<p>From the stats, it seems USC has higher academic standards when it comes to freshmen admission. I thought the stats are surprising since Berkeley have always been perceived as a more prestigious school (at least from where I’m from).
Anyways, I could be wrong…I just want to share this and see what you guys have to say about this or if the stats are wrong.</p>
<p>The superscore argument is weak because all private schools, including HYSP, do it. Furthermore, that argument presumes all applicants retake the exam several times. Most importantly, however, studies have concluded that retaking the SATs multiple times does not appreciably raise scores…</p>
<p>All private schools may super score but here we are comparing USC to two schools who do not super score.</p>
<p>With the most applicants to any university in the country, I’m sure UCLA could probably post SAT scores better than 2030 but it seems UC’s do not care much for the SAT; they hold a much higher regard for GPA.</p>
<p>“The superscore argument is weak because all private schools, including HYSP, do it. Furthermore, that argument presumes all applicants retake the exam several times. Most importantly, however, studies have concluded that retaking the SATs multiple times does not appreciably raise scores…”</p>
<p>UCLA and UC Berkeley do not superscore, therefore your premise is invalid. Not all applicants, retake the exam, but many in fact do. While studies may conclude that retaking the SAT multiples times may not appreciably raise scores, you have to question this conclusion. On what basis was it made on? What are these so called studies? Who conducted them? Anyone can say, “Studies show…”</p>
<p>And even if you were right, the phrase “appreciably raise scores” is ambiguous. What defines an appreciably raised score? +500 points? +50 points? +10 points?</p>
<p>And just FYI, I took my SAT 3 times. My final and last score was 200 points higher than my first one.</p>
<p>No, you need to support your assertion that super scoring accounts for why the SAT scores of USC are significantly higher than those of UCLA and USB, rather than relying on speculation as your UCLA colleague has.</p>
<p>Even adjusting for data manipulation, I suspect that the differences in SAT numbers lack statistical significance. Given that, the profiles say that the students at these three schools are effectively identical.</p>
<p>In all seriousness, the Duke University Sanford Institute of Public Policy conducted a study “Retaking the SAT” in 2001, by Clotfelter and Vigdor. The study concluded that retaking the test increases scores by ten points on average for verbal and math. Predictably, the largest increase is between the first and second retake, but score increases fall with each successive retake to ten points on average. Further, whereas 38% of students retake the test twice, only .2% retake the test five times. Of that tiny amount, the average cumulative increase is 46 points each for math and verbal. Thus, even assuming that all USC applicants took the SAT five times, which is unreasonable, the alleged superscoring does not account for the significant disparity in scores between USC students and their U of C counterparts.</p>
<p>For the record SeattleTW, I am not sure if you were referring to me when you said “UCLA Colleague” but I was actually denied by UCLA and accepted at USC.</p>
<p>The ACT examination is used by all three of these universities as one of the factors considered for admission. None “superscore” the test. USC uses the same data.</p>
<p>The common data set has not been released by UCB or UCLA for entering freshmen for 2012 or 2011. The 2010 numbers will be used.</p>
<p>ACT Middle 50% for entering freshmen in 2010–ENROLLED</p>
<p>SeattleTW, I think you mistake SAT retaking and superscoring as being the same thing. I took the SAT test twice and although the scores were similar for both times, my superscore was 140 points higher. Superscoring makes a huge difference.</p>
<p>The study I cited further explained that those will very low scores on the first take experience the greatest gains on second take…that begs the obvious question…</p>
<p>Fortify- Wow…my son who was admitted to all three schools UCLA, UCB and USC ( where he chose to attend) super score versus his single sitting total varied by a total of 10 pts. He was in the 2200+ range…so where do you get the statistics to back up your comment " super scoring is huge" , just because of your anecdotal evidence…if so my son’s results would suggest otherwise? My other son who attended a top 10 school had a SAT that varied by 40 pts…but then his ACT was a 36 …so he really didn’t care because it was better than his SAT.</p>
<p>B&b: your comment supports the study I cited a well. Those with high initial scores have lower increases on retakes. Congratulations and I’m sure you are proud!</p>
<p>And as a matter of fact, the data suggest that the average USC applicant had very high initial scores, completely refuting the entire “superscore” argument.</p>
<p>D took the SAT three times and the ACT twice. If she had not taken the SAT for a third time, superscoring would have helped about 30 points. However she did take the SAT a third time (after finally studying one of the many prep books I had bought her) and improved her score 200 points. She then took the ACT a second time and went from a 26 to a 31.
SAT 1st sitting - 1840
SAT Superscore after 2nd sitting - 1870
SAT 3rd sitting - 2040, not superscored</p>
<p>By the way, the book she used was Princeton Review’s “Cracking the ACT.” She read it cover to cover and it helped her immensely on both exams.</p>