<p>Hah, no, it was a joke referring to your comment about trusting Princeton Review at face value.</p>
<p>However, I’m saying both Princeton Review and the UC schools might be to blame. They probably have a computer that reads schools’ common data sets and automatically assigns a number; I don’t think Princeton Review did any research at all for those kinds of stats. </p>
<p>As an example, look at UCLA’s average GPA in this new edition of Princeton Review: 4.22. Now, look at Berkeley’s: 3.9. Doesn’t that seem a little strange to you? Well, if you look at the Common Data Sets</p>
<p><a href=“http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2008-09.pdf[/url]”>http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2008-09.pdf</a></p>
<p>[UCLA</a> Office of Analysis and Information Management | AIM](<a href=“http://www.aim.ucla.edu/cds/cdsformC.asp]UCLA”>http://www.aim.ucla.edu/cds/cdsformC.asp)</p>
<p>That’s right, these GPAs came self reported from the schools. According to Berkeley’s CDS sheet, they reported their GPA on a 4.0 scale. This particular instruction is not mentioned on UCLA’s Common Data Set, so they reported the weighted instead.</p>
<p>It’s these kind of inconsistencies that can throw the rankings. I doubt it was a lack of Princeton Review’s research, they just took the data the school gave them.</p>