<p>UC more prominently is the University of California.</p>
<p>I know, it just gets confusing for me sometimes. Cincy is like it’s own little world with its own language and references sometimes. >_<</p>
<p>pizzagirl, school rivalries exist. they may sound stupid to you but they are just part of undergraduate life/experience that sometimes last a lifetime for many of the loyal alumni. Sometimes, that becomes the reason why some students are attracted to those schools. I love school rivalries. Cambridge and oxford. Stanford and Berkeley. Harvard and Yale. Duke and UNC. USC and UCLA. To name a few.</p>
<p>moneydad, perhaps your data for Cornell is more current, I don’t know. Maybe you’re correct. But as you can see, they’re not any different from Berkeley’s. And that merits my confutation of TheSaiyans666’s claim that Berkeley’s student body is so-so compared to Cornell’s. They’re almost identical to me.</p>
<p>
Absolute correct. That si why I don’t really fancy the idea that Berkeley/Cornell/Michigan/USC be compared to Dartmout/Brown/Duke because they’re apples and orranges.</p>
<p>to the person who posted that CA has generally substandard high schools:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.act.org/news/data/10/pdf/readiness/CCCR_California.pdf?utm_campaign=cccr10&utm_source=data10&utm_medium=web[/url]”>http://www.act.org/news/data/10/pdf/readiness/CCCR_California.pdf?utm_campaign=cccr10&utm_source=data10&utm_medium=web</a></p>
<p>The average ACT score in CA is 22.2, whereas the average for the U.S. as a whole is 21.0</p>
<p>^^–^^</p>
<p>The ACT is a selective test in California. </p>
<p>The SAT test scores of California are identical to the rest of the nation. Not better, not worse, as the higher number of Asians and slighly better performance of Whites offset the larger URM population.</p>
<p>"moneydad, perhaps your data for Cornell is more current, I don’t know. Maybe you’re correct. But as you can see, they’re not any different from Berkeley’s. "</p>
<p>1) my “handle” is M-O-N-Y dad, not $$ dad
2) there’s no “perhaps” about it, I was reading the stuff right off their 2009 Common Data Set entry.
3) I didn’t look at vs.Berkeley, I don’t care much about Berkeley, nobody in my family has/will apply or attend there. I comment when I see wrong, or misleading, stuff getting posted about Cornell. Such as the assertion that their data is for “admitted” students, as opposed to matriculated freshmen as is clearly specified in the Common Data Set. If their data is higher, lower, or the same as Berkeley’s, so be it.
4) some of the data for 2010 is now available, it is posted here
<a href=“http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000001.pdf[/url]”>http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000001.pdf</a>
<a href=“http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000003.pdf[/url]”>http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000003.pdf</a></p>
<p>Thanks for the link, monydad, and sorry about mispelling your name. </p>
<p>So, it’s confirmed that Berkeley and Cornell have almost identical stats. So, for those who are saying that Berkeley students are so-so, then so are Cornell students.</p>
<p>[Admissions</a> Statistics // Admissions // University of Notre Dame](<a href=“http://admissions.nd.edu/admission-and-application/admissions-statistics/]Admissions”>http://admissions.nd.edu/admission-and-application/admissions-statistics/)</p>
<p>I can’t find the enrolled average, but I’d bet it’s a tiny bit lower than the admitted stats. Still, the ACT composite is higher than cornell which is funny. You can tell we use it as a major screen, since lower 25% was a 31. ND is 31-34 vs. 29-33 for Cornell</p>
<p>^ Acceptable given that Cornell is large and ND is small. Stats usually suffer at large schools, that’s why it’s nto fair to compare them.</p>
<p>ND is over 8,000 undergrad, Cornell is about 10,000 I believe. ND’s halfway between the size of Cornell and Duke. </p>
<p>But as to the Berkeley thing, if Cali doesn’t get its house in order things could go very bad. The State as a whole would be losing population if not for immigration. This means the tax base is moving out and people who on average consume more gov. services than they produce are coming in. Since it’s very difficult to raise taxes or cut spending in the state the fiscal situation stands to get really bad. If they raise taxes, the tax base will flee. If they cut spending the UCs get axed. UCB and UCLA may go Michigan’s way and start going 40% out of state/pseudo privatizing.</p>
<p>RML, I don’t think Berkeley suffers from failing to evaluate itself. The university seems very self-aware. The state legislature has more to do with it. I had lunch today with the VP for external affairs (including USNWR reporting) for our state flagship (which is ranked closely to Berkeley), and his view is that increasing out-of-state admissions is the key to diversity, financial sustenance (given higher tuition rates to combat reliance on the state legislature) and admissions rate boosts. He’s not necessarily adopting that position, but it seems a bit of a solution.</p>
<p>Isn’t it possible that the elite publics fell because a greater portion of their funding is dependent on the government (compared to privates)? With the collapse of California’s budget, it’s natural that schools like Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, etc. would take a hit.</p>
<p>As of last year, the UC system’s budget has been slashed by 1/3. That’s obviously going to take its toll on the UCs.</p>
<p>BioDomer, ND’s undergrad is 8,300 whilst its 14k for Cornell. The difference between the two is already about the size of Rice + Amherst + Williams + Shwarthmore. If we would include grad schools, Cornell’s student body (21k) would almost double that of ND’s (11,700). That’s a substantal difference in my opinion. </p>
<p>
pbr, that sounds a great diea. I, for one, is in favor of Berkeley’s move to increase OOS students, though I also think it can hardly compete in the yield rate because of the lack of scholarship privileges for bright and deserving OOS applicants. For this year’s freshmen, about 24% are OOS - a huge leap from that of last year’s number - 1,220 OOS and 4,033 In-State students. <a href=“http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp[/url]”>http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp</a></p>
<p>Cornell consists of seven undergraduate colleges, with separate admissions and programs of study. Of those seven, so far as I’m aware the colleges of engineering, arts & sciences and the AEM major within the Ag school offer programs of study comparable to Notre Dame. Maybe I’m wrong but Notre Dame does not have an Ag school, a Hotel school, etc. Or many applicants seeking those programs. does it?</p>
<p>If you are interested in applying to one of Cornell’s colleges I would strongly suggest you benchmark by looking at the entrance norms for that college, to the extent you can. Admit rates at its various colleges vary from under 15% to over 31%.</p>
<p>You can find admit %s for those colleges at Cornell that are actually comparable to Notre Dame via the second link I provided; SATs by college for the prior year is also available at Cornell’s Institutional Research website. One challenge is that the AEM major is actually considered the most selective program at Cornell, however its entrance data is not published separately, it is subsumed within the overall Ag school stats. For handicapping purposes the best thing might be to assume its just a little tougher, in admit % and math maybe, than CAS.</p>
<p>Conventional stats aside, fit is quite important in considering admissions odds at the various colleges which have somewhat specialized missions. A 1600 scorer with no relevant experience or obvious suitability might not be a stong candidate at the Hotel school.</p>
<p>Here is the test score data by college for the prior year:
<a href=“http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000176.pdf[/url]”>http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000176.pdf</a>
<a href=“http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000177.pdf[/url]”>http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000177.pdf</a></p>
<p>Note only 36% submit ACT scores. Actually this is more than I would have thought, but it does not represent the bulk of the student body as the SAT does, or as it might at a midwest school where ACT is more prevalent. I would guess that they are disproportionately submitted by the weaker test scorers. Around here in NY, everyone takes the SAT, if that’s good enough many would not necessarily take ACT too. More likely to take if SAT is not good enough. Quite possibly the reverse in the midwest. The percent submitting is quite important if you intend to compare.</p>
<p>Additionally I understand some schools play games by reporting only the better of the ACT or SATs for those students who submitted both, I wonder whether Notre Dame was one of those cited, I think it was, actually.</p>
<p>thank you so much for being a life saver here. i was ready to go berserk.</p>
<p>"Harvard deserves to be at #1. HYPSM+Caltech are virtually of the same quality. Columbia, Dartmouth, and Penn are virtually of the same quality. Duke, UChicago, JHU, Brown, Cornell, NU, and WashU are virtually of the same quality.
Really? Based on what?
godevils2011 is offline "</p>
<p>Goddevils thanks for applying logic.</p>
<p>monydad, not sure that reporting the better of ACT or SAT is playing games… or at least not moreso than using Superscoring in reporting SAT results. The two tests are not fungible. They measure different skill sets. The ACT is widely agreed to test more for actual subject matter material expected to be learned during high school than the SAT does. There is also a different time pressure experience between the two tests.</p>
<p>There is an ACT - SAT conversion table published at collegeboard.com, and I would assume that most admissions committees that see mostly SAT will convert the ACT score into the “equivalent” SAT score by means of this table. <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/act-sat-concordance-tables.pdf[/url]”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/act-sat-concordance-tables.pdf</a></p>
<p>Do you really consider reporting the better of SAT or ACT different fundamentally than reporting the best sitting scores from the separate SAT CR, Math, and Writing sections into a composite Superscore?</p>
<p>whether each difference is “better” or not, all differences in reporting practices, % submitting, etc and how these are considered in the published data, ought to be taken into account, before just bluntly comparing not completely comparable numbers with others. The “one sitting” people have brought this up a number of times, and they are correct. </p>
<p>The point isn’t whether “one sitting” is a superior policy for an institution to use, the point is it makes the numbers incomparable for comparison to those who don’t do this, without making some adjustment. </p>
<p>I thought that the majority of institutions superscore, and the majority report both SATs and ACTs of matriculated students. I could be wrong.</p>
<p>I think reporting only the best of the two is tactical and is somewhat different from superscoring, but YMMV. Regardless it has to be adjusted for somehow before comparing to others.</p>