Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP

Of course it does. Peer group is one of the most important characterisitics of a college. The test blind/test optional schools have less consistent quality in peer group.

And what are all of these other public universities that are test required? This is what is being discussed. The articles have nothing to do with that question.

And failing once again to confront any other assessment of a university’s quality beyond the test scores of its students.

Other than Florida and Texas, what are these other top public universities REQUIRING a standardized test score?

That’s exactly the question. That’s why this whole debate over test optional in what is supposed to be a discussion about top publics is stupid. They are almost all test optional, so evaluate them on other criteria (which you should do even if you had the test scores, because there is a lot else to evaluate). But the kids and strivers commenting here can’t, because they don’t know anything about college other than obsessing over tests they want to pass.

Obviously. Well, there’s a disgruntled TA, sent packing by UCLA years ago, who haunts this forum and devotes his energies to denigrating UCLA, the UC system and presumably anything that has ever crossed his path. He promotes misinformation, like “lectures with 1,500 students”, “the only instructor your kid will ever see is a TA”, and “it will take 27 years for your kid to graduate”.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even have a personal association with the UC system, aside from an extended family member who is a current student and I’ve hired several Cal and UCLA graduates in the past - in all of those few connections, I’ve personally been aware that the individuals (including my extended family member) were absolute superstars when it came to standardized testing.

Anyway …

There was a former TA that posted once or twice in a pre-med thread questioning UCLA for pre-med. You don't know anything about that person yet you are dismissing them with ad hominin attacks.

DP. But nope, wrong. The UCLA TA has posted on a ton of threads on this forum.

I only recall "the UCLA TA" from a pre-med thread but may have missed others. They seemed to know a lot about UCLA classes.

Which one or three of the public t10 better for pre med or BS/MD route?

They have always been highly ranked, it’s not a new thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really a rank? Aren't they all flagships which exist to educate predominantly the students of that state? When someone refers to a T10 public "ranking", is it for grad programs or for undergrad?

There are rankings. Five are in CA ….UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCD and UCI. Are in the 1-9 spots.

Give me a huge break. UC schools are a total mess right now for undergraduate education. You can thank the Board of Regents for that. No school that is 100% test blind should be top anything. I know you are referring to the USNWR rankings, but do you realize they rely heavily on the social mobility score? This is why the UCs are in the top 10. They have more poor people and FGLI (Pell grant recipients) than most schools. Is that commendable? Yes, but it doesn’t make it a top public university. I say this as a proud graduate of the UC system. No way UCD or UCI belong in the top 10. Maybe UCSD?

They also get a bump because of graduate salaries, which is largely a function of the high cost of living in California. To a statistician, an in-state kid who becomes a high school teacher in California is “better” than one who does the same thing in Ohio because salaries are higher, even if the Ohio teacher is more likely to be able to buy a house in their town on their salary.

This.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP

Of course it does. Peer group is one of the most important characterisitics of a college. The test blind/test optional schools have less consistent quality in peer group.

And what are all of these other public universities that are test required? This is what is being discussed. The articles have nothing to do with that question.

And failing once again to confront any other assessment of a university’s quality beyond the test scores of its students.

Other than Florida and Texas, what are these other top public universities REQUIRING a standardized test score?

That’s exactly the question. That’s why this whole debate over test optional in what is supposed to be a discussion about top publics is stupid. They are almost all test optional, so evaluate them on other criteria (which you should do even if you had the test scores, because there is a lot else to evaluate). But the kids and strivers commenting here can’t, because they don’t know anything about college other than obsessing over tests they want to pass.

Obviously. Well, there’s a disgruntled TA, sent packing by UCLA years ago, who haunts this forum and devotes his energies to denigrating UCLA, the UC system and presumably anything that has ever crossed his path. He promotes misinformation, like “lectures with 1,500 students”, “the only instructor your kid will ever see is a TA”, and “it will take 27 years for your kid to graduate”.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even have a personal association with the UC system, aside from an extended family member who is a current student and I’ve hired several Cal and UCLA graduates in the past - in all of those few connections, I’ve personally been aware that the individuals (including my extended family member) were absolute superstars when it came to standardized testing.

Anyway …

There was a former TA that posted once or twice in a pre-med thread questioning UCLA for pre-med. You don't know anything about that person yet you are dismissing them with ad hominin attacks.

You’re very off-the-mark regarding the frequency of the disgruntled TA’s posting, and a simple search of this site bears that out, but whatever. This back-and-forth isn’t worth further debate when some posters have such an obvious ax to grind.

DCUM is funny because it’s a place where lots of people gather who are all mad that they can’t math test their way to success.

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: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.

DP

Of course it does. Peer group is one of the most important characterisitics of a college. The test blind/test optional schools have less consistent quality in peer group.

And what are all of these other public universities that are test required? This is what is being discussed. The articles have nothing to do with that question.

And failing once again to confront any other assessment of a university’s quality beyond the test scores of its students.

Other than Florida and Texas, what are these other top public universities REQUIRING a standardized test score?

That’s exactly the question. That’s why this whole debate over test optional in what is supposed to be a discussion about top publics is stupid. They are almost all test optional, so evaluate them on other criteria (which you should do even if you had the test scores, because there is a lot else to evaluate). But the kids and strivers commenting here can’t, because they don’t know anything about college other than obsessing over tests they want to pass.

Obviously. Well, there’s a disgruntled TA, sent packing by UCLA years ago, who haunts this forum and devotes his energies to denigrating UCLA, the UC system and presumably anything that has ever crossed his path. He promotes misinformation, like “lectures with 1,500 students”, “the only instructor your kid will ever see is a TA”, and “it will take 27 years for your kid to graduate”.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even have a personal association with the UC system, aside from an extended family member who is a current student and I’ve hired several Cal and UCLA graduates in the past - in all of those few connections, I’ve personally been aware that the individuals (including my extended family member) were absolute superstars when it came to standardized testing.

Anyway …

There was a former TA that posted once or twice in a pre-med thread questioning UCLA for pre-med. You don't know anything about that person yet you are dismissing them with ad hominin attacks.

DP. But nope, wrong. The UCLA TA has posted on a ton of threads on this forum.

How exactly do you know this? It is an anonymous forum and that is pure speculation.

Because the UCLA TA regularly identified herself as such. That’s actually why I don’t think she is one of the ones here posting. Though it’s also entirely possible she’s stopped pointing herself out and is continuing to comment.

Weird how dug in some people are being about this person not existing. She commented on tons of threads, even ones that didn’t have anything to do with UCLA.

She has not self identified here. And any post critical of the UC system gets called the work of the UCLA TA. It is just bizarre. The simplest explanation is that a lot of people think the UC system messed up.

Me: she regularly identified herself, that’s why I don’t think she’s posting here.

You: she has not self identified here!

Test blind might be favorable to you.

Nobody was arguing with you, just agreement. Simmer down cowboy.

Anonymous wrote:This is one instance where I think the Niche list makes a lot more sense than the US News list.

1. Michigan
2. UCLA
3. UVA
4. Georgia Tech
5. Florida
6. UNC-CH
7. UT Austin
8. UIUC
9. UC Berkeley
10. Georgia
11. FSU
12. Wisconsin-Madison
13. UCSD
14. Virginia Tech
15. Texas A&M
16. Ohio State
17. UW Seattle
18. UC Irvine
19. Purdue
20. UC Davis
21. FIU
22. Maryland College Park
23. William & Mary
24. USF
25. Penn State

That’s their whole “A+” tier. UC Merced comes in at #184 (B+).

Niche’s methodology is much better than USNews.
However, I think W&M should be higher on the above list.

The admissions practices are not spelling doom for the universities. It’s not harming the reputation for any of the schools. UCs have weeder classes that are truly rigorous and practice curves, usually deflationary. Reputation is based on the faculty and the top six UCs are powerhouses there with a long history of top caliber academic work. UCSB isn’t even one of the five in the top ten and they have Nobel winners.

It sucks that Bay Area kids who are far more academically capable get rejected while OOS or lower performing in state region students who can’t pass basic classes get in. It harms the regional Cal states by dropping enrollment at school better suited for average to lower performers.

However, it’s not entirely correct that the unprepared student took a spot from a more deserving kid. If all the tippy top kids from the Bay Area filled every seat, you would have highly capable kids not moving forward in their desired major. STEM subjects in particular do not infinitely scale to support unlimited students. Someone has to get cut. The unqualified kids are easy to cut and shuffle over to communications, sociology or area studies.

Anonymous wrote:This obsession with UC’s test blind policy is one of the weirdest things I’ve seen on this site. Like, you people derailed this thread from the start and are doubling down on it now.

It isn’t just the UC system. A lot of publics are still test optional. The sooner they get back to requiring scores the better.

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: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.

DP

Of course it does. Peer group is one of the most important characterisitics of a college. The test blind/test optional schools have less consistent quality in peer group.

And what are all of these other public universities that are test required? This is what is being discussed. The articles have nothing to do with that question.

And failing once again to confront any other assessment of a university’s quality beyond the test scores of its students.

Other than Florida and Texas, what are these other top public universities REQUIRING a standardized test score?

That’s exactly the question. That’s why this whole debate over test optional in what is supposed to be a discussion about top publics is stupid. They are almost all test optional, so evaluate them on other criteria (which you should do even if you had the test scores, because there is a lot else to evaluate). But the kids and strivers commenting here can’t, because they don’t know anything about college other than obsessing over tests they want to pass.

Obviously. Well, there’s a disgruntled TA, sent packing by UCLA years ago, who haunts this forum and devotes his energies to denigrating UCLA, the UC system and presumably anything that has ever crossed his path. He promotes misinformation, like “lectures with 1,500 students”, “the only instructor your kid will ever see is a TA”, and “it will take 27 years for your kid to graduate”.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even have a personal association with the UC system, aside from an extended family member who is a current student and I’ve hired several Cal and UCLA graduates in the past - in all of those few connections, I’ve personally been aware that the individuals (including my extended family member) were absolute superstars when it came to standardized testing.

Anyway …

There was a former TA that posted once or twice in a pre-med thread questioning UCLA for pre-med. You don't know anything about that person yet you are dismissing them with ad hominin attacks.

DP. But nope, wrong. The UCLA TA has posted on a ton of threads on this forum.

How exactly do you know this? It is an anonymous forum and that is pure speculation.

Because the UCLA TA regularly identified herself as such. That’s actually why I don’t think she is one of the ones here posting. Though it’s also entirely possible she’s stopped pointing herself out and is continuing to comment.

Weird how dug in some people are being about this person not existing. She commented on tons of threads, even ones that didn’t have anything to do with UCLA.

She has not self identified here. And any post critical of the UC system gets called the work of the UCLA TA. It is just bizarre. The simplest explanation is that a lot of people think the UC system messed up.

Me: she regularly identified herself, that’s why I don’t think she’s posting here.

You: she has not self identified here!

Test blind might be favorable to you.

Yeah, the TA allegations are really weird. I had several posts in this thread that weren't even critical of the UCs themselves, but were critical of the argument that "the lowest admit rate equals the best school" … and I'm pretty sure someone said I was the bitter TA.

This obsession with UC’s test blind policy is one of the weirdest things I’ve seen on this site. Like, you people derailed this thread from the start and are doubling down on it now.

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: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.

DP

Of course it does. Peer group is one of the most important characterisitics of a college. The test blind/test optional schools have less consistent quality in peer group.

And what are all of these other public universities that are test required? This is what is being discussed. The articles have nothing to do with that question.

And failing once again to confront any other assessment of a university’s quality beyond the test scores of its students.

Other than Florida and Texas, what are these other top public universities REQUIRING a standardized test score?

That’s exactly the question. That’s why this whole debate over test optional in what is supposed to be a discussion about top publics is stupid. They are almost all test optional, so evaluate them on other criteria (which you should do even if you had the test scores, because there is a lot else to evaluate). But the kids and strivers commenting here can’t, because they don’t know anything about college other than obsessing over tests they want to pass.

Obviously. Well, there’s a disgruntled TA, sent packing by UCLA years ago, who haunts this forum and devotes his energies to denigrating UCLA, the UC system and presumably anything that has ever crossed his path. He promotes misinformation, like “lectures with 1,500 students”, “the only instructor your kid will ever see is a TA”, and “it will take 27 years for your kid to graduate”.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even have a personal association with the UC system, aside from an extended family member who is a current student and I’ve hired several Cal and UCLA graduates in the past - in all of those few connections, I’ve personally been aware that the individuals (including my extended family member) were absolute superstars when it came to standardized testing.

Anyway …

There was a former TA that posted once or twice in a pre-med thread questioning UCLA for pre-med. You don't know anything about that person yet you are dismissing them with ad hominin attacks.

DP. But nope, wrong. The UCLA TA has posted on a ton of threads on this forum.

How exactly do you know this? It is an anonymous forum and that is pure speculation.

Because the UCLA TA regularly identified herself as such. That’s actually why I don’t think she is one of the ones here posting. Though it’s also entirely possible she’s stopped pointing herself out and is continuing to comment.

Weird how dug in some people are being about this person not existing. She commented on tons of threads, even ones that didn’t have anything to do with UCLA.

She has not self identified here. And any post critical of the UC system gets called the work of the UCLA TA. It is just bizarre. The simplest explanation is that a lot of people think the UC system messed up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP

Of course it does. Peer group is one of the most important characterisitics of a college. The test blind/test optional schools have less consistent quality in peer group.

And what are all of these other public universities that are test required? This is what is being discussed. The articles have nothing to do with that question.

And failing once again to confront any other assessment of a university’s quality beyond the test scores of its students.

Other than Florida and Texas, what are these other top public universities REQUIRING a standardized test score?

That’s exactly the question. That’s why this whole debate over test optional in what is supposed to be a discussion about top publics is stupid. They are almost all test optional, so evaluate them on other criteria (which you should do even if you had the test scores, because there is a lot else to evaluate). But the kids and strivers commenting here can’t, because they don’t know anything about college other than obsessing over tests they want to pass.

Obviously. Well, there’s a disgruntled TA, sent packing by UCLA years ago, who haunts this forum and devotes his energies to denigrating UCLA, the UC system and presumably anything that has ever crossed his path. He promotes misinformation, like “lectures with 1,500 students”, “the only instructor your kid will ever see is a TA”, and “it will take 27 years for your kid to graduate”.

It’s exhausting. I don’t even have a personal association with the UC system, aside from an extended family member who is a current student and I’ve hired several Cal and UCLA graduates in the past - in all of those few connections, I’ve personally been aware that the individuals (including my extended family member) were absolute superstars when it came to standardized testing.

Anyway …

There was a former TA that posted once or twice in a pre-med thread questioning UCLA for pre-med. You don't know anything about that person yet you are dismissing them with ad hominin attacks.

DP. But nope, wrong. The UCLA TA has posted on a ton of threads on this forum.

Be that as it may, try to accept that there are many different people who believe that the UCs’ test blind admissions policy is foolish and self-defeating.