Safety/midrange schools to add to my list? (Top choices: USC & NYU)

[drax12]

<p>

@docfreedaddy

drax12</p>

<p>Starting a post describing USC as “score hungry” exposes you as a ■■■■■ before one has a chance to critique what you said. Grade inflation in HS is rampant.

</p>

<p>I was agreeing with a prior poster – it wasn’t RML – who stated similarly. USN’s US college rankings weighs scores heavily, along with class rank -> USC will seek those students with higher scores, often at the expense of class-rank/gpa. * All * schools inflate class rank %’s, so this isn’t a factor. Besides, authenticating class rank would be almost impossible. One would have to see data from a good no. of hss such as this one, to gain an idea of how a u actually places within this particular sub-admissions metric. </p>

<p>I agree that wgpa inflation is rampant, but that’s why one has to look at uwgpa. Unlike those on this board who say that UC gpa is important in admission to the UC’s, it’s evident that both UCLA and Cal consider uwgpa as most important, followed by fully weighted a-g gpa. UC gpa isn’t a consideration for either u. UC gpa is just a marker to determine eligibility and is used more at Merced, Riverside, Santa Cruz. </p>

<p>Added, one really can’t determine a candidate based solely on wgpa, particularly at this hs as you stated. And note: this database presents final gpa through students’ senior years, which will often ascend to a 5.0. One cannot determine the candidate wrt actual performance by this measure -> admissions will have to look at things through an unfiltered uw gpa lens, besides which … this puts students on more of an equal footing wrt admissions because of the lack of AP at underperforming hss. </p>

<p>Btw, for average uwgpa, UCLA’s 15 matriculants (a down year, typical is 23 or so) is 3.93, and USC’s 26 is 3.78. I would expect USC to load up on gpa at public schools, and load up on scores at privates, because USC takes greater proportions from private hss, which -> a lower class rank -> lower uwgpa. </p>

<p>

I expect a study of private vs. public high schools, especially in California, would show substantially greater grade inflation in public high schools. Objective test scores become an equalizer.

</p>

<p>No they do not. A poor child from the inner city has little chance of scoring highly on the SATI because he/she can’t afford a private tutor nor attend a pricey prep course. In addition, this child would be deterred in taking the SAT more than once because doing so probably wouldn’t do any good in any way; ie, he/she wouldn’t have the psychological frame of mind to improve. Because of this, ascendant scores run commensurate with wealth, because a wealthier child can afford tutors or pricey preps, along with having the frame of mind to ascend scores/take the test more than once or twice. </p>

<p>

Having read some of your other posts, your antipathy for USC and identification with UCLA is clear. Leaving bias for a moment,</p>

<p>you provide data from one public high school and attempt to generalize to the 41,000 applicants to USC and I believe about 60,000 to Berkeley. You also draw unwarranted conclusion about admission to USC, Berkeley and UCLA. </p>

<p>Any conclusions from such an inadequately small and unrepresentative sample would be unwarranted. There are likely numerous departments offering statistics, methodology and research design courses at UCLA that might be of interest to you in forming your future arguments.

</p>

<p>This is typical of a USC supporter … ie, to deny, deny. As I said previously, all the databases I’ve seen (usually top-notch preps or public hss) tend to show the same thing. Cal and UCLA admits have higher class-rank/gpa and higher scores at these better schools. Typical for a Cal and UCLA admit from the numerous API rank 10 schools in the state would indeed be 3.9+/2100+ SAT average. (This is why there is a perceived mismatch of stats required for both UCLA and Cal because students from good schools need impeccable stats to be admitted; whereas the mean stats for both may not reflect this, especially since UCLA tends to report stats, particularly scores, at understated levels, per my previous arguments, which you couldn’t follow – it was a multifaceted argument, not just wrt superscoring.)</p>

<p>I can’t link some of the others, primarily private schools, because I’m sure that these hss wouldn’t care for me to do so – this isn’t their intent in presenting these databases as it is more to prop their schools in college placement as it is in this one. </p>

<p>What draws people to a specific area is by a district having top-notch public schools that place well into UC. For example, Both Palo Alto HSs send 35% of their grads to UC, and this is because uwgpa at these schools is highly inflationary. The PVP data has made its rounds in several previous threads, so I felt at liberty to present it in this one.</p>

<p>And certainly, I was countering your prior posts in this particular thread. If in the future, you want to present something without my involvement, leave UCLA in particular, out of your arguments.</p>