UC Riverside is the most underrated UC of them all! Why? Is growing faster than ANY OTHER UC for a reason! Current average student stats…3.8 average GPA, 27 ACT, 1190 SAT, with a 57% student acceptance rate (supposed to go well below 50% next year) and getting tougher all the time. Many Top 100 Programs in US News Rank and moving up rapidly! 2019 US News Graduate Program ranks are out and have markedly improved. Looking to see Undergrad ranks (and stats) later in the year which will do the same. All of the hard numbers are constantly improving along with solid growth. Has about 25,000 students now and projected to grow to 40,000 students (UCLA/Berkeley size) soon. Is in the THIRD FASTEST GROWING COUNTY IN THE NATION projected to continue booming growth through 2065! Now has the FIRST new Medical School in California in over 30 years. Not to mention the (Bio-Med…now Thomas Haider) accelerated Pre-Med program in conjunction with UCLA that is a complete bloodbath! The campus still has that friendly vibe and “Personal Touch” that many others lack which is really incredible! Just read on here that a very competitive Irvine High School has 24 students that committed to UC Riverside…more than ANY OTHER UC! Very different from back in the 80’s at my high school (not far from Irvine) where I was the only student that attended UC Riverside when they only had 5,000 students!? Barely recognized the campus the last time I went there…crazy it has grown five fold (from when I attended in the 80’s) and is still expected to just about double in size again in the future. Really hope it can maintain the friendly UCR culture and personal touch at that level! Has always been a great school now ready to EXPLODE! GO HIGHLANDERS!!
@collegehelp I have read so many articles that say how one does taking a rigorous curriculum in HS is the best predictor of success in college, not SAT scores. Do you also think Bowdoin and Wake Forest for example are lesser schools, because they are test optional?
My understanding of what the best indicators of success in college are is that while GPA by itself is the best indicator, when used in combination with the SAT or ACT score, it is a slightly better indicator. So “slightly” might mean a lot when you think about the hairs some admissions counselors must dissect to choose their classes.
I like the “brilliant slacker” vs. “overachiever” debate (but maybe it should be another thread?). I do think generally speaking an “overachiever” would be a more desirable candidate. However, we all know people that blossom later (this might be particularly true for boys??? Have I read that?), so a strong SAT student with eh grades may very well mature and turn that around (my husband was one of those people who did much better in college than high school and is quite successful today).
Another subtle talking point that has been brought up here (again, but maybe should be a different thread) is success in life of the “brilliant slacker” vs. the “overachiever”. Has anyone else ever thought of it this way? That how much raw intelligence does one actually need to perform some really successful (and high paying ?) jobs? There are certain ones that of course the raw intelligence are critical for…maybe the more medical/science/engineering based careers. But to be a successful “manager” in a big corporation takes so much more than high grades and high SAT scores. So while I’m sure the relationship between success is overall pretty linear with these factors, I think there are probably many corporate executives, politicians and other “leaders” that are more successful than many of their peers that had better grades and test scores.
There are definitely a few brilliant slackers who are generally bored in school and don’t see the need for all the petty things, but in general, the difference in SAT/ACT scores between equally intelligent students is the processing speed. Some students can process info quickly - or learn to via prep courses and repetition seeing oodles of the same types of questions. (This latter part assumes they can pay for a course or know they need to put significant time in. In places like mine, that doesn’t happen often.) Others need a few minutes to think it through, then are equally as correct with their assessment. When they’re on the time limit, they can’t do their full thinking and either get some incorrect or don’t finish.
Real life - and most of college - doesn’t require super quick thinking. Hence, both intelligent students otherwise do well in school, college, and on the job.
Again, many colleges/professors have seen this play out. There truly is a reason so many places are ditching the requirement for scores. Scores are one way to show academic intelligence, but not the only way. Schools that opt for this are not suddenly looking for bottom half of the barrel, unlikely to graduate in a higher level environment, freshmen.
FWIW, between the two, my “better” LORs are for the student with the great work ethic, not the student with the super high scores who’s smart, but difficult to engage in class. There aren’t many of the latter TBH, but I write my letters appropriately. This past year I had one of the former get a full (need based) ride at a school not normally associated with super need based aid. His SAT was in the 1200 range - pretty midrange for the school. IME, schools definitely like the student who is curious, intelligent, and very dedicated to learning, along with being a pleasure in the classroom - even if their scores aren’t super high. (Caucasian male lest anyone think otherwise - with first gen as a hook.) I have absolutely no doubt he’ll be successful both in college and in life.
I do think that Bowdoin and Wake Forest are lesser schools because they have gone test optional. They are part of the trend toward “dumbing down” higher education. I agree that high grades can be a good predictor of college success but the problem is that they are highly dependent on the standards of individual high schools and individual teachers whereas SATs and ACTs are standardized and create a level playing field for all applicants. High grades only mean anything if they are received from a HS with high standards and teachers with high expectations. SATs are a way to measure whether the high grades really mean anything. High SATs stem from high grades in demanding courses (i.e. real learning). Sure, success in life comes from many sources but academic achievement is one of the most important predictors of life success and is a great “equalizer” in a democratic society which allows individuals with ability and motivation to succeed even though they may come from poverty and troubled families.
SATs have a +.81 correlation with graduation rates which is extremely high in the social sciences. Sometimes you read of lower correlations but they are calculated based on individual student data rather than class averages. It is the old “unit of analysis” issue. It is more difficult to predict outcomes for individual students because many individual factors can’t be taken into account. But, the outcomes for groups of students can be predicted with great accuracy. If higher SATs accurately predict greater college success, it means that more individual students in the group will succeed. It is simply more difficult to predict WHICH individual students will be more successful. Nevertheless, you can be sure that more will be successful. It is important for people who calculate statistics to understand more than just arithmetic. They need to understand statistical theory.
This topic was a lot more fun to read when it wasn’t about SAT’s.
@collegehelp I see it differently, not only do standardized test scores not level the playing field they further show evidence of the divide of education, class and race in the US. Kids from lesser schools districts and/or from lower socioeconomic families not only aren’t as well prepared academically, they have less access to test prep resources and can’t pay for private tutors.
Additionally, the rapid increase in approvals for extra time on the tests (now around 20% in some affluent school districts) further leads to a playing field that is not level, as studies have shown that extra time applicants skew to the more affluent due to the high level of health care access and investment required for a diagnosis. Meaning, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds do not get their functioning and/or learning issues addressed by physicians at the same rate as the more affluent.
While the standardized test data might show a small correlation to college performance (higher when coupled with GPA, but as we know all GPAs are not equal either), these tests do not in any way level the playing field. Many colleges have recognized these issues and in order to increase access, implemented test optional policies.
@collegehelp - you see the problem with using solely grades as a comparative measure, but don’t see the problem with the time restraints on the SAT/ACT? That’s odd. Are you actually involved in education to see the students behind the scores?
When I see or hear of student scores (PSAT/SAT/ACT) I can usually “guess” a range they will be in, but there’s no way I can predict an exact order of finish - or even close. Ranges matter, but the ranges are wide. There will be a significant difference between an SAT of 1000 and 1500, but not between 1400 and 1500. For some students there isn’t really a predictable difference between 1300 and 1500. It’s common for those who do well, but finish tests more slowly (in class) to be in that 1200 - 1300 range. Those who finish tests quickly and accurately might be in that 1400-1500 range. Both can get As in my class and have equally as solid of a foundation entering college. It’s not a knowledge difference. It’s a processing speed difference.
I highly respect schools who recognize these things and consider them superior to schools that put a super high importance on scores alone. If the tests were to adjust their time standards making them less time dependent I might think otherwise. There’s a reason many super successful humans in life didn’t have superb scores. Time is rarely that important. IRL jumping to a quick answer that ends up being wrong can be costly.
Bowdoin went test optional in 1969, @collegehelp! Not sure how you can draw any meaningful conclusions from data pre-dating that about dumbing down.
Time is very important in some professions- anesthesiology, air traffic controller, network news producer, and not important in others- architecture, economist, landscape designer.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say “time is rarely that important”. There are a lot of fields where the ability to make quick and accurate decisions is part and parcel of what that person does all day.
To add onto the value of “processing” speed, software development values it as well. Assuming one person can develop at a faster rate with the same quality, it’s an obvious advantage in one of the most prevalent areas of our economy currently. There’s of course more nuance and this is not to say that software is all about speed, but rather that those who can design good software faster are simply more valued in the industry, and “processing” intelligence is very much tied to that.
“Processing” intelligence doesn’t just have to be about a single decision but the accumulation of time spent on many small ones. Even in architecture, if someone has to spend double the time considering a design option than someone else, and there are many of these types of decisions, you suddenly have a building being designed way behind schedule.
I actually like the model itself - I often think of intelligence in computer terms of memory/processing and even levels of processing by distinguishing between amount/time of consideration (typically distinguish as RAM/processor for me since that’s just what I know best). Different jobs lend advantages to different types of intelligence and the model is far from exhaustive of the types of intelligence, but I would argue generally that processing intelligence of both forms is becoming more and more important as we can increasingly supplement our memory with that of the internet and computers generally. You don’t have to look further than how technology is aiding doctors today.
All of this is to say that test scores, within wide differences (200+ SAT points, etc) can absolutely correlate to later success in the case of the “brilliant slacker”. How that translates to college admissions is a whole separate question/problem, but I would be shocked if that isn’t a calculus/game that at least some admissions departments are playing behind closed doors.
I think this has veered considerably off-topic but frankly, this is much more interesting than the OP personally - if mods see this, I would love to see this tangent of posts separated into its own thread.
One school in Michigan that seems to be consistently growing, expanding, and improving is Grand Valley State University. Grand Rapids is an excellent location and has grown to about 20,000 students. GVSU seems to attract students of more conservative /religious parents who are don’t like the party reputation of Central Michigan U and Western Michigan U, see Michigan State U and U of Michigan as liberal, intimidating, and elitist. Many of these parents also prefer to keep their kids close to home and tend to be frugal. The feedback I have gotten is that the academics are decent and the students like it, and it is relatively inexpensive.
Because of the location, the school is over 80% white, and the gender breakdowns by majors tend to be more traditional. There are a lot more women on campus because men are more likely to join the military or learn a skilled trade after high school. More popular majors are education, psychology, and pre-med (for the best students.)
I think that this school will continue to grow because many people who want to send their student to college in a place with people more like themselves. GVSU seems to have established a differentiated niche for themselves and allows conservative parents to send their kids to a college that is more familiar, and the odds are better that their student will stay in the area where they live. I don’t think GVSU itself is conservatively run; it’s the students or at least their families that are conservative.
GVSU is carving out a place for itself and will continue to grow and improve.
I doubt there’s much dispute that beyond 200 points (SAT) there’s usually a noticeable difference in either foundational knowledge or ability, barring something like English being a second language or similar. It’s within that 100 - 200 point range where the dispute lies. Is a 1400 really that much different than a 1500 or a 1200 that much different than a 1300? Not really. Not when one knows the students. One can extend that to 200 points in some cases, esp if one student spends time prepping and/or learning tricks and another doesn’t.
When it comes to speed and accuracy on the job later on, most of that is learned on the job or when training for the job, not in high school math/English.
Computers and coding seem to be a whole different subspecies. Some kids are really good at that regardless of how they are in math or science classes. Some of them never even head to college, though now more are going, often already starting with impressive credentials. I haven’t see SAT/ACT scores correlated with our computer geniuses, but I’ll admit I don’t really look that hard at those numbers.
Googling “SAT scores of successful adults” brought up interesting reads - not at all out of line with thoughts from my experiences IRL.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
One must think that we have an excess of time. 
so no, that’s not gonna happen.
That said, the discussion of SAT scores is off-topic. To keep this thread open, please get back to the topic of the thread, which is: “Any underrated colleges or universities that seem ripe for becoming the next big thing?”
I also deleted a few posts discussing what I should or should not do, as that violates ToS.
I’ll add that I’m still reading as I’m very interested in gleaning names of schools folks like and feel are worthy considerations for all levels of students. Impression can go a long way considering many parents/adults also hire from schools they like/respect.
Sorry for my part of the rabbit trail.
“It’s not a knowledge difference. It’s a processing speed difference.”
There’s definitely a knowledge difference in the verbal section - vocabulary for one, writing good essays for another, i.e. how to get your main point across, how to structure paragraphs.
And as other posters have said, there are industries where companies with people that can process faster do better. If you have a slower processing product team in high tech, you’re going to be in trouble, like out of business trouble.
I suspect a comparable variance in GPA within a range is equally insignificant and artificial. 3.95 and 3.85 just aren’t that different, yet the disparity as recorded by class rank could (falsely) allege a meaningful gap. I’d argue that gpa and rigor are the best predictors. And I don’t just mean weighted GPA. I’ll take the kid who got a B in Physics C over the kid in who got an A in insert-easy-class-with-easy-teacher every time. Meaning it isn’t easy for colleges to unpack that GPA.
Hurts me to say that because I want to believe in the SAT-first religion. My first is in the 1500+ club who through some tragic, borderline laughable habits worked his way out of the top decile in high school. Okay not even borderline. He stumbled out of the gate first year in college too, and took a semester to BEGIN developing the right habits. Proof of nothing but an interesting data point.
St. Olaf, Northeastern, College of Wooster, so I don’t get yelled at for being completely off-topic. 
[QUOTE=""]
UC Riverside is the most underrated UC of them all! Why?<<
[/QUOTE]
Location, location, location. Would you rather live in Santa Barbara, San Diego, or Riverside?
It does seem that Riverside is doing things right to attract more students and add more programs.
I think no one would argue that UC Merced is the most underrated and newest of the UCs, and even it is beginning to attract students with better stats, apparently.
And that neatly brings us back full circle to the original topic, which is underrated colleges that are on the way up.