<p>wondering if you can tell SAT range for UC San Diego</p>
<p>Wait, so does this mean that the student body at Rice is superior to those at Columbia or Brown? What exactly is the main point we are trying to prove here? I am sorry, but I just joined in and am still not sure what u guys are trying to porve or see...</p>
<p>Hopkins,</p>
<p>Start reading on page 30 to get the flow of the discussions.</p>
<p>"The percentage of NMSC-sponsored National Merit Scholars is a better and more egalitarian measure, since it is not solely based on SAT score, and therefore more commonly used to study selectivity from an academic standpoint."</p>
<p>Assuming this statement has some merit (no pun intended) the list above reflects the percentage of highly selective students who chose which highly selective school. In this way it reflects student choice (a poor man's alternative to revealed preference rankings?) In addition, the list combines top-ranked LACs and Universities.</p>
<p>Of course, all these lists/rankings have flaws and limitations and none of them determines which school has the "superior student body" or which school may be the best fit for you.</p>
<p>“(a poor man's alternative to revealed preference rankings?)”</p>
<p>-More like a list without all the unfounded claims and bs equations…… :rolleyes:
.</p>
<p>PSAT is taken during 11th grade. What about people who improved in their senior year and had no chance of taking PSAT again? </p>
<p>I totally flunked my PSAT and got a mere 191, but got a 2260 on SAT I took in my seinor year, with 760 cr, 740 math and 760 writing, and am headed to JHU.</p>
<p>A lot of schools you listed there have virtually identical SAT range....usually 1300~50 to 1500~50 ~ish....right? In terms of final SAT score, the differences between them, I think, is virtually trivial.</p>
<p>Thus I think your ranking merely lists schools that have a lot of kids who were able to take PSAT well and better than their peers at their Junior year, not the academic quality or environment of the student body. </p>
<p>No offense, but personally, I wish to give more score to Columbia in terms of student body and overall academic quality than to Duke....and Stanford's student body in my opinion definitely does not pale compared to those of HYP's.......nor do I think Hopkins' or Northwestern's student body fall behind that of U Chicago. </p>
<p>Personally, I think ranking the schools with their SAT score might be a better way to do so......</p>
<p>And as for the NMS' policy of selecting recipients based on other qualities (essays, etc) a person who didnt do well of PSAT but did well on SAT later, might have a much more astonishing personal records and grades than an NMS student. </p>
<p>Well, this was just a suggestion........</p>
<p>And as for the student choice or "preference" that you are talking about, U Chicago's yield is much lower than that of Penn......and in your rank, Chicago is ranked higher than Penn. If your ranking is a order of preference by "highly selective students" then only NMS students must be identified as "highly selective" and not other 95%~ish students who socre similarly on SAT and have similar personal credentials. </p>
<p>Also, Harvard's yield (about 75%) is higher than taht of Yale (68%) yet Harvard is ranked lower than Yale.......</p>
<p>Hopkins,</p>
<p>So I didn't sell you with the notion that the list combines LAC's and Universities?</p>
<p>By the way, JHU's number is 21/1154=1.8, and if by some miracle my son were accepted there is a few years, I would be thrilled!</p>
<p>“and as for the student choice or "preference" that you are talking about, U Chicago's yield is much lower than that of Penn......and in your rank, Chicago is ranked higher than Penn. If your ranking is a order of preference by "highly selective students" then only NMS students must be identified as "highly selective" and not other 95%~ish students who socre similarly on SAT and have similar personal credentials.</p>
<p>Also, Harvard's yield (about 75%) is higher than taht of Yale (68%) yet Harvard is ranked lower than Yale.......”</p>
<p>Well, I have for very long held that looking at SAT and ACT scores of schools is a far more telling way to determine selectivity than admissions rates and yields. I think the idea of looking at NMS students was brought up as an alternative to doing that.</p>
<p>The only way yields should ever be considered is if the percentage of a class that is admitted under ED is subtracted first. Schools like Penn that admit upwards of 50% of their incoming classes under ED have disingenuously high yields.</p>
<p>Well, I certainly hope your son would get in! </p>
<p>But the problem with LAC's is, I think, they are too small in number. Cornell, with a giant~ish freshmen class of more than 3000, is not listed there. But all other factors considered, Cornell's student body, in my opinion, is on par with that of Chicago and Brown. </p>
<p>And why would including LAC's on your list might make your list more relevant and correct?</p>
<p>kk19131//</p>
<p>then can you provide a yield rate chart for each school?</p>
<p>just for curiosity you know....</p>
<p>Hopkins, Duke attracts many more national merit scholars than Columbia on that list. Even though the NMQT is taken Junior year, usually it correlates with SAT score. And national merit scholars are considered the top students of their graduating class around the nation. Why would you assume that because Columbia has less NMS, it is less reliable an indicator? I only wonder because Duke's student body is slightly statistically stronger than Columbia's, while the proportion of NMS is slightly higher. So it seems the two seem pretty closely related.</p>
<p>"then can you provide a yield rate chart for each school?</p>
<p>just for curiosity you know...."</p>
<p>-What exactly do you want?</p>
<p>Thanks for the vote of confidence on my son's behalf!</p>
<p>Including LAC's allows students who are considering applying to/attending either an LAC or a University some basis for comparison other than "one is small and the other is big."</p>
<p>I agree Cornell is an excellent school with 35 NMS out of 3108 or 1.1%
You probably don't care, but Hopkins "number" is higher!</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess//</p>
<p>then what about other 95% of students whose score improved during their senior year?</p>
<p>And what about Harvard and Yale, Harvard's stat is slightly higher than that of Yale, but it attracts less NMS. </p>
<p>And what about Stanford? In the ranking, Stansford has 11.4%, while HYP's have 16-17% ish percentage. Stanford's stat is identical to say, Princeton.</p>
<p>kk19131//</p>
<p>the yield rate for each school~at ED, EA and RD.</p>
<p>Ah, well, I didn't look at those examples which may be OK, but the example with Duke doesn't work, as its students are statistically stronger AND a higher proportion of NMS - which supports the idea that NMS is a good indicator. Maybe Stanfords problem can be described as a problem of geography - a majority of NMS winners live on the East Coast, and almost half of its class is from California. However, Stanford is still at the top of the list rankwise. And Harvard and Yale have very statistically similar students, and very small difference in NMS. </p>
<p>However, the Yale-Harvard example and Stanford-HYP examples do prove your point, though the differences are very small, but the Columbia-Duke example fits the idea of using NMS as an indicator of student quality.</p>
<p>cardinal//</p>
<p>may I ask what grade your son is in?</p>
<p>It's just that I heard a scary rumor that for rising seniors, college admission would the most competitive ever........and after that, it will gradually become less competitive. Am I right?</p>
<p>thouhgtprocess...</p>
<p>yeah guess you are right about Columbia and Duke. But is that true that most NMS student come from the East? </p>
<p>hew.... then CalTech is really~really strong. Stronger than even MIT. </p>
<p>Can you give me a percentage of NMS from the West?</p>
<p>While I don’t have a list of recalculated yield rates at schools, there is a methodology for doing this.</p>
<p>Take Columbia for example:</p>
<h1>applied: 17151</h1>
<h1>admitted: 1667</h1>
<p>%admitted: 9.7</p>
<h1>enrolling: 1017</h1>
<p>Yield: 61
% admitted under ED: 44.6</p>
<p>44.6% 1017 = 454
1017-454=563
1667-454= 1213</p>
<p>Yield = 46%</p>
<p>That was just a guess at an explanation, but just think about how many more rising seniors live in the East Coast than West Coast, and also that almost half of Stanford's student body comes from Cali alone.</p>
<p>Also, remember, Cal Tech, Rice, and Harvey Mudd all benefit from having extremely small student bodies - especially Harvey Mudd. Also, neither have large sports programs, Mudd has none at all, whereas HYPS, Duke, and Dartmouth each field division one teams. Also, Cal Tech and Mudd each have about 7% URM, whereas the latter have 15%. This just shows that since they are technically oriented schools, they attract statistically strong students. However, HYPS, Duke, Dartmouth, and Columbia, the other forerunners in the poll, each have sports programs, a wide range of academics not technically focused, and a larger proportion of minority students that comes hand in hand with having a non-technical academic focus.</p>