<p>Throwing out large amounts of money to California students wouldn’t have as large an effect. For one, you have all the top colleges in the nation competing for top CA students, added to the fact that the UC’s are cheaper than USC even if the latter ‘throws’ out a 1/2 scholarship. Add that the UCLA saves its scholarships for instate students, which broadens the cost differences between it and USC within CA, and only seeks non-CA residents as full-payers to rake in revenue. </p>
<p>USC still admits 10% of the graduating classes of some of the top preps in CA, which probably points to a middling average class-rank for these students. These students come in with good scores if not particularly outstanding gpas. The point here is that UCLA cannot admit some of these students because they are not top-tier in rank.</p>
<p>UCLA certainly has a better rep than USC internationally, so a lot of them would pay full price for UCLA without any hint of considering USC, even if they would consider Cal a bit more. So UCLA has the advantage for CA students, cheaper; it has an advantage for Int’ls, better rep. Where USC undoubtedly has the advantage is in the other 49 states.</p>
<p>Wrt the latter, you have to figure that USC might compete in the general northwest or southwest for some top-tier students, but it’s going to be overshadowed by the Ivies and some of the top eastern seaboard u’s for the northeast students, specifically. The top eastern preps wouldn’t send a top-tier student to USC, because this U wouldn’t be high on these students’ lists, typically, because Ivies would similarly throw money at these students and also slap them with the much greater prestige.</p>
<p>I’d like to see UCLA compete for some northeastern students and offer them things ancillary as well as in addition to educational prestige. West LA … good life … big-city life … [pretty girls](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJjL4tf0wA”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJjL4tf0wA</a>) … as well as excellent academics. I don’t really see it happening though, save for NYC because UCLA there’s always been a UCLA/NYC connection from the U’s past.</p>
<p>For one, UCLA”s a public U. To be more inclusive of the lower socioeconomic set, it needs to discount or lower the effects of scores because otherwise there would be effectively no diversity at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Besides the above, the SAT is no more a standardized test than any other supposed one. You have kids whose parents can afford to spend $1,000’s on expensive prep courses or even $10,000’s on private tutors. One can essentially ‘buy’ a good score, coupled with retakes which is more of a phenomenon within the wealthier set.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely, in the beginning, but not over the long haul. UofTexas has found the SAT no longer relevant over the long-haul of students’ performances. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not exactly following the details of your example… But the student at Dalton Prep probably wouldn’t be eligible for admittance at UCLA, certainly if the school were in CA, and except for the fact that he/she’d be a full-payer. Add the fact that he/she would probably have the means to ‘buy’ a high score.</p>
<p>The ascension of scores can be done in a matter of months. Nothing, other than retaking courses, if permitted, can really ascend a gpa quickly. Therefore, a high gpa is a longer-lasting accomplishment than scoring highly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m still not comprehending fully – your post is somewhat jumbled, you’re right – so I just started lumping your paragraphs together… other than I think I agree that the Watts’ student should be admissible and would be sought by probably every top u. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other than legacies, the three top-tier u’s you mentioned combine class-rank/grades as well as scores. But these are also private u’s with a different educational quest than a public, like UCLA. I’m not saying that USC’s is necessarily inferior, but UCLA is by far the much more rigorous U than USC, and shows with much grad appts, and in most professional areas.</p>
<p>UC tends to favor high school grades (not rank) because they found that high school grades are better predictors of college performance than standardized test scores.</p>
<p>Since 'SC refuses to publish its common data set, we’ll never know the correct answer, but based on what anecdotes I have observed over the past few years and looking at other similarly-ranked colleges, I would be really surprised if USC’s number was that low. Sure, USC may accept the middle of the pack kids at Harvard-Westlake, but that is a small number in total, in comparison to the hundreds of top decile kids accepted from PV or Troy or Uni.</p>
<p>UCLA views the SAT as a standardized test taken in 5 hours on a Saturday. They view GPA as an accumulation of HARDWORK over a period of 4 years. GPA undoubtedly is more important than SAT.</p>
<p>I am unsure if there is some meddling with those SAT scores. Maybe UCLA requires 100% reporting and USC does not? But from my experience, those who have gotten in to USC (and I don’t live in California so I only know a few students) they were not that great, but came from wealthy families. Money got them in. SO…what percent reports the SAT scores? This is just a shot in the dark of course. I am referring to how things were 20 years ago too. So, I don’t know much about now.</p>
<p>This might be true except for the fact that USC admits quite a large % from private high schools. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I would say the % of those from private schools would be in the 40% range within those who’ve matriculated (therefore ~ 60% from public schools). The acceptance rate from these schools is also higher than the admit rate for public schools. </p>
<p>Private hs kids can typically can buy a higher test score (I’d agree that not all private-school kids are richer, however), with a lot of the motivation for higher scores being to be more marketable to colleges because they have lower grades (typical of privates even at the top of their classes), and for USC admits, lower class rank.</p>
<p>No, USC does a good job of getting a diverse class wrt socioeconomic background; it isn’t “Spoiled Children” any more.</p>
<p>But as far as cooking the SAT numbers, who knows? No one has access to the databases of students admitted, and the U isn’t going to relinquish this right to release them or have someone review them, so we really can’t say. </p>
<p>All we can do is look on the other side, by comparing those who matriculate to USC from the various high schools. From the really good high schools, USC admits typically can’t compete with UCLA’s wrt stats. </p>
<p>Where USC surpasses UCLA wrt scores (it’s closer than is manifest because of adjustments) is by the latter admitting a lot more from really lousy, bad high schools because that’s a part of its mission as a public U, and within this to hit its diversity indices. UCLA then gives these at-risk students a very intense tutoring to get them up to speed, often succeeding.</p>
<p>Just two different schools, with different missions. I think UCLA’s is more noble and commendable, to sacrifice entry standards for social good. Does UCLA go too far in this quest? In my opinion, probably it does. There are too many 3.8-uwgpa/4.5-w/2100 UCLA refuses and rejects.</p>