<p>CalX also didnt' mention that the SAT scores measured at stanford and Berkeley show two different things- how? Berkeley accepts only the best overall sitting, while Stanford accepts the best combined scores. Berkeely claism to do this because of some of the reasons CalX mentions, that poorer students are far more likely to only take the test once, that people are somewhat likely to improve on a second take, and that SAT II tests are supposed to be more indicative of college performance. Some students at Berkeley reported scores hundreds of points lower than their best combined as their scores because of this policy. How much this would affect the overall Berkeley sat I averages? Many on this site, such as Alexandre, guess 20-50 points, but nobody knows.</p>
<p>The breakdown of many cs, engineering, and math classes seem to be more friendly to students at Stanford than at Berkeley. There is a document on this website from one medium level stanford calc class over this past semester which shows 1/3 of the class receiving A+'s with the lowest score a lonely C-.</p>
<p>afan, you also assume that there is some sort of correlation between SAT I scores and grades in college coursework- do you have any proof of that claim?</p>
<p>Sakky, about liberal arts vs "marketable majors," do you think that where they want to work has anything to do with it? For instance, I know an engineering student at Berkeley who I overheard saying "volunteering one's time for free? Why would anybody do that?" Could you imagine him working for a non-profit? Do you think that someone in the liberal arts may be more willing to teach at a high school and sacrificing potentially better economic situations? Basically, do you think that willingness to work harder or more demanding jobs for potentially less money, or where people want to work, has something to do with the average pay for various majors? Perhaps at the least it's a function of demand (I believe this would play a part, but that there is more to it than just demand)?</p>