rc251

As I understand it, the numbers are not based on any sort of hard data, the top 10% numbers are simply "estimates" by administrators.

You have to keep in mind that the California Master Plan for Higher Education mandates that "UC [is] to select its freshmen students from the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the high school graduating class". The admission standards are adjusted as to meet this goal. ELC was added guaranteeing that anyone from the top 4% of an individual high school (no matter how horrible it is) is also eligible for admission. Now, California has a huge population (and a huge number of crappy high schools) which can explain how 3.0 students can still be in the top 10%.

I don't think those numbers are implausible. This is anecdotal, but I'm guessing schools like Harvard tend to draw from higher performing high schools where the student pool is much more competitive too.

lockn

Aren't there top public high schools in CA that send far more than 12.5% of their class to UC's? I'm looking this up and getting the impression that they want the top 12.5% of the state's high school graduates, which may not be evenly distributed among high schools.

And even if everyone was in the top 12.5% by class rank, how do you get 95%+ of your class in the top 10%? It's mathematically possible, but sounds unlikely and you definitely wouldn't expect (estimate) it.

rc251

It's top 12.5% of all high school students, and/or top 4% of each individual high school. Since the bottom of that amount would likely only be accepted to Riverside (and now Merced), perhaps the lower rung of students attend their local Cal State instead.

IBclass06

If the UCs were worried about their ranks, they would superscore the SAT...which they don't.


Too bad pointing fingers at others doesn't really shift attention away from USC.

Sezon

It's commonly expressed both ways.

sndebrosse

It looks like you're quoting a source here. Would you mind providing a link? thanks

al6200

Is it possible that the UCs are not actually lying about the class rank numbers, rather they are just getting most of their students from really weak high schools. I mean, it's not hard to be in the top 10% of your freshman class if only 10% of your class is college bound.

pineapplelollie

"I'm looking this up and getting the impression that they want the top 12.5% of the state's high school graduates, which may not be evenly distributed among high schools."

^Yup, and I agree with al6200. I lived in a crappy part of LA before-filled with a lot of people who don't care for college. I moved to a much more academically competitive school afterwards where everyone was practically college bound. Thus, I found out some people from my old school made it to some of the top UC's while some of my current classmates didn't even get into the mid-tier UC's (SD/I) when they were definitely more if not equally qualified. So basically, yeah, the UC's intention is to take the top students from all California schools. Personally, I think it's unfair, but I guess, what do you expect from a public school system?

jbusc

I've said it before. Their ranking methodology is FUBAR anyways. Fixing one bad data point isn't going to change that.

Hopefully, this issue can be resolved without too much more drama.

nooob

Have they found any discrepancies concerning WashU's rank?

csleslie51

News: The Best University? - Inside Higher Ed
"...he university's president, James F. Barker, took a very different approach in his peer assessments. Barker, too, rated his institution as "strong" -- but he gave no other university in the country that high a mark, handing out 18 "good"s (3's), 94 "adequate"s (2's), 126 "marginal"s, and 21 "don't know"s in the 2009 ranking. Because U.S. News's "national universities" category includes not only well-regarded public institutions such as the Universities of California at Berkeley, Michigan, and North Carolina at Chapel Hill, but also private universities such as Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, Barker has rated his institution more highly than all of those."
"The request from U.S. News is to measure the academic quality of undergraduate programs," Barker said. "It did not say research programs, it did not say prestige. It did not say size of endowments, or anything other than undergraduate education. And I took that charge seriously, measuring what I would think would be the full package of the undergraduate experience," including faculty-student ratio, relationships between faculty and students in and out of class ... do they spend time having lunch together.

"I believe that Clemson does that better than anyone," he said.

nooob

Why do we even use Peer Assessment when there are people who are so strongly biased like this man? However, I'll admit there is a chance that Clemson does offer a comparable undergraduate experience (excluding prestige obviously), but still, using opinions of others to create a ranking seems ridiculous.

fiona_

Eligible in Local Context: http://www.universityofcalifornia.ed...igibility.html

jwlstn

" I'll admit there is a chance that Clemson does offer a comparable undergraduate experience (excluding prestige obviously), but still, using opinions of others to create a ranking seems ridiculous."

haha, you've obviously never been there then. The campus is nice but it's definitely not a strong school academically, the hillbilly backwardness of a great deal of the students there makes it hilarious that anyone, even the president, would claim it is a better school than UCB, UVa, UNC, and Umich., let alone a Harvard or Yale. Maybe in agricultural studies.

phonyreal98

So now USC doesn't just cheat in sports, but in academic rankings too?

Sorry, had to be said. :-p