<p>Btw, if you think Hawkette’s posts are absurd after she carefully researches data and presents facts, think about how absurd other people’s posts must seem to people who like numbers better than random opinions.</p>
<p>joshua007,
Personal dictates? No. Personal beliefs? Yes. Conclusions backed by some definable methodology (even if it is not accepted by you). Yes. If you disagree with my approach, then please explain why and present an alternative. </p>
<p>Rather than an insult, some insight into your methodology would be a more appropriate response. To date, all I have seen/heard from you is complete attribution to others for their assessment of this or that college. Are you not able to think for yourself or are there just no OBJECTIVE and MEASURABLE criteria that favor the schools you promote?</p>
<p>TheThoughtProcess, those 4 criteria are definitely important, but as you obviously point out, they cannot be measured with any degree of accuracy. And even if one could magically assign accurate measures to those 4 criteria, how would we interpret them? SAT scores are very much a function of reporting style and philosophy. If an elite state university changed its approach to SATs to the way a private elite approaches SATs, its mean would increase by a small but noticeable margin (at least 80 points, probably closer to 100 points). The fact is, state universities deemphasize standardized tests. One example I often use is Michigan. Until 2003, Michigan used a formula which has since been discontinued. That formula awarded more points to a 3.9 student with a 1200 SAT score than to a 3.8 student with a 1600 SAT score. You tell me, how hard was a Michigan student going to prepare for the SAt knowing that a 1360 on the SAT would yield exactly as many points as a 1600 on the SAT and that a 0.1 point improvement in GPA would count more than a 400 point improvement on the SAT? This attitude is pounded into Michigan kids ever since they enter high school, even today because even now, Michigan refuses to take standardized tests seriously. SAT/ACT is nothing, GPA is everything.</p>
<p>But at the end of the day, those 4 criteria aren’t measurable, and even if they were, they only represent 4 of more than a dozen or so equally important criteria, which include among others, quality of faculty, breadth and depth of curriculum, cutting-edge research availlable to undergrads, institution reputation in academic and professional circles, loyalty and influence of alumni network, intellectual atmosphere on and off campus, quality of computer centers, libraries and labs, preponderance of artisitic, political, social, athletic and educational events on and off campus etc…</p>
<p>I find it very funny that all the experts and high-level academics/intellectuals (Fiske, Gourman, Gerhard Casper, the thousands of Peer Assessers of the USNWR etc…) and major recruiters at exclusive companies agree that Cal and Michigan are among the top undergraduate institutions in the US but somehow, a small group of people on this forum insist that those two publics are somehow inferior to their private peers.</p>
<p>venkat:</p>
<p>while I totally agree that INDIVIDUAL class sizes may matter, i.e., 20 students taught by a prof vs. 800, I still don’t see why a small college (TOTAL class size) is better than large. Just bcos Hamilton has less than 1600 students doesn’t necessarily make it any more efficient than a top small-mid sized Uni such as Dartmouth, Stanford or Duke. They obviously have the resources to offer more classes and hire more registrars.</p>
<p>Obviously, many kids prefer a small college feel, while others want to a big campus so that they don’t ahve to participate in discussions, or want big-time D1 sports, but those are only personal preferences and don’t make a college necessarily better one way or another.</p>
<p>Alexandre,
You profess to being broad-minded and fair about colleges, but so often your postings appear to me that you are so only to the extent that the new ideas don’t threaten the position of your alma mater. This is understandable and human. But I truly am trying to be agnostic about what schools benefit from a methodology and trying to think about what is the most effective and relevant way to measure colleges and the undergraduate experience that they offer.</p>
<p>Some will claim that such a quest is for fools as there is no one-size-fits-all equation. To an extent, I would agree with this. Different people will favor different things and schools that are “weaker” overall may still be the right school for an individual student because the school is stronger in his/her major or it is a better “fit” or some other reason. </p>
<p>But I do believe that there are some absolutes and that these should supersede the arguments promoted by defenders of the academic status quo, particularly those who rely on reputations and individual bias to make judgments. What are some of the absolutes? </p>
<ol>
<li> Having a stronger student body is preferred to having a weaker student body. All across the country (nearly all) Admissions Departments have accepted standardized tests, class rank and GPA (within the context of a curriculum) as the primary academic determinants for the acceptance of high school applicants. These are measurable and pretty accurate and they are broadly accepted and used. You can argue with the efficacy of such measures, but I suggest you take that up with the thousands of Admissions counselors currently using them.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>There are also additional measures of student strength-NMS, 1500 scorers, Intel/Siemens winners, etc. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Having smaller individual class sizes is preferred to having larger class sizes. Taking a class of 100+ students taught by a TA is rarely preferable to taking a class with 20 students and a full-time professor. The class size issue has all kinds of implications beyond just the idea that there is a higher degree of personal attention, eg, ability to meaningfully interact with your professor AND your peers, increased familiarity of the professor with you, your interests, your needs and his/her greater potential to help you out in significant way either through learning opportunities (research, better understanding of the material) or post-graduate opportunities (grad school or work), etc. </p></li>
<li><p>Having more money to support students and faculty is preferable to not having enough money to accomplish institutional objectives. I hope that I don’t have to explain this one as having the resources available to support undergraduate students and making the commitment to do just that is often of great consequence in determining the quality and the outcome of one’s undergraduate experience. In my view, this is perhaps the most underrated and overlooked area of a college and yet potentially has the greatest impact on the quality of the undergraduate experience and the future of the school. </p></li>
<li><p>Having good teachers is preferable to having poor teachers. To me, this includes having teachers who are committed to undergraduate learning (does not mean they can’t also be dedicated to graduate learning-it’s just that I want teaching to be the focus and not research). Students/families are paying a lot of money to go to college these days and I argue that this investment deserves more attention (and respect) from the faculty. Having a research superstar on the faculty doesn’t do the students any good if the faculty member is always doing research or is uninterested in undergraduate learning. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>There are other absolutes and perhaps other posters will have some to contribute, but I think you get the idea on how I arrive at my opinions about the key drivers for the most successful undergraduate experience. </p>
<p>I look forward to your response, but I ask that you formulate it without mentioning either U Michigan or UC Berkeley (or any school if possible). Take a step back from the defense of your school or any school and try to explain the process that you are using for determining America’s Best Colleges and state what measurable variables you include and why.</p>
<p>“higher SAT scores does not equal smarter students, and BY NO MEANS translates into a better undergraduate school. Plain and simple.”</p>
<p>yes, I see a change of mind in the “new” KK - just months ago he argued that i was an idiot for saying Cornell’s students are equal to Northwestern’s even though the SAT average for Cornell is slightly lower (only a few points, not the 200 in this cal vs. d-mouth debate). Glad to see a change in thought!</p>
<p>“You profess to being broad-minded and fair about colleges, but so often your postings appear to me that you are so only to the extent that the new ideas don’t threaten the position of your alma mater.”</p>
<p>I’ll vouch for Alexandre here. Of all the posts of his I’ve seen, he’s mostly very evenhanded and logical (why else would he be chosen as a mod?), and oftentimes he isn’t playing up Michigan’s rep but accepting that it isn’t the “best” school. In a ranking that placed Michigan #2 or so in the nation, he even conceded that it shouldn’t be nearly that high. So I think this perception of yours is a little off. One honestly doesn’t have to be a huge supporter of a given school to argue for it in a discussion, and such is often the case of me and Berkeley. It isn’t my alma mater (in fact, I’m aiming more toward Stanford), but I’ll still argue for it when I see fit, just as I will for other schools such as Michigan, UVa, UCLA, JHU, Cornell, etc. It seems Alexandre does the same.</p>
<p>(I say this in part because I too have been called out – or attacked even – before for supposedly attempting to glorify Berkeley, when that’s usually far from my intention.)</p>
<p>Yeah but counter the fact that state schools are almost 100% stats oriented vs. the Ivies that factor in building a well rounded class. That means the Ivy students are even STRONGER than the state school students.</p>
<p>^^ you’re talking about the random, usually unranked and unheard of state schools, right, and not UVA, Berkeley, UCLA, etc.?</p>
<p>kyledavid,
Thanks for your comments and your defense of Alexandre. God knows that he and I have had our differences on U Michigan, but I am trying to put that aside (at least for the moment 
) and trying to establish some broad agreements about what is important, objective, and measurable in evaluating a college. Your comments on this would likewise be welcome.</p>
<p>No I’m talking about the top state schools like Michigan, UCLA, CAL, etc. UVA has more of a private school like process but a majority of the top state schools are completely stats oriented and do not factor things like diversity or ECs to a significant extent outside of sports.</p>
<p>^^ what? Not at Berkeley. I’m not trying to start a whole Berkeley thread going here, but quickly, see this:</p>
<p>In this year’s admissions, over 50% of those with over a 4.0 were rejected; over 50% of those with an ACT range 31-36 were rejected; over 50% of those with a CR score between 700-800 were rejected; about 60% of those with a M score between 700-800 were rejected; and about 50% of those with a W score between 700-800 were rejected. I doubt these ranges were mutually exclusive.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles/chart_ucb.pdf[/url]”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles/chart_ucb.pdf</a></p>
<p>The importance of the essays is constantly stressed (not to mention extracurriculars and other things). To quote some other CCers:</p>
<p>“And of course, work hard on your essays. I think they were the make-or-break element in the admissions decisions of most of the people I know, since some of them had good stats and got rejected, while others had so-so stats and got in.”</p>
<p>“I had so so stats… not bad, but not up to par with berkeley’s average, but worked hard on my essays and got in… the essays are very helpful i think in the admissions project, I am an example of it.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=354417&page=2[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=354417&page=2</a></p>
<p>Diversity:</p>
<ul>
<li><1% American Indian/Alaskan Native</li>
<li>46% Asian/Pacific Islander</li>
<li>4% Black/Non-Hispanic</li>
<li>12% Hispanic</li>
<li>29% White/Non-Hispanic</li>
<li>2% Non-Resident Alien</li>
<li>7% Race/ethnicity unreported</li>
</ul>
<p>General admissions:</p>
<p>Admission requirements:
* Essay(s) required
* Required: SAT Reasoning Test or ACT
* If submitting ACT, the writing section is required
* Required: SAT Subject Tests
Very important admission factors:
* Application Essay
* Rigor of secondary school record
* State Residency
Important admission factors:
* Character/Personal Qualities
* Extracurricular Activities
* Standardized Test Scores
* Talent/Ability
* Volunteer Work
* Work Experience
Considered:
* Geographical Residence
* First generation college student</p>
<p><a href=“http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=988&profileId=1[/url]”>http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=988&profileId=1</a></p>
<p>So, far from “almost 100% stats oriented.”</p>
<p>Simply because Berkeley and other top state schools have different approaches to admissions from the Ivies doesn’t mean that their approaches are “inferior.”</p>
<p>Slipper, I suggest you read the note from the UW DOA. Even though UW is not the most selective of the top state schools, they use a very holistic admissions process. So does UM.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.admissions.wisc.edu/hsnews/hsnewsspring07.pdf[/url]”>http://www.admissions.wisc.edu/hsnews/hsnewsspring07.pdf</a></p>
<p>The state universities may still practice holistic admissions though the degree to which probably varies by state and is partly influenced by the % of OOS students that apply and are accepted. But logic and the statistical relationship between state universities and high Top 10% ranked students would lead to another conclusion. Could it be that, as an offering to the political gods, the state universities have an obligation to take a high percentage of in-state students and this leads them to adopt admissions procedures (Class rank, GPA, standardized tests) to help referee the inevitable squabbles about who is admitted and who is not? This leads to a more stats-based admissions procedure, at least in comparison with the top privates.</p>
<p>Pretty much any state school will be weaker in many key areas relative to top end privates.</p>
<p>This is due to some obvious factors. The government can’t spend as much per student as the privates can. This leads to larger classes, less anything per student, and so on. These state schools may have excellent professors, but they will have larger classes and less involvement with students on average than those at Stanford or Dartmouth or some other premier private. These factors lead to a very very strong applicant base and student body.</p>
<p>Berkeley’s top 4000 students are probably as good as those at Dartmouth or any other school, same with UM, UVA, or other top publics. However, there is another large segement of the student body where state residency becomes a huge benifit and leaves a large number of students that is not competative for nationally super selective schools. This is demonstrated in the test scores among other things - 1350-1550 for Dartmouth compared to 1220-1450 at Berkeley. That is a huge gap. UFlorida is at the 1160-1360 spot, and no one(at least that I know) would compare UF to UCB, so why is UCB being compared to Dartmouth?</p>
<p>UCBerkeley has one of the best educations in the nation AVAILABLE to those who fight for it(and have some luck at getting classes), while Dartmouth will GIVE you one of the best educations in the nation.</p>
<p>At the junior/senior level, I would probably say that you are at comparable schools, as the ‘chafe’ would be separated, and Berkeley would offer classes that are smaller, like Dartmouth’s. Research opportunities would be more available at that point too.</p>
<p>Berkeley’s upper level and grad courses are as good as any in the nation. However, you could easily find a more academically rewarding first 2 years. Dartmouth will offer those great classes for all four years.</p>
<p>Any Berkeley grad - you recieve my respect for one of the best educations in the nation. Same with UM and other top publics. However, from a learners perspective, the small collaborative classes offered at a Dartmouth could not be passed up.</p>