<p>
</p>
<p>prove that!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree- Curtis only auditions you if they have an opening I do believe.</p>
<p>To add, Cooper Union in NYC. Extremely hard to get in, but its a guaranteed full ride.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>RML, I’m not sure I understand what you are saying in your second sentence, or why the post is directed to me.</p>
<p>I am not asserting that average SAT scores are an ideal measure of admissions selectivity. I threw up a ranking based on 75th pct SAT (CR+M) data from stateuniversity.com as a quick-and-dirty response to the OP’s question.</p>
<p>However, I do think it can be useful to isolate SAT scores. Class rank and admit rate both are affected by the quality of the competition. Score-rank-rate composites are affected by the combination formula. Composites may be over-weighing some or ignoring other key selection criteria. So if a school shows a big discrepancy between SAT scores and admit rate, you may want to investigate before accepting the composite selectivity score at face value.</p>
<p>Illustration: Chicago has about the same SAT averages as Brown; Reed has about the same SAT averages as Bowdoin; yet, Chicago and Reed come out in the composites as much less selective than Brown and Bowdoin. This may be a tip-off that Chicago and Reed have “self-selecting” applicant pools. In these cases, the SAT alone may be a better indicator of selectivity than the composite. The Chicago essays or the Reed interviews may be deterring many candidates from completing their applications. If so, the relatively high admit rates would be masking what is actually a highly selective process. Grinnell and Macalester are 2 other schools with 75th pct SATs close to Bowdoin’s, but admit rates even higher than Reed’s. Do they attract fewer academically weak applicants than some popular east coast LACs? Or, do they attract a similar range of applicants, just fewer overall, so they cannot be as selective about factors (such as extracurriculars) that may not correlate well with SATs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^i wouldnt say as competitive as an ivy, but yea the students could get into a top private with the stats.</p>
<p>i think cooper union, julliard, curtis, etc. would be the toughest to get into.</p>
<p>
OOS students might be exposed to better resources. And perhaps they are attracted by the typically more diverse environment that a state school provides.</p>
<p>The only diversity that would be greater at most state schools would be socio economic. And even that is debatable as at most, the vast majority are middle class–the poor and the wealthy way underrepresented.</p>
<p>Better resources? Explain.</p>
<p>Perhaps an OOS student likes that state school. Some key reasons might be: a specific type of major, strong division 1 athletics, more balanced student population.</p>
<p>Deep Springs.
Cooper Union.
Curtis.</p>
<p>Then Harvard.</p>
<p>Deep Springs not only has an average SAT comparable to Harvard, but they don’t even care much about the SAT–it is so high because they are so good at selecting the best writers that the people who DO get in are just so smart that they also happen to have the best SAT scores. You have to fill out 3 long essays and a few short answers just for the first half of admission, which is the easy half. You then have to fill out about 4 more essays in a month that you don’t know the prompts for until you receive your personal “you made it to round II” phone call. And, also as part of round II, you have to visit the campus, you have to do manual labor, you have to defend all of your essays against their harsh criticism, you have to mesh with the teachers and the community style–AND the student body later votes on whether individual people get in. And they accept about 13 students each year. So. This school wins, pretty much objectively. </p>
<p>Especially for Engineering, Cooper requires multiple tests, portfolio, writing, etc. For art and architecture, they receive so many of the best applications in the world that only the absolute best get in.</p>
<p>Curtis–provided they even have openings–accepts roughly nobody. Lol. If you are a pianist, you are auditioning, among the absolute greatest pianists from Russia, Italy, SoCal, etc, for one of three spaces. </p>
<p>I think that it is amazing that the most difficult schools to get in to are free. All three of the ones I have mentioned are free. Their alumni are the best of the best, so they go on to do great things, and, even with a graduating class of 200 or 13, depending on the school, the alumni are so successful that they can donate enough to keep the school paying for the tuition of every single student.</p>
<p>Harvard falls right in after these other ridiculous schools. For all of the other, more obvious reasons: SAT, rank, and other (somewhat) superficial determinations of a student’s capability. Not to say Harvard is easy–hahaha, no. It is completely different. A lot of the people getting into Curtis and Cooper wouldn’t get into Harvard. But still, DS is pretty objectively first, Cooper and Curtis are neck and neck, and all other schools follow.</p>
<p>hmom5, I’m just curios. </p>
<p>you mentioned that your husband graduated from Berkeley. Was he poor? Why did you marry a poor guy with subpar intellectual level when you’re from the upper socio-economic class, UPenn, with an IQ that’s higher than that of Einstein?</p>
<p>tk21769,</p>
<p>I understand what you’re saying, but likewise; there are plenty of factors too that affect one’s ability to answer the SAT. Thus, it’s not conclusive, just like class ranks or high school achievements that aren’t conclusive like you’re saying. But, at least, high school achievements can show more consistency on the part of the students’ intellectual abilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, we Penn people are indeed that awesome. I can only fathom she must have been endeared to the qualities of the “Noble Savage” at Berkeley, perhaps with undercurrents of the legacy Christo-imperialist “civilizing mission”</p>
<p>I mean that’s what I think when Penn people must date non-Penn people ;)</p>