Top 10 public "ranking"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ranked based on quality of the peer groups

UCB
UCLA
UMich
UVA
GT
UNC
W&M
UT
UIUC

The academic peer group at the UCs is pretty bad right now. The kids might be interesting but they are not really that smart.

Source?

Her “How to cope with a Berkekey rejection in your portal” handbook.

How to cope at Berkely knowing many of your classmates have low standardized test scores yet these are your peers at your school.

If you are at one of the top schools in the country and you still genuinely care about your peer's SAT scores you peaked in high school.

Our kids shouldn’t have to slum it with the sub-1400 goofballs. This isn’t clown college after all.

The test optional nonsense is making the UC Berkeley student body look like that of ASU.

Don’t insult ASU by comparing it to the UC colleges.

ASU is basically UCLA without access to a beach.

On the East Coast, the corresponding comparison is UConn being basically Cornell without the suicide bridge, and Penn State - Abington campus being basically UVA without the Rotunda.

Checks out.

Not at all. We are discussing the test blind admission practices at UCLA and the other UC schools. The test scores are on par with those at ASU.

Yeah, gonna need to see links.

I’ll look forward to seeing how actual ASU test scores are comparable to actual UCLA test scores, at any point in history.

That is the whole point of being test blind. Your test scores can be terrible and exclude you from getting into reputable schools like ASU.

You understand that test blind and test optional are the same environment for anyone with terrible test scores, right?

Anyway, you’re a clown, but here are relevant facts to consider:

SAT 25th -75th in 2020/2021 (last year before test blind format at UCLA)

UC Berkeley 1300 - 1530
Michigan 1340 - 1520
UCLA 1290 - 1510
UVA 1330 - 1490
ASU 1130 - 1330

Hmm, just the beach …

That is historical. UCLA scores are so bad now they don’t report.

What’s the source? You’re asserting that they are “so bad now”. What is the source underlying that assertion?

I mean, I know the source is one of the disembodied voices you “hear” in your head, but what were you planning to respond with when anyone with a pulse called you on your bullshit?

They are unreportable because they are so low. Why else wouldn’t UCLA report them? They are awful.

The basis for your ranting and raving about UCLA is pure conjecture?

You know this because … your feelings?

You understand that they don’t release the data in their CDS in compliance with the Trustee decision to remove standardized testing from the evaluation process, right?

If not, wake up. If so, why are you desperately grasping for this new red herring that requires others to accept your feelings? Nobody cares that UCLA fired you as a TA because of mental health issues. That’s between you and your caregivers at this point.

You sound dumb enough to buy into this whole alternative admissions scheme.

You sound like a disgruntled, disturbed TA who couldn’t even make the cut at UCLA as a lowly TA - a TA who now haunts this forum with awkward DV ex-boyfriend vibes because you can’t get over the fact that you’re no longer welcome in Westwood.

Get a life. Your TA fantasies are more pathetic than the decline of the UC schools.

Show us on the doll where the UC system hurt you.

🤣 complete clown show trying to act like you’re basing your assertions on facts when it’s merely your inadequate feelings making things up. Good grief.

Please disclose ahead of time that your posts are devoid of facts moving forward, thank you very much.

The only clown show is the UC system ignoring the most important part of college admissions with a test blind admissions system to attract alternative applicants who test poorly. That is their whole student body these days.

Different schools do different things you can poke fun at - for example, what kind of class strength do you think Michigan has when their in-state acceptance rate is around 38% (almost 4x UCLA’s in-state acceptance rate)? Or UVA accepting 25% of in-state applicants (over 2x UCLA’s in-state acceptance rate)? Those actual facts hardly seem to suggest selectivity by any definition of the term.

Do those facts make Michigan and UVA bad schools? Of course not. But at least that conclusion is based on a consideration of certain facts. Your entire schtick is based on feelings.

And that’s weird. Really weird.

I am not the poster you are replying to and I think UC schools are great.

No one can deny that the UCLA or UCSD are in demand. But you have to acknowledge that admissions rate is dependent on the sheer number of applicants. Several factors unrelated to quality/level of students drive up the numbers of the top UCs: 1) CA is a state with a HUGE population and 2) UC App makes it super easy to apply to more of the UC schools and 3) test blind makes everyone feel like they have a shot.

The Admissions rate shows that it is a popular and highly desired school. Northeastern's acceptance rate is comparable to MIT's but no one would pretend the student body is at the same level.

Unless of course if they studied in the UC system. Math does not seem to be their strong point.

[Anonymous]

Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

It is impossible to measure quality of UC university students without SAT scores so you have to assume they have the low scoring students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

It is impossible to measure quality of UC university students without SAT scores so you have to assume they have the low scoring students.

Is it impossible to measure the quality of the universities themselves? No, no it is not. Is a thread about top 10 publics only about UC schools? No, no it is not.

Do you even know anything about universities other than the admissions process?

Your logic is also completely flawed. You don’t “have to assume” anything. There are many ways for a school to evaluate students beyond test scores.

All of these people posting for hours about college and many of them don’t seem to know the first thing about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

Please describe, in detail and with concrete examples, the exact differences in quality among top publics that are seen based on these admissions practices. Not in the abstract, but the actual quality differences experienced by students across different institutions, and again backed up by concrete examples or data. Particularly since most publics are still test optional.

Please also elaborate on why these differences are more impactful, in your view, than the quality of individual departments and professors, availability and breadth of courses, teaching quality, career and graduate school outcomes, program-specific opportunities, outside-of-class opportunities, and graduation rates, among other metrics of quality. We’ll all wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

Please describe, in detail and with concrete examples, the exact differences in quality among top publics that are seen based on these admissions practices. Not in the abstract, but the actual quality differences experienced by students across different institutions, and again backed up by concrete examples or data. Particularly since most publics are still test optional.

Please also elaborate on why these differences are more impactful, in your view, than the quality of individual departments and professors, availability and breadth of courses, teaching quality, career and graduate school outcomes, program-specific opportunities, outside-of-class opportunities, and graduation rates, among other metrics of quality. We’ll all wait.

People are “overly” focused on admissions because if a school does not admit you, nothing else matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Finally someone sane has entered the discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

Please describe, in detail and with concrete examples, the exact differences in quality among top publics that are seen based on these admissions practices. Not in the abstract, but the actual quality differences experienced by students across different institutions, and again backed up by concrete examples or data. Particularly since most publics are still test optional.

Please also elaborate on why these differences are more impactful, in your view, than the quality of individual departments and professors, availability and breadth of courses, teaching quality, career and graduate school outcomes, program-specific opportunities, outside-of-class opportunities, and graduation rates, among other metrics of quality. We’ll all wait.

Another Top Public already did the research for you and switched course on test optional. Enjoy the read.

https://news.utexas.edu/2024/03/11/ut-austin-reinstates-standardized-test-scores-in-admissions/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

Please describe, in detail and with concrete examples, the exact differences in quality among top publics that are seen based on these admissions practices. Not in the abstract, but the actual quality differences experienced by students across different institutions, and again backed up by concrete examples or data. Particularly since most publics are still test optional.

Please also elaborate on why these differences are more impactful, in your view, than the quality of individual departments and professors, availability and breadth of courses, teaching quality, career and graduate school outcomes, program-specific opportunities, outside-of-class opportunities, and graduation rates, among other metrics of quality. We’ll all wait.

Another good article with links

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/test-optional-admissions-do-disservice-us-students

[Anonymous]

There is strong research showing the decline of student quality with test optional/blind admissions. There is no question it is doing significant harm to the UC universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

Please describe, in detail and with concrete examples, the exact differences in quality among top publics that are seen based on these admissions practices. Not in the abstract, but the actual quality differences experienced by students across different institutions, and again backed up by concrete examples or data. Particularly since most publics are still test optional.

Please also elaborate on why these differences are more impactful, in your view, than the quality of individual departments and professors, availability and breadth of courses, teaching quality, career and graduate school outcomes, program-specific opportunities, outside-of-class opportunities, and graduation rates, among other metrics of quality. We’ll all wait.

Another Top Public already did the research for you and switched course on test optional. Enjoy the read.

https://news.utexas.edu/2024/03/11/ut-austin-reinstates-standardized-test-scores-in-admissions/

None of this says anything about quality between different public schools. None of it says anything about other students’ experience. It just says that kids that submit do better at school than kids that don’t. You have failed the assignment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you want to actually talk about the quality of different top schools? Or just rant about admissions practices?

Blind admissions and high percentage test optional admissions does go to the overall quality of the school.

Please describe, in detail and with concrete examples, the exact differences in quality among top publics that are seen based on these admissions practices. Not in the abstract, but the actual quality differences experienced by students across different institutions, and again backed up by concrete examples or data. Particularly since most publics are still test optional.

Please also elaborate on why these differences are more impactful, in your view, than the quality of individual departments and professors, availability and breadth of courses, teaching quality, career and graduate school outcomes, program-specific opportunities, outside-of-class opportunities, and graduation rates, among other metrics of quality. We’ll all wait.

Another Top Public already did the research for you and switched course on test optional. Enjoy the read.

https://news.utexas.edu/2024/03/11/ut-austin-reinstates-standardized-test-scores-in-admissions/

None of this says anything about quality between different public schools. None of it says anything about other students’ experience. It just says that kids that submit do better at school than kids that don’t. You have failed the assignment.

Not surprised l did. I was test optional

[Anonymous]

UC system is having a huge debate about this. The general consensus is that equity, which is the number one mission of the university system (before scholarship and research) is best achieved by abandoning the prior UC hierarchy that reserved the UC's for the state's best and brightest.

That type of gatekeeping is an indicia of white supremacy and racism and the new way of handling admissions works well because it comports with prop 209's ban on using race in admissions.

The UC's choose by high school, including Berkeley and UCLA, so you will get the "best" of each high school. Students are evaluated strictly against their peers within their own high school, not against the entire state. The problem California faces is the great majority of its high schools are low performers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UC system is having a huge debate about this. The general consensus is that equity, which is the number one mission of the university system (before scholarship and research) is best achieved by abandoning the prior UC hierarchy that reserved the UC's for the state's best and brightest.

That type of gatekeeping is an indicia of white supremacy and racism and the new way of handling admissions works well because it comports with prop 209's ban on using race in admissions.

The UC's choose by high school, including Berkeley and UCLA, so you will get the "best" of each high school. Students are evaluated strictly against their peers within their own high school, not against the entire state. The problem California faces is the great majority of its high schools are low performers.

Then, fix the CA K-12 education system. Simple, right?