<p>UCB and UCB Pell Grant recipients are over 30%, way better than the elite universities or state flagships in Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Carolina or Florida.</p>
<p>I went to a very competitive high school with a lot of people who wanted to go to ivies, and I knew only one person who took the SAT again. Generally, it’s understood that taking the exam additional times may make you look like an obsessive test-taker, so people didn’t do it.</p>
<p>“For what it is worth, we should remember that the AVERAGE HSGPA is 4.14 at UCLA and just below 4.0 at Cal. An average of 4.14 requires TWO AP and a perfect 4.0 GPA, or more with a few B’s. To put it mildly, a student does not accumulate a weighted GPA in the 4.4 to 4.67 (the maximum possible UC GPA) range without living in a culture and an environment that values and supports his or her efforts.”</p>
<p>I’m really impressed with this 4.14 HSGPA!!! My daughter’s HS in an affluent part of southwestern CT had a mean GPA for the graduating class of 2.788, with only 3 students out of 320 with a GPA > 4.0. Talk about grade inflation!</p>
<p>Doc, it’s even more bizarre when you learn that Berkeley had over 19,000 applicants with a GPA of 4.0 or higher - and they accepted less than half of them! I’d say it’s not uncommon for the top 5 to 10% of a California high school 's graduating class to have GPA’s of 4.0 or better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The College Board has figures on that issue. </p>
<p><a href=“College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools”>College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools; </p>
<p>I don’t recall ANYBODY in my generation who took the SAT more than once, but it sounds like times have changed. I also didn’t know anybody who prepared for the SAT I to any greater extent than </p>
<p>a) reading throughout childhood for pleasure, </p>
<p>b) taking the PSAT the year before, </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>c) trying out the sample test in the SAT information booklet. </p>
<p>Nobody in my town in my era had heard of test prep courses and hardly anybody aspired to out-of-state, highly selective colleges (which were deemed to be too expensive for middle-class people like the people I grew up with). I get the impression that things have changed.</p>
<p>Responding to Marite’s comments concerning the differences between GPA of one school vs. another.</p>
<p>I think that you are operating on the assumption that college achievement is influenced by the quality of academic preparation the student has previously – i.e., those kids arrive with a better education, with a more comprehensive store of knowledge and more experience thinking and interacting in a demanding academic environment. </p>
<p>I personally feel that the individual’s level of motivation and work ethic is more significant – since UC’s draw from the top 10% of California high schools, and strongly favor the ELC (top 4%) – they are by definition getting the students who are the most serious about their studies and focused. This is especially true of students who manage to get top GPA’s and complete the required UC courses in a poorer, inner city high school – because it is much more difficult to focus on studies when the peer environment is not supportive. That is, it is one thing to be working hard for A’s when the parents are constantly pushing, there is an older high-achieving sibling to emulate, and the friends and acquaintances are all competing to get into the AP courses. It may be hard work, but it is hardly remarkable to see a kid coming out with a good record and top grades from that setting.</p>
<p>But the kid who manages to keep afloat with almost all A’s when being raised by a grandparent because one parent is in jail and the other is a drug addict, when no two siblings have the same father, when all the other kids in the neighborhood are running in gangs, when most of the teachers at the high school seem inept and the best ones don’t seem to last very long… that’s an accomplishment. It is a kid who has succeeded in an environment where everything seems designed to make the kid fail.</p>
<p>Of course the contrast is not always so stark, but my experience sending an ambitious, focused kid from a public high school with so-so academic standards off to an elite college is that the attitude is key. Given that success in college is as much about avoiding the temptations of newfound freedom and budgeting time – I think that the high GPA from the high school of many distractions has turned out to be great preparation. </p>
<p>Again – GPA tells a lot because it represents the result of sustained effort over time. Mid-range GPA’s at mediocre high schools might not mean much more than that the kid regularly showed up for class, but no one gets all A’s anywhere – even at the crummiest high school – unless the kid is at least a serious and conscientious student. And serious and conscientious combined with reasonably bright is really all it takes to succeed at just about any college.</p>
<p>
Well, no, I think they don’t. That would imply that on average, over a large number of students, HS GPAs would provide a meaningful predictive value, even when the GPA’s come from different schools. I’m not sure that’s true.</p>
<p>I took myself up on my request to look at more CSU data over my lunch break, and here’s what I came up with: I picked two counties, Sacramento and Riverside, and compared their public high schools’ CSU matriculants’ high school GPA’s and test scores to their freshman GPA’s. First, I weeded out private schools and special schools (Charter, continuation, etc.) with fewer than 10 students going to CSU’s. I was left with 76 high schools which send a few thousand students to various CSU’s. The statewide averages for CSU matriculants are: HS GPA: 3.29; SAT, 1018; Freshman GPA, 2.79. The majority of the high school were very close to all three averages. But a few things stood out: At each of the 22 high schools whose CSU matriculants had average SAT scores below 960, their students average freshman GPAs were also below the state average. The CSU matriculants at each of the nine schools whose CSU-bound students’ SAT scores averaged over 1080 also had average Freshman GPA’s above the state average. No such correlation appears with grades.</p>
<p>Looked at another way, of the high schools cohorts which averaged over a 2.9 GPA in college, every one also had above average high school SAT scores. A third of them, however, reported below average HS GPA’s for their CSU matriculants. SImilarly, high schools whose CSU matriculants had average collegiate GPA’s below 2.7 all also had below average SAT scores for that group, while over half reported above average HS GPA’s for those same students. In all, out of 76 high schools, 20 reported inconsistent numbers for HS GPA and SAT - one above average, the other below. In every case the freshman GPA corresponded with the SAT scores, not the HS GPA. So, I don’t think the flaws in using HS GPA as a predictor of collegiate success get buried in the noise. In fact, the signal to noise ratio of HS GPA seems to be remarkably low. </p>
<p>
I think Tokenadult answered that with the link to the CB site. The “prepped SAT wonder” may be somewhat of an urban legend. </p>
<p>
Well, it’s not the approach I would have used if I were designing a study, but it’s the data set that’s available. I do think, however, that if you were to randomly divide the CSU-bound students into 20 or 30 student tranches and determine the average HS GPA and SAT scores of each tranch, the SAT score would prove to be a better predictor of average first year freshman GPA for each tranch than the average HS GPA. And what does that tell you?</p>
<p>I have been sitting in a lot of “info sessions” this summer with son #2 and frankly sit there wondering how many potential Einsteins and Madame Curies are being kept out of the elite schools for lack of ECs or because they exhibit a “reclusive” personality at l6 (they are not leaders of a club or team captains!). I also wonder - where we are going to get our brilliant but dedicated and content workforce from in the future? Some fields require brilliance and tenacity over “well-roundedness”, congeniality and leadership skills. I sure hope our future cancer researchers, for example, can sit there and get excited about looking through a microscope fpr 12 hours/day and reading esoteric journal articles. Having worked in healthcare for many years I know we really need these people too! I think it would be great to hear some great schools say…give me your brilliant, shy kids, we’d love to see what they can do and what we can do for them. And, I think it would be great if admissions didn’t see kids as finalized at l6 - some of them still haven’t finished growing physically - why do they think their potential is determined already? </p>
<p>OK, yes, I am getting cranky with this admissions process (smile) and maybe the humidity on the tours (smile, again). Second time around can make you feel a bit jaded! </p>
<p>BTW, I think UPenn and UMich were good hits for this young man - there are so few spaces and so many qualified kids. I do wish schools would stop worrying about who was voted president of a club, president of a student office, etc., as in many schools these are high school popularity contests and have nothing to do with who can cure cancer or make the best use of academic facilities IMNSHO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are there schools that say this? There are certainly occupations that are filled largely with grown-up versions of kids like this.</p>
<p>kluge,</p>
<p>good analysis of what data you have. You may well be right about the correlation. But we really can’t tell from the data we have. But thanks for a thought provoking discussion!</p>
<p>tokenadult - I don’t know any - do you? They took them years ago and that is why you have occupations filled with grown-up versions of kids like this. Why do kids like this have to go to tier 3 schools where they may not get the best training, resources or opportunities for research (for example). BTW, my kid is not shy at all. I happen to manage a staff of young, bright professionals from selective schools who need much more supervision and management than any crop I have had to manage in the past. I will not hire another young professional until I can fill a few positions with older ones! This has really made me think about what society needs versus what colleges are engineering. Having a kid who doesn’t get to be a kid is another thing that makes me think a lot about this, as well.</p>
<p>" I also wonder - where we are going to get our brilliant but dedicated and content workforce from in the future? Some fields require brilliance and tenacity over “well-roundedness”, congeniality and leadership skills."</p>
<p>People like that go to liberal arts colleges, including top ones. LACs are the types of universities from which a large proportion of graduates get doctorates and enter research careers.</p>
<p>Even brilliant people, however, need to develop some social skills. To obtain one’s doctorate, one needs to be able to work with a mentor and a committee. A student who is incredibly shy, no matter how brilliant, is going to have a very hard time getting mentors, working with a committee, and gaining a job and tenure after graduation. One gains tenure by getting published (which often occurs by knowing the right people, not just having done good research), and by doing various presentations. Someone who’s super shy is going to have a very difficult time achieving those things.</p>
<p>“I don’t recall ANYBODY in my generation who took the SAT more than once, but it sounds like times have changed.”</p>
<p>I’m in my 50s, and went to an excellent public school in NY (not in NYC). I took the SAT twice, and also studied for it using a review book that I purchased.</p>
<p>Rileydog, meet my kid. </p>
<p>At 16, he was pretty brilliant, if I say so myself, incredibly lopsided and also shy. No leadership position, hardly any EC.</p>
<p>Speaking as someone who was extremely shy as a child & teen, I can say that it is definitely much too soon to write off a 16 year old due to shyness! I give all the credit to my experiences during my college years — I came out of my shell during those years. While I think it is too bad that shy students might not get into certain schools because of their shyness, I also think that it might be okay. If a very shy student goes to a school where the rest of the student body is overwhelmingly outgoing, that may not contribute to the “blossoming” she could undergo in the right environment. It’s not the end of the world, nor the end of a brilliant career, if a kid doesn’t get into HYPS. Plus, with the right undergrad experience, those schools may well be excellent choices for grad school.</p>
<p>And for the record, I think that even if a person remains shy, that does not preclude them from being able to contribute great things to society.</p>
<p>calmom:</p>
<p>I am not assuming anything. I am merely asking why, with schools having different grading practices, and different populations, HSGPA is claimed by the UC studies (not by ME) to be a better predictor of college success than the SAT, and why it is not subject to adjustment for SES or race or type of school.</p>
<p>Kluge’s analysis seems to undermine the idea that HSGPA has a higher predictive value than the SAT:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just asking, not advocating anything. I have no dog in this fight at all.</p>
<p>Even if you have leadership ability and are not shy, your time is probably best spent largely in academic activities. You may have time for small things like student government, but not to found and run your own organization.</p>
<p>“Some fields require brilliance and tenacity over “well-roundedness”, congeniality and leadership skills.”</p>
<p>^^ Again with the Either/Or I hear so often. Why do so few people understand that colleges can Have It All, and seek to? You believe that maybe no one with brilliance & tenacity also is congenial & a leader? Well, the colleges have figured out that trade-offs are not necessary. Yes, some are divided along such personality lines, but not necessarily most of the admits. And they’re happy to take the quiet kinds of leaders, as well, who lead by self-direction & role-modeling. They’re more interested in quality human beings than extroversion or group organization skills, per se.</p>
<p>Not every genius is a quiet, bookish nerd. Nor is every bookish nerd a genius, of course. In fact, I’d really classify all my D’s roommates to date as quiet & studious. (i.e., not “out-there” people) However, what they all have in common (I’ll put my own positive prejudice aside about my D) is that her roommates all demonstrate their caring for humanity in some way; they are all multi-talented in their unique ways; they are all quite academically accomplished (were, prior to freshman year); they all have continued to maintain high academic standards & output to date; and mostly (this is the part I like the best & may be equally attractive to admissions committees): every single one is maximizing the full resources of the University in creative, mature, & responsible ways. As quiet as each is, none is huddling in the dorm/library over a book or computer night after night, season after season. They enrich themselves with, and contribute to, the cultural life of the campus, often using those opportunities to apply in some fashion to their studies even. Every single one of them has developed a non-boiler-plate academic program, without prodding or being led by the hand. They’re using opportunities within their departments, and extended programs such as Study Abroad, to enrich their programs of study. They participate in e.c.'s & develop offshoots of those. They represent a variety of majors: lab sciences, social science, languages, and more. They are independent & inner-directed.</p>
<p>Now, since I know my own D well & her high school record, I would know that such a pattern (in college) was likely from a close investigation of her high school history & the accompanying recommendations. So I have to believe that the same was true for her roommates. I think when committees talk about well-roundedness they’re talking about wholeness, not about superficial dilettantes tallying up the “numbers of different activities” and “numbers of leadership positions” so often tossed around on the CC student forums, as if decision-making adults cannot see through such posing. I don’t think the colleges are talking about social butterflies and team captains as being more valuable per se than what I described above. Certainly the evidence does not show that. </p>
<p>And I also think that some of these rep talks can be misleading, & inaccurate rhetoric is thrown around which causes a lot of anxiety, unnecessarily.</p>
<p>And ALL fields at elite U’s require brilliance & tenacity, if the student wishes to excel & prosper. Those elite U’s prefer students who are likely to excel & prosper in whatever field chosen, based on demonstrable attributes, of which an SAT score is possibly one-ninth of all the elements in such a determination.</p>
<p>At a Stanford info session, the rep answered a question about a hypothetical applicant who was passionate about music and had no other EC. She suggested that the passion for music could be broken down in different ways: music lessons to show commitment; performances to show social skills, team work, level of achievement and even community service; and perhaps giving music lessons to children to show community service and leadership/initiative. In other words one activity could be used to demonstrate several things.</p>
<p>“Even if you have leadership ability and are not shy, your time is probably best spent largely in academic activities. You may have time for small things like student government, but not to found and run your own organization.”</p>
<p>There are people who are brilliant, have leadership abilities and are assertive enough to form their own organizations, to be valedictorian and SGA president and doing extremely well in sports and/or academically-oriented clubs. And places like Ivies tend to be where such people go.</p>