<p>What about the discrepancy on the berkeley website? They say that is fall 2010…</p>
<p>I know they say they read the essays twice… and they probably do. But the topic is pretty horrible, and they have 50,000+ or so essays to read on a limited budget. The number in the top 10% reflects the inadequate reliance on GPA over EC/SAT/essays imo. Note that even harvard accepts 5% not from the top 10%, 5x as many as Berkeley.
UCSD literally only accepts people in the top 10% this year and last. That’s lunacy.</p>
<p>And yes, plenty of Berkeley undergrads come from good HS. But the top 6 in cali are really out of the question. We both know they are likely going to HYPSM, and the top 25% (excluding top 10%) at those HS are good too, they just have a much harder time getting in for no real reason.</p>
<p>Not everyone admitted at HYPSM was a valedictorian in HS. I know several valedictians who didn’t make it to Harvard but their weaker classmates (based on stats) did. My simple point is - there are smart kids at the top 30 schools and there are not-so-smart kids at the top 30 schools. Whether or not HYPSM get the hoarde of the best of the best, the fact remains that there are bad apples and not-so-good apples at the top 30 schools. </p>
<p>I have a feeling that the bulk of those Pell grantees at Cal were transfer students, or those who came from CCs. I will look into the Cal data in a while.</p>
<p>^Ivy’s COA is around 50K, UC’s COA for in-state is under 30K. For Calif student having a 30K EFC, he/she has no fin-need if attending UC, but will need fin-aid if attending Ivys.</p>
<p>Mmm, right. And when these schools set their cut-off for need-based aid at a family income of $200K, the fact that roughly half the class gets no need-based aid means that roughly half the class is coming from families earning > $200K. Which I very much doubt is the case at UC Berkeley or any other public. Income at that level puts them in roughly the top 5% of income-earners in the U.S.</p>
<p>Look, a family income of $150K-$200K, which makes you need-based aid-eligible at most Ivies, is a far cry from Pell Grant-eligible. And even if half the class at Harvard were Pell-eligible—which it’s not, not even close–Harvard would still be educating far fewer poor kids than UC Berkeley. (Harvard undergrad student body = 6,655 divided by 2 = 3,328. UC Berkeley undergrad student body = 25,530 divided by 3 = 8,510). And UC Berkeley is doing it on far fewer resources, i.e., more efficiently.</p>
<p>Also notice that Tier1 and Tier 2 are composed of major research powerhouses except Duke. Its more of a research ranking than a measure of the academic programs IMO.</p>
<p>THe one thing I find flawed about the above tiers by sefago is that schools such as Northwestern and Michigan are just as much, if not more, research powerhouses than schools such as Dartmouth and Brown.</p>
<p>^ I am aware of this. What I said was that academic reputation is heavily based on research reputation so it could make sense that Tier 1 and Tier 2 would be research powerhouses. Tier 3 would be as someone termed quasi-research universities. however this does not change the fact that they provide excellent education so academic reputation tells you nothing.</p>
<p>What does michigan being a top University have to do with anything? Illinois didn’t publish anything yet about their 8 drop ranking. I think by writing a whole article about dropping two spots is pretty cheesy to me.</p>
<p>Why does any of this really matter? If you love the school you attend, does it really matter if it’s an Ivy, or prestigious…let’s not be so stuck up. Even George Clooney went to schools that we in the midwest refer jokingly to as “No Knowledge University” (Northern Kentucky University) and the “University of Convicts” (University of Cincinnati). Some famous people didn’t even go to college at all! And Bill Gates ended up dropping out of Harvard.</p>
<p>So just chill out on the “my school is better than yours because we’re on this hoity toity list” stuff cause being well known doesn’t make it universally a great fit for every intelligent person; and likewise, just because you’re not at an Ivy doesn’t necessarily mean you’re not one of the most intelligent people in the world.</p>
<p>“What does michigan being a top University have to do with anything? Illinois didn’t publish anything yet about their 8 drop ranking. I think by writing a whole article about dropping two spots is pretty cheesy to me.”</p>
<p>The whole newspaper world is commenting on the ratings, and you feel because Michigan is doing the same thing it is somehow “cheesy.” I have no idea why Illinois didn’t publish anything about the ratings, and to be honest could care less. Why you would care that Michigan does is something for you to explain. I mean it is news after all.</p>
<p>Dude I couldn’t care less about their ranking nor the U of Michigan. I was just surprised how quickly they published their ranking. A little reading comprehension please?</p>
<p>^^^^Yeah, sure. That’s why your rebuttal statement was:</p>
<p>“What does michigan being a top University have to do with anything? Illinois didn’t publish anything yet about their 8 drop ranking. I think by writing a whole article about dropping two spots is pretty cheesy to me.”</p>
<p>My reading comprehension is just fine. Your explanation that you, “couldn’t care less” sounds a little “cheesy” to me. If you couldn’t care less, you wouldn’t have been searching all over the internet comparing which college newspapers wrote/or didn’t write certain articles. Dude.</p>
<p>So I assume, since you live in New York, that this article is also “cheesy?” Notice it was published on the 16th? Someone must have been right at USNWR’s HQ getting that info.</p>