do a PhD.”</p>
<p>Agree!!!
I hope I can get into UCB graduate school.</p>
<p>RML
Are you attending UCB graduate school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem, RML, is that after years of people trying to make you quote data correctly and make you understand the difference between ESTIMATED data and official numbers, you still prefer to quote the estimated (and always inflated) numbers that usually reflect admitted students versus enrolled students. Enrolled students data do NOT include students who end up at other schools. </p>
<p>Since some used the words SLOW, let me try once again. Numbers posted in the SUMMER reflect admitted students that are estimates for the Fall numbers. Official numbers appear AFTER the students enrolled. Cal, in addition, has developed the habit of obfuscating both the numbers of its Spring admits and the ancillary enrollment data for the same students. It does not take a Rhodes scholar to understand that students who were NOT admitted for the Fall sessions have LOWER admissions numbers. </p>
<p>Put it all together, and there are no other way to describe the data reported by Cal as NOT comparable to other schools, and in terms of selectivity close to bogus as it comes with bogus guesstimates for rankings, manipulated average data for enrolled students, obfuscated data for Spring admits, which introduce bogus number such as a 21-22 percent admit rate when the real number is above 25 percent. And, again, this does not even account for the massive transfer admissions from junior and community colleges. All in all, there are no comparisons possible! </p>
<p>Slow enough for you and the other clueless UC fanboys? Or should I try again with simpler words?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, why don’t you take the time to explain it to us, the poor folks who might be too dense to understand the “Berkeley” research. </p>
<p>Is that why the geniuses at the helm of the august system requested an expanded SAT test to include writing? And why they pushed for more acceptance of the Sat Subject Tests, before … changing their mind again? And why they consider Subject Tests in foreign languages presented by native speakers to be indicative of future success? </p>
<p>All ears here …</p>
<p>I’m not trying to argue that UCB admission stats are competitive the Ivies, Caltech, Stanford, etc. Even Duke, Northwestern and Vanderbilt have a higher caliber student body, in my opinion. That was not the point of my statement. </p>
<p>Rebel was making the point that GPA does not matter, and essentially, that GPA should have no weight and is no indicator of academic success. I disagree with that. I’m not going to try to summarize 50 pages of research in a simplistic statement. I am not going to undermine the value of standardized testing scores - they are important. I am simply pointing out the fact that GPA DOES have a correlation to success in college. By no means is it a full proof system. But, saying that GPA should carry no weight is almost obnoxious. </p>
<p>If you’d like to read more:</p>
<p><a href=“Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education”>Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education;
<p>GeraldM, what universities got their world renown from just offering a fantastic undergraduate education? I’m eager to hear your answer.</p>
<p>Bah! Disregard my last question. I misread ur response.</p>
<p>I went in through Berkeley’s back door…although I transferred from a CSU. Totally grateful a top university has a liberal transfer policy. :)</p>
<p>But seriously there is a disturbing lack of Miami-Dade college on these lists.</p>
<p>Well Berkeley is a public school which favors many of their in-state students, thus being more lenient with them. I do think, to some extent, they can be compared to SOME ivies, but not all.</p>
<p>IDK if this makes sense to y’all… but it does to me! (;</p>
<p>xiggi, last year’s data posted on the same website I provided posted data for enrolled students. We could no loner see the numbers now as they have been replaced with the latest data, but I am sure those numbers - for enrolled students - are about the same as the numbers posted now. And, even if the data are for accepted students, I seriously doubt it if they’re much different from date for enrolled students. And, again, Berkeley does not superscore SATs. The privates do. And, more importantly, let me reiterate that the only area where Berkeley is inferior to the privates is for undergrad admissions. Other than that, Berkeley kills the rest of the criteria, save for HYPSM and Caltech.</p>
<p>Let me ask you this, xiggi. If someone asks you to rank the best universities in the world, will you go by the school’s undergrad selectivity? Is that what you would do to come up with a list?</p>
<p>RML, people judge universities by the people that they know who graduated from them. Students who go to the top private schools are smarter than the students who go to UCB; therefore, the majority of society will think higher of Brown than Berkeley.</p>
<p>Why do you always bring up Berkeley’s faculty? A lot of them have BAs from Harvard and Cambridge or something and not UCB. How can they impact Berkeley’s reputation?</p>