<p>I don’t think many people hate UCLA besides the Berkeley/USC students that didn’t get in. Most people in the real world think of it as a great school, and most students at Berkeley/USC probably don’t really care.</p>
<p>alexandre:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bold I: This was mainly an exercise to show the contradictions, 1, from site to site - it really wasnt; it was a difference in year to year, and, 2, to show contradictions within the CDS. </p>
<p>Again, CDS doesnt invoke honesty and truth for the colleges.</p>
<p>Bold II: Because of point B-I, I agree 100%. Furthermore, USN, for instance compares data that would be apples and oranges along with a lack of uniformity of data, within non-accurate, contradicting CDSs as related to the colleges, eg, the t-10% component of USNs rankings. Again, there isnt a college that doesnt inflate this % willingly, because all are playing the game. USN is pretty oblivious to this apparently. And colleges will inflate this as long as its given so much weight. </p>
<p>Bold III: I agree. An example of apples and oranges as in B-II would be the superscoring aspect or not by a college.</p>
<p>Again, my main point with your prior, fairly-selective data-presentation was similar to a point youre making here: that you meant to portray UM as enrolling more qualified students than UCLA just by presenting the data you chose. I meant to show that there were more things to compare.</p>
<p>I don’t dislike UM, in fact, I like the school a lot.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl:</p>
<p>I did a quick count of at the website for [PVPHS](<a href=“http://www.pvpusd.k12.ca.us/penhi/collegeacceptance/collegeacceptance2010.pdf”>http://www.pvpusd.k12.ca.us/penhi/collegeacceptance/collegeacceptance2010.pdf</a>) of = or > 3.7 uw gpas who applied to UCLA from this school. I counted ~138 total with = or > 3.7 gpas, of which 35 had 3.7-3.79’s.</p>
<p>If youre an admissions reader for UCLA or Cal, big state > 30M people, and applications inundating both schools, 50K +, which shouldnt see a major letup after the wave is passed, you see 3.8’s and 3.9’s and 4.0’s quite regularly, maybe too regularly. I got that impression just by looking at the students who apply to UCLA (and Cal) just by this one website.</p>
<p>If both schools just went by straight gpa and scores, the uw gpa at each would be 3.9+ and 2100+ SAT-I if they really wanted. But because both are public us, the urm and generally poorer students would be neglected. </p>
<p>So it was just the feeling I got by looking at these grades. 3.7 is o/s, absolutely, but fairly pedestrian in wrt the higher grades which were plentiful.</p>
<p>Barrons:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Barrons, youre making quite an assumption yourself.</p>
<p>Really? Michigan students are > CA students? That is laughable. This high school PVP is one of numerous API 10 ranked hs in the state. Numerous. Why do you think UM has practically open admissions to PVP, Harvard-Westlake, Beverly Hills? They want a piece of the action. ; )</p>
<p>IheartCAunis:</p>
<p>It’s all yours, it’s your stage go for it.</p>
<p>In your first post you notched one vote for USC. Uhhh, if you want to promote all that is Troy, feel free to start a thread of your own. You can do it…</p>
<p>Good luck at SC, and I might take some reading comprehension classes while you’re at it.</p>
<p>BOL…</p>
<p>Well Drax, you don’t really know one way or the other do you? The populations are very different in demographics right off the bat and that has been associated with academic achievement. California is better known for its bad and getting worse public schools than the relatively few good ones. It is a fact that the average SAT is higher in MI than in Cali.
And the list for that HS in Cali is certainly ATYPICAL. How about Simi HS or Fresno?</p>
<p>California has a higher National Merit Cutoff Score than Michigan. This is an indicator of the higher achieving student population in California. :)</p>
<p>Qualifying Scores for the Class of 2010 National Merit Semifinalists: </p>
<p>Alabama 208
Alaska 211
Arizona 210
Arkansas 203
California 218
Colorado 215
Connecticut 218
Delaware 219
District of Columbia 221
Florida 211
Georgia 214
Hawaii 214
Idaho 209
Illinois 214
Indiana 211
Iowa 209
Kansas 211
Kentucky 209
Louisiana 207
Maine 213
Maryland 221
Massachusetts 221
Michigan 209
Minnesota 215
Mississippi 203
Missouri 211
Montana 204
Nebraska 207
Nevada 202
New Hampshire 213
New Jersey 221
New Mexico 208
New York 218
North Carolina 214
North Dakota 202
Ohio 211
Oklahoma 207
Oregon 213
Pennsylvania 214
Rhode Island 217
South Carolina 211
South Dakota 205
Tennessee 213
Texas 216
Utah 206
Vermont 213
Virginia 218
Washington 217
West Virginia 203
Wisconsin 207
Wyoming 201</p>
<p>
Hahaha nice one xiggi. But that’s more of a lesdiablesbles&rjkofnovi obsession.</p>
<p>What does that even mean when a school tries to be something they are not? Seriously, it makes zero sense.</p>
<p>“What does that even mean when a school tries to be something they are not?”</p>
<p>Ok, this is kind of complicated, so pay attention:</p>
<p>Georgetown is a Catholic university trying its hardest to hide its Catholicism in order to appeal to non-Catholics and climb up the US News rankings. Tufts is a fine smallish university that’s in an athletic league with LACs that are less than half its size; it’s also really really tired of being in Harvard’s shadow and being the classic Ivy-reject school…ergo the Tufts Syndrome and other efforts to try to be Ivyish…it should just upgrade the football program and join the Patriot League. Duke is already the East-Coast Stanford clone, but everybody associated with it seems to want you to believe it’s Harvard with basketball players. Cornell is trying to pass for a typical Ivy, when it’s clear to most people that its age, size, selectivity, and fields of study make it more comparable to Michigan or Virginia.</p>
<p>“Duke is already the East-Coast Stanford clone, but everybody associated with it seems to want you to believe it’s Harvard with basketball players.”</p>
<p>Duke is no Stanford either.</p>
<p>MrPrince, who is bashing? </p>
<p>Novi said: “Duke is no Stanford either.”</p>
<p>Mr Prince said: “You simply after all go to UMichigan. I could have easily gotten into Mich with HALF my stats. Pretty much anyone here guaranteed can get into UMichigan.
I don’t understand why you’re bouncing up and down among people here on CC who have ACTUALLY gotten into legitimately elite universities such as Stanford, MIT, UPenn, Brown, and, yes, the university you just bashed, Duke. I’ll even tolerate Berkeley kids because Berkeley is elite. But please realize you’re pretty much in the bottom of the CC pecking order and stop acting all high and mighty.”</p>
<p>I wonder who bashes on this forum. Certainly not anybody associated with Michigan. I see to it that never happens. Most bashers are students and alums of private universities. It is posters like you who make CC a lesser place. And you have not stopped bashing. You are still doing it. Michigan may not be elite to you, but it does not stop the fact that Michigan alums have led MIT for 20 of the last 40 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This might help you putting a stop on your “wondering.” Finding such posts is like shooting fish in a barrel. I’d take an enormously selective reading ability to miss posts such as:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, perhaps we ought to consider students who actually attend Michigan as NOT being “anybody associated with Michigan.”</p>
<p>xiggi, my statement was 100% correct. Michigan students and alums do not bash other schools, and thatr includes rjkofnovi. I admit that I sometimes disaprove of his posts, but he never bashed another university. Defending your school does not consistute bashing.</p>
<p>barrons:</p>
<p>fwiw, California also bests Michigan on ACT scores, 22 to 19, on the composite and on every subscore. (And yes, I do recognize the different denominators. But the available facts do not support your theory. )</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, is is not. </p>
<p>Frankly, I do not understand why you’d tarnish your own reputation by defending someone who not only admits being an unrepentant basher but seems to revel in being a major annoyance.</p>
<p>awww…my responses to Schmaltz and his conspiracy theories got deleted. Oh wells. It’s okay, bro, the world is more sane and rational than you realize. I am pretty sure Duke, Tufts, Cornell, and Georgetown try to…idk…educate people? Who would have thought. With such brilliant stats and individuals, perhaps there are something to these schools. </p>
<p>The problem with conspiracy theorists like yourself is you don’t think outside the box—you just follow USNWR and insecure CC individuals of the world without ever thinking and looking at things for yourself. You critique schools without having ever visited all of them for enough time to understand them. You make assumptions without any proof or evidence, you make critiques that could just as easily apply to another school, but based on geography alone, you assume you are correct. It’s people like you–the deranged conspiracy theorists–that make me chuckle. Because what you believe is either sad or really sad.</p>
<p>Alexandre</p>
<p>1) There was no need to mention Duke being inferior to Stanford. First off, these universities are both well recognized and are considered the top of the top. Stanford obviously more sought after because it’s in the Sillicon Valley, its weather, its super <10% selectivity means a better undergraduate population.
2)Duke is also similar. It’s located in RTP, a mini-Sillicon Valley. It’s weather is better than the Ivy League weather up north and it’s admit rate is going to obviously be below 14% this year.
As I recall MIT’s admit rate was around 13% just 4 years ago. Now its less than 10%. Who knows, maybe Duke might be just as selective in years to come.
That said, I think its obvious that a majority prefer Stanford over Duke just how majority will prefer Harvard over Columbia. There’s NO NEED to randomly state this in a thread that isn’t even about all this. Also, this DOESN’T make Columbia or Duke a bad university. Actually for most people the difference between a Harvard and a Columbia education is minuscule. Same goes for Stanford and Duke.</p>
<p>Anyways, my point is that it was completely unnecessary for rjkofnovi to chime in with his usual Duke hate. Schmaltz was correctly defending his position. For you to say he never bashes another university shows ignorance on your part. I’m disappointed in you, Alexandre.</p>
<p>I however did NOT bash UMichigan. It’s true it’s ranked so low in USNWR. A lot of students don’t put UMich undergrad on the radar. It’s 50%+ admit rate just does not put it in the league of the Ivies. UMich is not even in the league of Berkeley/UVA/UCLA for that matter. I simply reiterated this fact to rjkofnovi because I know it makes him insecure. I bet you 100% he wouldn’t be on CC and be an irritation to everyone if he had gotten into Harvard or the Ivies or even Duke itself.</p>
<p>Xiggi, do you care to point to an occasion where rjk bashed a university. Knock yourself out. You on the other hand have been guilty of arrogantly trashing universities like Cal and Michigan, not giving them their due.</p>
<p>MrPrince, saying that Duke is not as good as Stanford does not constitute bashing. I challenge you to find a single instance where any person associated with Michigan claimed that Duke was not among the nation’s elite. Every Michigan poster on CC, rjk included (he has posted as much often and can be traced back in his hitory) compares Duke to the likes of Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Northwestern and Penn. You are the one who is ignorant in this case, claiming something that is untrue.</p>
<p>On the other hand, saying that Michigan is not elite is bashing it. Just because one ranking does not rank it among the top 20 or because it is not as selective as other elite universities does not mean it is not among the nation’s elite. </p>
<p>And I do not really mind if you are disapointed in me. Your lack of honesty and unjustified arrogance disgust me. Capturing the respect of a person like you means very little to me.</p>
<p>Stating Michigan is not elite is not necessarily bashing it. The definition of “elite” can be very subjective and flexible. </p>
<p>For example, I don’t consider any of our nation’s public universities to be “elite”. I don’t even consider the entire USNWR top 15 to be elite. The word, in my opinion, has come to be used too loosely. -.-</p>
<p>(And “elite” often associates with some form of exclusivity. If MrPrince takes great value in this factor, which he has explained he does, it is true Michigan is not elite because its 50% admit rate is quite far from Berkeley or UVa. TBH, there are some quite mediocre universities with a 50% admit ratio.)</p>
<p>sentiment, I agree that stating that Cal and Michigan is not elite if you only consider a handful (literally 5) of universities is not bashing. But when one says that Cal and Michigan are inferior to schools that are in fact not better, that consistutes bashing.</p>