|By Flopsy (Flopsy) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 07:24 pm: Edit|
The Princeton Review has just updated their Admissions Selectivity Ratings with some unsettling new scores for the eight undergrad University of California campuses:
1st: UCLA, UCSD, UCD (99)
2nd: UCR (97)
3rd: UCB (96)
4th: UCSB (82)
5th: UCSC (98)
6th: UCI (79)
|By Chicken123 (Chicken123) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 07:53 pm: Edit|
|By Liek0806 (Liek0806) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 09:37 pm: Edit|
yup surprised the one that was most surprising was cal state long beach that had 94 or something like that
|By Kevin720 (Kevin720) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit|
On the acceptance letter UCLA sent out last April, they said they astoundingly received over 42,000 applications for the 04-05 year, more than any other college, for a class of only 3,900 of us. With those numbers, yeah, the selecivity rating will increase.
I was told that due to the Cali budget crisis, UCLA cut *1000* spots from the freshman class last year! That's a huge percentage of the original size. That, along with the swelling applicant pool of this public university, causes the acceptance rate to plummet.
|By Kk19131 (Kk19131) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:45 pm: Edit|
"On the acceptance letter UCLA sent out last April, they said they astoundingly received over 42,000 applications for the 04-05 year, more than any other college"
There are thirty million people in California, not to mention the out-of-state students who apply; of course good public schools like UCLA will get a large amount of apps.
|By Savedbythebell7 (Savedbythebell7) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 11:12 pm: Edit|
Um do they also have the statistics for CSU's? How do you find these ratings?!?
|By Savedbythebell7 (Savedbythebell7) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit|
More than any other colleges. LOL they're lying to ya, San Diego state had 44,000 applicants.
|By Benndamann33 (Benndamann33) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 11:37 pm: Edit|
Guys, make sure you read it in comparison do the other colleges, they just updated all the selectivity ratings and made them really weird. Like CMU is less than syracuse, 92 vs 96. And delaware is higher than CMU with a 95? They didn't update any SAT scores, They just inflated everything ridiculously. The stats are worthless. I really wouldn't worry about it.
|By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 12:02 am: Edit|
Is this a joke or a very bad mistake? UCSC, which accepts 80% of it's applicants and has an average SAT in the 1100s, gets a 98?????
|By Savedbythebell7 (Savedbythebell7) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit|
Okay Princeton Review is worthless.
|By Mahras (Mahras) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit|
mom101, The answer to this is pot and alcohol. The administrator probably had a row with his spouse because she found him in bed with another woman. Therefore, the administrator proceeded to drink massive amounts of alcohol and smoke bongs. Afterwards, he went to his comp and then screwed with the rating leaving us with a sense of confusion, amazement, and slight nausea. How else can you explain the 99 rating for UCSD?
|By Kevin720 (Kevin720) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:51 am: Edit|
UC San Diego is no cake walk. 99% graduated in the top 10% in his/her high school class. Most of the ivies/Stanford/top LACs don't even do that. I still don't think it deserves rating of 99 because from what I remember, the overall admit rate is well over 30%.
On a second glance, there's no way those overall UC selectivity ratings can be accurate. There's no way UC Riverside can be #2 at 97. Something doesn't add up. Either the OP misposted or some employee at PR dropped the ball.
|By Flopsy (Flopsy) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 06:01 am: Edit|
Actually, I meant to list UCSC (98) as 2nd, above UCR (97). I didn't mispost, though.
Check the Princeton Review ratings for yourself:
|By Arizonamom (Arizonamom) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 08:29 am: Edit|
Pomona, Harvey Mudd 99
Scripps , CMC 98
The gap is closing
|By Anxious_Mom (Anxious_Mom) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit|
yes - quite odd. Must be some typos in the PR.
The Best Value College section now explains the coveted Regents and other merit scholarship details for the different UCs. And, for the first time I see in print that a UC (UCSC) will give a Regents scholarship to an out-of-state student, and even support the non-resident tuition (albeit with loans and work-study, instead of grants) in addition to stipends that cover the full need for in-state costs.
|By Dstark (Dstark) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:02 pm: Edit|
These selectivity ratings are total garbage.
These are the average GPAs of the accepted students at the following schools from my daughter's public high school. 4.21 is close to straight A weighted.
UC Davis 3.99
I wonder about Princeton Review.
|By Geodude666 (Geodude666) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:09 pm: Edit|
Is it just the ratings that they updated or all the rankings too?
|By Voodoochile (Voodoochile) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 07:49 pm: Edit|
So according to PR, UCSD is as selective as Harvard? Oh well, it *must* be true, since we know that published rankings are always 100% accurate.
|By Irock1ce (Irock1ce) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 02:17 pm: Edit|
and UCR, UCD,UCSD,UCLA are all more selective than berkeley.... it must be true!
|By Anxious_Mom (Anxious_Mom) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:38 pm: Edit|
Now that PR has fixed the erroneous selectivity rankings, they actually do seem to be in line with reality:
UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCD 99%
UCSB, UCI, UCSC 98%
|By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit|
If so many schools are getting 98, than HYPS needs to be 110%
|By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 06:10 pm: Edit|
I don't know where "selectivity rankings" rankings come from, but none of those make sense. UCR 97 percent? Berkeley 96? UCD 99? lol.
|By Benzinspeicher (Benzinspeicher) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 06:28 pm: Edit|
ok, to show how worthless PR is:
1. FSU is more selective than Rensselaer or Rose-Hulman or UIUC (DOUBT IT LOL).
2. MIT wasn't in top 20 for "Their students never stop studying" (this year it is though)
|By Brandnew (Brandnew) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 08:13 pm: Edit|
To clear up some misinformation:
"I was told that due to the Cali budget crisis, UCLA cut *1000* spots from the freshman class last year! That's a huge percentage of the original size."
-Not true, they actually cut about 200 spots, which have since been filled due to the recently amended budget. I think 316 additional students will be attending starting the Spring quarter. These are the people who were originally offered and accepted the GTO.
"UC San Diego is no cake walk. 99% graduated in the top 10% in his/her high school class. Most of the ivies/Stanford/top LACs don't even do that. "
-Yea, the raw percentage is higher, but you gotta put things into perspective. UCSD's applicant pool is mostly drawn from CA public high schools, the majority of which have a rather poor reputation. On the other hand, ivies/LACs/stanford etc. have an applicant pool consisting of many students from top preps/private schools, and naturally these schools will be harder to achieve top 10% in.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|