<p>What range does the 2008 US News indicate for Penn's middle 50%?</p>
<p>1330-1530.............</p>
<p>From USNWR 2008:</p>
<p>UPenn</p>
<p>SAT scores (25/75 percentile):
Critical Reading: 650 750
Math: 680 780
Combined: 1330 1530 </p>
<p>SAT Critical Reading, SAT Math
700-800 52.0% 66.0%
600-699 41.0% 30.0%
500-599 7.0% 4.0%
400-499 N/A N/A
300-399 N/A N/A
200-299 N/A N/A </p>
<p>ACT scores (25/75 percentile):
English: 29 34
Math: 29 34
Composite:31 34 </p>
<p>ACT Composite ACT English ACT Math
30-36 66.0% 69.0% 69.0%
24-29 33.0% 27.0% 30.0%
18-23 1.0% 4.0% 1.0%
12-17 N/A N/A N/A
6-11 N/A N/A N/A
Below 6 N/A N/A N/A</p>
<p>that is another website, the same, 1330-1510 range</p>
<p>650-740 range of middle 50% for Verbal
680-770 for math</p>
<p>1330-1510</p>
<p>Something doesn't seem right to me...</p>
<p>So we're talking about all these top schools and the average SAT scores for, say, Stanford is around 1440. I got a 750 M + 690 R + 660 W on the SATs which only amounts to a 2100. This is considered a low score by the people on the chances thread here at CC for a school like Stanford. Yet, that score equals a 1440 (M+R).</p>
<p>So whats the deal? Inaccurate stats or is a 21xx considered average at a top school?</p>
<p>The US News ranking considers only CR+M; Stanford (and the others) have changed, and now consider the writing score, too.</p>
<p>What are the other top colleges that consider Writing scores ?</p>
<p>It appears that 1430 SAT average for UPenn is for admitted, not enrolled students. It would be lower for enrolled students.</p>
<p>"Ninety-five percent of the students admitted for Fall 2006 came from the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class and scored an average of 1,429 on the SAT". <a href="http://www.upenn.edu/about/facts.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.upenn.edu/about/facts.php</a></p>
<p>I really have a serious problem with the "peer assessment" factor. Who are the peers? That is, within this set of schools are the peers the same? Rather than the administrators and faculty providing this sort of subjective 25 percent score, I think it should be recruiters of Fortune 100s, graduate program admissions officers, the National Academy of Sciences, top journals (i.e., Nature, Science, JAMA, NEJM), etc. This is such an insular assessment as it stands. Not really very useful to me a parent consumer of this product.</p>
<p>SarahsDad, that makes sense. However, there is still an inconsistency with the Penn numbers reported by US News, since US News claims that those numbers are for enrolled students:</p>
<p>
[quote]
We therefore factor in test scores of enrollees on the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT or Composite ACT score (50 percent of the selectivity score)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Andale, you mind citing your source on your 'Stanford rejects half of the perfect scorers' claim?</p>
<p>I thought I had read that somewhere also, so went googling and found a couple of things, but no direct reference...</p>
<p>In 2005, MSN apparently there were 107 perfect SAT scores (2400) nationwide in the first sitting of the new test, out of 300,000 tests taken, but couldn't find any info on how many students get perfect scores annually...goes on to say "Of the 1.4 million 2004 high school graduates who took the old SAT, 939 scored a then-perfect 1,600" - one might estimate how many of those applied to Stanford, and then how many got accepted...but that would be pretty speculative:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7481286/%5B/url%5D">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7481286/</a></p>
<p>The NYTimes reported in April 07 that Harvard rejected 1100 applicants with perfect 800s on the math section:</p>
<p>And an DC area based SAT counselor is quoted in January 2006 as saying that Stanford rejects 2/3s of applicants with perfect SATs, though he doesn't cite his source:</p>
<p>Anyone else?</p>
<p>Keep in mind that many (most?) of the "perfect scorers" did not get 1600/2400 in a single setting; those are often superscored numbers. The schools still see them as perfect scorers, but they are not included as such in College Board data, I think.</p>
<p>So, hawkette, since you started this thread: in your opinion, based on the numbers you have collected here, "who's hot and who's not"?</p>
<p>bartleby, I'm not sure I can still find the statistic for the "perfect 1600" score, although I posted it when it was originally published (right around the time of my S's application year of 2005). The below data are not exactly that, but still make the point (from Stanford's own admissions website, Profile of admitted students):
Applicants<br>
Applicants Admit Rate Matriculants </p>
<p>23,958 10.3% 1,727</p>
<p>SAT CRITICAL READING SCORE </p>
<p>Score % of applicants Admit Rate </p>
<p>800 9.2% 23%<br>
700–799 36.6% 14.1%
600–699 36.9% 8.4%<br>
500–599 13.5% 4.9%<br>
Below 500 3.8% 1.2% </p>
<p>SAT MATH SCORE
Score Percent of Applicants Admit Rate
800 15.2% 16.7%
700–799 44.3% 11.9%
600–699 29.4% 9.6%<br>
500–599 9% 5.1%<br>
Below 500 2.1% 0.9% </p>
<p>I'm sure those who had 800 on <em>both</em> CR&Math have a higher admit rate than the 23% and 17%~ of those who had only one. At the time we attended the info session, the Admissions rep quoted the 50% admit rate in her (probably vain ;) ) attempt to convince applicants and their families that the SAT is not the Almighty Decision Factor and they should not continue to retake to get those 1560's up to 1600. That year, I found the posted admit rates for the combined scores. Not sure I can find them again now.</p>
<p>I surely don't think Stanford is any different in this than other HYPSM level schools.</p>
<p>
cheech, the problem is not in these data, nor in your score. The problem is the "people on the chances threads here at cc." </p>
<p>Those threads are worth exactly what you pay for them... if you get my drift.</p>
<p>With thanks to warblersrule & 45 percenter and apologies for the confusion, please know that the data that I have posted here is drawn from the USNWR issue of August 31, 1998. However, my mistake was in identifying this as the 1998 data when, in fact, it is for the issue that was titled, “Best Colleges 1999.” </p>
<p>With the moderator’s help, the opening post has been amended to correct for this and now reflects the comparisons as being between USNWR’s Best Colleges 2008 and Best Colleges 1999. Following is the ranking comparison from those two years. I should add that I find the ranking interesting for how little they have changed (especially PA) while some schools have experienced some sharp moves in the data. </p>
<p>2008 Rank , 1999 Rank , Positive Change, College</p>
<p>27 , 41 , 14 USC
9 , 14 , 5 U Chicago
5 , 9 , 4 Caltech
12 , 16 , 4 Wash U
22 , 25 , 3 Carnegie Mellon</p>
<p>5 , 6 , 1 U Penn
9 , 10 , 1 Columbia
17 , 18 , 1 Rice
19 , 20 , 1 Vanderbilt
21 , 22 , 1 UC Berkeley</p>
<p>1 , 1 , 0 Princeton
4 , 4 , 0 Stanford
14 , 14 , 0 Johns Hopkins
25 , 25 , 0 UCLA
25 , 25 , 0 U Michigan</p>
<p>2 , 1 , -1 Harvard
11 , 10 , -1 Dartmouth
17 , 16 , -1 Emory
19 , 18 , -1 Notre Dame
23 , 22 , -1 U Virginia
30 , 29 , -1 Wake Forest
3 , 1 , -2 Yale
8 , 6 , -2 Duke
7 , 4 , -3 MIT
23 , 20 , -3 Georgetown
28 , 25 , -3 Tufts
14 , 10 , -4 Brown
14 , 10 , -4 Northwestern
28 , 24 , -4 U North Carolina
12 , 6 , -6 Cornell</p>
<p>If anyone is wondering why I chose these years to compare, USNWR began its 5.0 scoring scale for Peer Assessment in the 8/31/98 issue. In the issue for the prior year (9/1/97), they used a 4.0 scale and this was used for only a single year. In the years that preceded 1997's issue, they used a strict numerical ranking with no decimal score assigned to a college.</p>
<p>midmo,
I think some of the posts thus far, including yours, have correctly pointed out which schools are on the rise. </p>
<p>The good news is that the data support the idea that I and others have been promoting that the demographic swell is having a positive effect on the distribution of quality students all around the country. There are now more schools than ever that can make a legitimate argument for a Top 15 or even a Top 10 ranking. And the winner of this is the aspiring student as he/she now has more quality choices than ever before. </p>
<p>From my reading of the data, a few things jump out at me:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In terms of student quality, USC, Wash U, Tufts and Vanderbilt have all made enormous strides during this time period with big jumps in SAT scores and % of Top 10% students. However, only USC has ridden this trend to greater respect among academics with an increase in PA from 3.7 to 4.0. The PAs for Wash U, Tufts, and Vanderbilt were unchanged.</p></li>
<li><p>For those who see lower acceptance rates as a good thing and a sign of a school’s desirability and selectivity, USC, Wash U and Vanderbilt continued their show of improvement. Two surprises to me were U Chicago (tied with Vanderbilt with 24% decline in acceptance rate) and U Michigan (a 22% decline from 69% to 47%). There should also be Honorable Mention awards here for many schools which also saw declines of 10% or more in their acceptance rate (Emory-14%, J Hopkins-14%, U Penn-13%, Notre Dame-13%, MIT-12%, UCLA-10%).</p></li>
<li><p>In Faculty Resources, some impressive gains for USC (17 places from 45th to 28th), U Virginia (16 places), Dartmouth (15 places), and U North Carolina (13 places). The gains by USC and Dartmouth speak for themselves. The changes at U Virginia and U North Carolina are also great, but illuminate that different things are going on at the public universities. While U Virginia and U North Carolina had large improvements, UC Berkeley and UCLA slipped by 7 places each and U Michigan slipped by a scary 24 places (from 45th to 69th). </p></li>
<li><p>In Graduation/Retention rank, again USC is the winner and is followed by Carnegie Mellon. Emory had a pretty sharp fall (from 14th to 26th).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So, it looks to me like the big winner across all categories is USC. Next up would be Wash U, Tufts and Vanderbilt which all saw dramatic increases in their student quality and demand for places in their enrollments. Among the Ivy colleges, U Penn appears to be the “hot” college. And among the publics, it is more of a mixed bag with some diverging results depending on the university.</p>
<p>Generally, when I've heard parents, counselors, and students talk about "hot" schools, they are referring to popularity. I think that's best measured by changes in application volume, and/or an increase in the yield rate. Granted, changes in these items can mean an increase in student quality metrics, and possibly also in reputation. It's not as clear to me how some of these other measures tap into a school being "hot" or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
U Chicago (tied with Vanderbilt with 24% decline in acceptance rate) and U Michigan (a 22% decline from 69% to 47%). There should also be Honorable Mention awards here for many schools which also saw declines of 10% or more in their acceptance rate (Emory-14%, J Hopkins-14%, U Penn-13%, Notre Dame-13%, MIT-12%, UCLA-10%).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It looks to me like you're doing subtraction here, which means you're describing a difference in percentage points. It's not correct to label this a xx% change. </p>
<p>Is the methodology for all of these metrics the same in both years?</p>
<p>does anyone have the same stats for lacs? it'd be especially interesting to see how much have women's colleges changed over the years.</p>