<p>As I have to reduplicate the post that was lost…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA is undoubtedly one of the most transparent u’s in the country. They report nos. related to admissions as a guide to those, specifically of poorer background, what it takes to gain admission. And again, it purposely understates to give poorer kids a higher level of confidence … because UCLA is all about diversity.</p>
<p>So if you want to refer to this as marketing, then if would be a best-foot-behind kind of marketing. </p>
<p>If you look at the U’s CDS, it reports 25th and 75th percentile, which are obvious forms of medians. On its website, it reports mean SAT. It’s just a different type of reporting. The reporting at its website understates SAT scores because, again, a mean will indeed be materially lower than a 50% median.</p>
<p>The 1910 mean SAT becomes 1970 or so just by eyeballing. At both sites, it’s possible to eyeball within a few points within that 1970 figure. So it’s not misreporting, but rather a different way of reporting. And the fact that it’s ~ 1970 for both sites, verifies that UCLA’s nos. are consistent. </p>
<p>Some persons have posited that 40 points added is a figure to convert to 2-part superscoring. I conservatively used 40 for the three.</p>
<p>The redundant reporting of SAT and ACT’s is fairly evident to me. Either you see it or you don’t. Most kids try a first stab at the SAT, and if this baseline is deemed to low for them, then a lot of them switch to the ACT, which is deemed a bit easier and non=course specific. But either way, within a 10% amount of scores that will be approximately equal, there will be a separation between both scores. This is what UCLA is doing wrong, and it’s not a purposeful misreporting on its website vis-a=vis the federal forms. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell me what you think the mean gpa of CMU’s students should be.</p>
<p>CMU isn’t Pomona College nor Harvey Mudd. It’s a very good college, but I wouldn’t think it would get the absolute top-tier student. And there’s nothing wrong with a 3.6 mean gpa. There are a lot of o/s u’s with a similar mean. Hopkins, I believe, has a mean in the 3.6’s. </p>
<p>Add, that a very good portion of CMU’s students would probably be good private school hs kids, but not the absolute top tier, as in Pomona, or Harvey Mudd, or certainly not Cal Tech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not at all bothered by your reference to UCLA as the Southern Branch. I really couldn’t care less if your intent is to rile. But go ahead and live in the past. ;)</p>
<p>You and I had a conversation of the overstated top decile %”s of both UCLA and Cal. I estimated that both would have ~ 80% top decile, when both overstate at 97%+, so we’re not breaking new ground here. I think just about all u’s overstate this %, so UC schools aren’t the only offenders.</p>
<p>Besides, which, I don’t know what your intent is. If you want to tie it into gpa, the mean of UCLA students is 3.82 in 2012, as it clearly states at its website. I would guesstimate that this figure is significantly higher than CMU’s average, whatever it is.</p>