<p>Redroses, most graduates of the top, elite schools in California never leave California to work. California’s economy is huge. It’s the 9th largest economy in the world. In fact, a number of top graduates of HYPSM + Caltech & Wharton would seek employment in California. California colleges alone cannot supply the huge economy of California. I think it’s the same reason and logic why Columbia grads don’t look for work in Arkansas, Ohio, Alabama, Maine or those States which have a small economy going on.</p>
<p>^ Having a local/regional degree from those states would prove more advantageous due to local connections and networks.</p>
<p>kolijma, it was hawkette who brought that out. I personally don’t think SATs are that a huge factor for school prestige. I personally think that school prestige is more of a product of top-notched faculty, excellent graduate employability, graduate salary scale, achievements of alumni, among others. SAT determines the school selectivity. But so are the GPAs of the applicants and other factors not reported by hawkette.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but it’s not like Berkeley grads cannot find employment in those “relatively poorer” States.</p>
<p>Would Reed be ranked among the “elite” liberal arts colleges? I understand this discussion has been had many times, but its always interesting to read peoples’ opinions on the matter. It seems the same two or three users always come in to defend Reed, so I’m curious as to how other people perceive the college.</p>
<p>RML, I’m amused by your continuous and strained attempts to raise Berkeley’s “perceived” prestige level among CC posters and readers. You denigrate fine schools like Rice in a desperate attempt to boost Berkeley’s general reputation without realizing how petty your postings appear to be. I guess it’s no surprise that you don’t consider SAT scores to accurately reflect the status of an institution and its student body where Berkeley’s 25% SAT percentile average (1210) ranks approximately 65 on Hawkette’s list of schools!</p>
<p>I happen to think that Berkeley is a great school (even if its student body is not as academically accomplished as many of the schools above it on Hawkette’s list) but my assessment has nothing to do with any of the arguments that you’ve posted. No one can deny you your opinion about Berkeley but I doubt that many others have been persuaded. By the way, what is your particular connection to the school?</p>
<p>the UC Berkeley low scores in the 25% Percentile are due to the school’s admissions office giving preference to high grades over SAT scores</p>
<p>they will admit students with 4.0 GPA and 1200 SAT, but reject a 3.5, 1,500 in the blink of an eye</p>
<p>Duke and Notre Dame grads outearn Berkeley like crazy RML. If you take into account that a significant portion of the grads from these schools will reside in the South or teh Midwest after graduation where the cost of living is far less than in California, where most Berk grads end up, the difference is further exacerbated.</p>
<p>[PayScale</a> - 2010 March Madness Predictions](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/march-madness-predictions]PayScale”>http://www.payscale.com/march-madness-predictions)
- Duke: $104,000
- Notre Dame: $97,000
- Georgetown: $95,100
- Cornell: $93,300
- UCB: $92,000</p>
<p>just<em>the</em>facts,</p>
<p>
Really? There are over 3k colleges and universities all over America and to say Rice is in the top 25 in the US is not at all a “denigrate” attempt to Rice. How can someone be accused of denigrating a school that he ranked within the top 25 out of more than 3k schools nationwide?</p>
<p>I was not boosting Berkeley’s reputation. It was the top scholars and employers that did. Even the school where you go to (or graduated from, if you’ve already finished college) must have look upon Berkeley so highly. They were the ones who rated Berkeley on par with Yale and Caltech. You can also blame Forbes for releasing what you think is an erroneous data. Don’t shoot the messenger. </p>
<p>
The reason why that is so is because Berkeley does not weigh SAT scores as they do HS GPA and other factors. Berkeley has been open about such policy. If Berkeley considers SAT scores as much as Rice does, Berkeley would have a much higher average SAT scores than Rice even if Berkeley accepts many more students than Rice does. The mere fact that Berkeley does not superscore SATs should already tell you that Berkeley does not weigh SATs scores very highgly and considers other factors from the applicants too. You should have thougth about that before you ranted. Now, if you can prove it to me that Berkeley and Rice do treat SATs similarly, you won’t hear anything from me anymore. Until then, I have reasons to believe that I am correct and you were wrong. </p>
<p>
I also happen to think that all the top 25 schools – a group where Rice belongs - are great schools, and there is very little that separates amongst them. In short, I think Rice is a fantastic school. However, I think Berkeley is slightly better using the measures I presented. </p>
<p>You mentioned “accomplished student body”. Is scoring high on SAT is the only way one can be considered an accomplished student? If you think so, then I guess you have a distorted understanding of what an “accomplished student” really is. Graduating at the very top of the class can also be considered “academically accomplished” feat. Breaking into the Mathematical Olympiad can also make one an “academically accomplished student. Winning awards in high school, winning games, performing in a large crowd as an artist, amongst others, are things and achievements that we can consider great achievements. </p>
<p>But the more important thing that you need to comprehend is that SAT scores alone do not determine the ELITEness of the school. It’s the good combination of the perceived prestige by the top scholars/academic people and top employers are what would better define academic ELITE. Simply put: your personal bias against Berkeley does not matter here. What matters is the opinion of the top academics and top employers. And both groups do view Berkeley an elite school, or more elite a school than Rice is.</p>
<p>lesdiablesbleus, your data is misleading. The data I presented was based on grads that left college 10 years or so ago. I think that’s a better indicator of the alumni’ financial status. </p>
<p>And, I don’t think Duke and ND grads stick around in their respective States. They go around where the best jobs are located. There are a lot of Duke grads in Wall Street. There are so many of them in Chicago and California too. I would bet that the vast majority of them are in places where the standard of living is quite high, for there is no sufficient and logical reason for them to remain in Durham. If they’ve stuck around, it would have made Durham one of the higest places of earning residents on per capita.</p>
<p>Here is something to think about:</p>
<p>UC Berkeley has more freshman scoring above 760 in SAT1 Math, 1,089 students, than the total amount of freshmen at Rice, 894 students</p>
<p>You do have a good point, JohnAdams12. The whole student population of top SAT scorers at Cal would even surpass the whole student bodies of Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore combined. However, the thing I am emphasizing here more is the fact that Berkeley does have a different admission policy than Rice and such schools do. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Again, Berkeley does not treat SATs as Rice does. And, to ignore that such policy exists is ignoring at it best. </p>
<p>Berkeley is a top school that attracts far more students than Rice does. If Berkeley would change its admission policy to equal Rice’s, then I’m very confident that Berkeley’s SAT data would change drastically to surpass Rice’s.</p>
<p>Several things:</p>
<p>Many have pointed out that SAT-optional schools shouldn’t be considered along with SAT-required schools. The reason is that the students who submit SATs will, on average, have higher SATs. The result is a statistical bias.</p>
<p>The same issue occurs in schools that invest heavily in diversity, which typically means a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students. Disadvantaged students don’t have access to SAT prep, etc. that can raise SAT scores dramatically. These schools understand this, and discount lower scores to some extent, thus leading to lower average scores. Economically disadvantaged students can vary a great deal in percentage in these schools. This is a similar form of statistical bias, albeit intentional.</p>
<p>Finally, the term “elite” shouldn’t be entirely focused on the stats of the incoming students and/or the salaries of the graduates. The most important factor is the quality of the education. This is hard to compare and quite subjective. In fact, Forbes attempts to include some of these factors (alumni in Who’s Who, professor ratings, student and faculty national awards, accumulated debt) and comes up with the following ranking, the top 25 of which could be described as “elites.” Note, there is bias here as well, as the military academies (which are certainly elite, have higher ratings because they are free).</p>
<p>1 Princeton University<br>
2 California Institute of Technology<br>
3 Harvard University<br>
4 Swarthmore College<br>
5 Williams College<br>
6 United States Military Academy<br>
7 Amherst College
8 Wellesley College<br>
9 Yale University<br>
10 Columbia University
11 Northwestern University<br>
12 Wabash College
13 Centre College<br>
14 Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>
15 Bowdoin College
16 United States Air Force Academy
17 Middlebury College<br>
18 University of Chicago<br>
19 Smith College<br>
20 Pomona College<br>
21 Wesleyan University
22 Haverford College
23 Stanford University
24 Hamilton College<br>
25 Sarah Lawrence College</p>
<p>I think when you’re considering elite schools, obviously the Ivies go on that list. But, I would also include TOP state flagships/schools like University of Michigan, Penn State, Cal Berkeley and UCLA. Then, add in a few top universities like University of Chicago and Stanford. I would also definitely add the Seven Sisters and top LACs…so, my list, in no order would be.</p>
<p>Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, Cornell, Penn, MIT, Stanford, U Chicago, Smith, Wellesley, Cal, UCLA, PSU, University of Michigan, Mt. Holyoke, Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, CMC, Reed, and Weselyan</p>
<p>Rocket6Louise:
Your list is great, but is missing Williams. I would argue that Penn State doesn’t belong, as well. Finally, it would be hard to leave off CalTech.</p>
<p>RML,
In America (where you are not), opinion on UC Berkeley is hardly universal that it’s an elite institution for undergraduate study. I guess it depends on who you’re asking, where you’re asking the question–I know that most folks east of Denver have limited to no regular exposure to the school’s undergraduates–and how you define “elite.” </p>
<p>Certainly, like many other fine and very large state Us like U Texas or Penn State or U Wisconsin or U Florida or U Michigan or UCLA or U Illinois, there are many fine students at UC Berkeley that would compare well with most Top 20 colleges. However, certainly there are many students who would not. For many of us, if a school has 4000-5000+ students walking around who scored around 1200 or less on their SAT, it’s hard to accept them as elite. </p>
<p>As for your constant laments about my presentation of SAT data, let me be clear. It is a single data point for measuring student quality, albeit the most consistently applicable one we have for making national comparisons. Your frequent attempts to deflect the discussion to GPA-only misses a key factor of elite college admissions in the USA (where you are not)----for the most selective (call them elite) colleges, an applicant needs a strong grade point average AND a strong standardized test score AND usually several other materially strong data points in order to gain acceptance. As standardization of GPAs, ECs, essay, recs, etc. is impossible, we are left with standardized test scores as our best measurement for comparison. Sub-optimal I agree, but the best we have. </p>
<p>To help you understand how college admissions works in the USA (where you are not), here is how the National Association of College Admission Counselors weigh the various criteria that makes up the college application. </p>
<p>Considerable Weight , Moderate Weight , Limited or No Weight </p>
<p>75.9% , 17.4% , 6.7% , Grades in college prep courses
61.5% , 25.3% , 13.2% , Strength of curriculum
60.4% , 27.9% , 11.7% , Standardized Test scores (SAT, ACT)
51.2% , 36.4% , 12.5% , Grades in all courses
27.9% , 30.6% , 41.5% , Essay and/or writing sample
23.1% , 38.6% , 38.3% , Class rank
21.2% , 40.7% , 38.0% , Counselor recommendation
20.8% , 31.2% , 48.1% , Student’s demonstrated interest
19.5% , 41.1% , 39.3% , Teacher recommendation
10.4% , 23.1% , 66.5% , Interview
7.6% , 37.0% , 55.4% , Extra-curricular activities
7.6% , 23.5% , 68.8% , Subject test scores (AP, IB)
6.3% , 13.4% , 80.4% , State graduation exam scores
5.2% , 8.5% , 86.3% , SAT II scores
2.9% , 21.5% , 75.5% , Work</p>
<p>Cheerleading from abroad may make you feel better, but it doesn’t change the facts on the ground in the USA (where you are not).</p>
<p>johnadams,
Would you care to account for transfers? UCB typically enrolls over 2000 such students per year. Do you believe that they are of the same statistical caliber? I don’t. </p>
<p>Also, while your comment about the number of high Math scorers at UC Berkeley may be accurate, are you also aware that the number of sub-600 scorers on the Verbal portion is nearly as large as the entire entering class at Rice? Do you consider 18% of the freshmen class as a material number? I do. Would you consider such students as elite? I wouldn’t.</p>
<p>@rocket6louise: duke? brown? northwestern?</p>
<p>Top 20: Harvard Princeton Yale Stanford MIT Caltech Penn Columbia Duke Dartmouth Cornell Brown UChicago Northwestern JHU Berkeley Williams Amherst Swarthmore Pomona</p>
<p>From time to time I see posts saying that MIT should not be considered as elite as HYP. Why is that?</p>