2008 vs 1999: What’s changed in the USNWR data? Who’s hot and who’s not?

College Search & Selection
61

<p>I wonder why we insist on referring to 800 SATs as "perfect" scores? An 800 may not have meant getting every question answered correctly with no incorrect or blank answers for possibly twenty-five years! To the best of my understanding, at least two re-centerings have occurred. Some say scores after 9/30/74 do not directly compare with those from earlier tests, and the College Board acknowledges a re-centering in 1995 where I understand that to ensure the median SAT score of 500 still indicated "middle", verbal scores were re-centered upward 80 points and math scores 20-30 points. The reason given is to compensate for the increase in sheer numbers of test-takers. UVA, for one, noticed an increase of 70 points on the verbal test average from applicants the year following the 1995 "recentering". Is it fair to assume, as some say, that a score before the "recentering" of 1995 needs to have about 100-points added to the two-test score to be considered comparable to those tested after the "recentering". And why does everyone refer to this change in quotes? Even the SAT seems guilty of such punctuation which seems to indicate something far more nefarious than a simple adjustment. Is this a simple shift of 100 points, or does it indicate a dumbing-down of the test questions? Is an 800 really a perfect score or can it indicate several incorrect or unanswered questions? Am I really a genius unrecognized as such by my kids? ;)</p>

<p>This alone should give those just entering the college quest pause to reflect on those schools that no longer require or, in some cases, even consider SAT scores.</p>

62

<p>dstark,
Intelligence comes in many forms. A high school transcript and standardized test scores represent just one form of intelligence, but they also happen to be the most dominant quantitative factors in college admissions. To the extent that you believe this is valid criteria, then this would logically lead you to conclude that there are larger concentrations of top candidates at the so-called more selective schools. I believe that such an approach is absolutely the right way to recruit out of GRADUATE schools because the maturity level and the track record to that point in life gives you much greater insight into a person's work potential than would a high school record. But I think that this is a much iffier proposition for undergraduates as their intellectual, physical, social, emotional development occurs at such different times. We all know plenty of stories about the underachieving high schooler who attends a less heralded college, but matures and figures out what his/her interest really is and then excels. It is a common story and the business world is full of CEOs who went to the so-called less heralded schools. . </p>

<p>As your question relates to undergraduate recruitment, the model (as I see it practiced) is commonly a bit different and places higher emphasis on geography. The trick with most undergraduate recruiting is that you are hiring an individual and not the school (less true with graduate school recruiting). That is why an employer located in Raleigh, North Carolina would be happy to hire an NC State grad just as easily as a Duke grad because undoubtedly there are smart kids at both NC State and Duke. But I suspect that this same employer would concur that the NC State students as a whole aren't as talented as the Duke student body as a whole. </p>

<p>Or consider an employer in the Bay Area that needs to hire one student. That student could come just as easily from USF as from UCB, but I doubt that employer would rank USF as an institution and overall student body at the same level as UCB. This example can be moved to anywhere in the country as the local employers know the value of the local schools, have directly sampled the product and know if they can fill some or all of their needs from there. </p>

<p>In my and most people's comparisons here on CC, it is the broad college universe that is being compared and not whether an individual can succeed from ABC or XYZ college. Now, one can argue whether SAT scores, class rank, GPAs, etc. are the proper criteria for making that assessment, but that seems to be the methodology of most college admissions departments.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
Is it fair to assume, as some say, that a score before the "recentering" of 1995 needs to have about 100-points added to the two-test score to be considered comparable to those tested after the "recentering".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The College Board has posted a conversion chart. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/about/news_info/cbsenior/equiv/rt019019.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/about/news_info/cbsenior/equiv/rt019019.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>The correction is a varying number of points on the standard scoring scale depending on what the original score was. In MOST cases, it appears that formerly missing exactly one item on the test now allows a scaled score of 800, when before such item-content performance seemed to result in a lower scaled score, but that varies from one test form to the next. </p>

<p>In CC discussions, I make sure to mean "peak scores according to the current standard scoring scale" when I write "perfect scores." I usually only refer to "perfect scores" when someone has already done so in a thread, as here. A LOT of people on CC confuse the issue of "top percentile score" (a score level that up to 1 percent of the test-taking population can get) with peak scaled score. Peak scaled scores are still very rare (although much more common than they were before "recentering"). Harvard cannot possibly admit all students who have scores in the highest percentile level, because it doesn't have capacity to enroll 1 percent of all high school students who take college admission tests. Harvard could, but doesn't, admit every single student who gets a peak scaled score on the ACT or on the SAT I each admission season, and still have plenty of space left over. (Why top colleges don't always admit students with peak test scores is the subject of a thread I opened a while ago </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=377882%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=377882&lt;/a> </p>

<p>which has enjoyed many thoughtful responses.) </p>

<p>The SAT Reasoning Test, like any mental test, is a sample of learned behavior. It is possible to be smart in ways that are not tapped by the SAT I. It is barely possible to get lucky on SAT test day and gain a scaled score that overestimates a test-taker's general level of scholastic aptitude. But in general colleges admit students with the highest SAT scores they can find, if everything else about the application files is equal. Colleges that admit students with higher SAT scores than other colleges also tend to be colleges with more student-run activities than other colleges (because those students can keep up with course work and still have free time to participate in activities) and colleges that have more challenging courses than colleges with lower-scoring students. Test score profiles of enrolled students are not the whole story of what makes colleges different, but they do provide one meaningful glimpse at how colleges may differ in "fit" for a particular student.</p>

64

<p>


It's not just here but the press is even more guilty. Now I can show the chart and prove that even I had "perfect" SAT scores....way back in 1970! But I know they weren't. </p>

<p>That and a buck might get me a cup of coffee, somewhere. ;)</p>

65

<p>Be proud, Proud Dad!</p>

66

<p>Hawkette, I agree with a lot of what you wrote in post #62. I am shocked to find how many employers are recruiting at my daughter's school that are not regional. It's more than I thought. Or maybe, I just thought too low in the first place. :)</p>

<p>"I like having employees who are highly intelligent, can communicate well, have well-developed critical thinking skills, a good ability to work with others and high personal standards. I would agree with you that such attributes are not universally or exclusively attributable to graduates of any college or group of colleges."</p>

<p>Hawkette, but you also believe that you are more likely to find students with the above attributes at the schools where the average SAT scores of the student body are highest, correct? </p>

<p>You didn't really answer my question. ;) I'm asking what YOU believe (I'm not shouting, just emphasizing). Just you. I know there are various opinions.</p>

67

<p>Not meaning to dodge your question. I don't have as slavish devotion to SAT scores as I think you are suggesting, but I do believe that there is a correlation of SAT scores to high achieving student bodies for reasons that tokenadult explains above in # 63. But, are there individual exceptions? Of course. </p>

<p>Part of the issue has to do with the timing of when you are taking the SAT into consideration. The further away from the college admission process that one goes, the less important it becomes as what a student has done with his/her opportunities at school or elsewhere have much greater information value than the SAT score. There are some (but not many) industries that will care about SAT scores when a college senior goes to interview. Much more likely the employer wants to know what the student has done in his/her four years and why and how.</p>

68

<p>Not meaning to dodge your question. I don't have as slavish devotion to SAT scores as I think you are suggesting, but I do believe that there is a correlation of SAT scores to high achieving student bodies for reasons that tokenadult explains above in # 63</p>

<p>Well we are getting closer. ;)</p>

<p>I agree with what you said in post #67. I am also surprised by how many employers, at least in the financial area want a student's SAT scores. Most college recruiters want to see college grades too (in the financial field) but I guess that isn't a surprise.</p>

<p>Anyway, you use SAT averages a lot. I hope you don't disagree with that statement. That's why I am asking you the same question over and over. And I don't want to put words in your mouth ;). </p>

<p>Your answer in the first paragraph is almost a yes to my question ;).</p>

<p>"I like having employees who are highly intelligent, can communicate well, have well-developed critical thinking skills, a good ability to work with others and high personal standards. I would agree with you that such attributes are not universally or exclusively attributable to graduates of any college or group of colleges."</p>

<p>Anyway, since you use average SAT scores ...</p>

<p>If Williams has the higher average SAT scores followed by Chicago, USC and Berkeley, is the following true....</p>

<p>Williams has more students that meet your criteria than Chicago which has more than USC which has more than Berkeley?</p>

69

<p>Who's hot?</p>

<p>increase in applications 2001 to 2006
IPEDS</p>

<p>Baylor University 167.9%
Saint Louis University-Main Campus 117.3%
Tulane University of Louisiana 91.1%
Fordham University 70.3%
Cornell University 69.9%
Marquette University 65.0%
Case Western Reserve University 61.0%
Johns Hopkins University 61.0%
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 59.8%
University of Connecticut 54.1%
Worcester Polytechnic Institute 53.3%
Yale University 50.9%
The University of Tennessee 48.3%
American University 45.4%
Southern Methodist University 43.7%
University of California-Santa Cruz 40.8%
Boston College 39.5%
Wake Forest University 39.3%
Dartmouth College 36.8%
University of Notre Dame 36.3%
Syracuse University 36.0%
SUNY at Binghamton 35.9%
University of Pittsburgh-Main Campus 33.8%
Lehigh University 33.0%
Indiana University-Bloomington 31.7%
The University of Texas at Austin 30.4%
Rice University 30.2%
University of Miami 29.3%
University of Southern California 28.9%
Princeton University 28.6%
Clark University 27.6%
Emory University 27.2%
College of William and Mary 24.5%
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 24.1%
Miami University-Oxford 23.7%
George Washington University 21.6%
University of Iowa 21.2%
University of Missouri-Columbia 21.1%
University of Chicago 21.0%
University of Delaware 20.4%
Vanderbilt University 19.9%
University of Maryland-College Park 19.8%
Harvard University 19.6%
University of Wisconsin-Madison 19.5%
University of California-Davis 19.0%
University of Florida 18.6%
University of California-Irvine 18.3%
Stanford University 17.2%
Auburn University Main Campus 16.7%
University of California-Riverside 16.4%
New York University 16.1%
Purdue University-Main Campus 14.4%
Boston University 14.0%
Pepperdine University 13.3%
Carnegie Mellon University 13.0%
University of Georgia 12.5%
University of California-Berkeley 12.3%
University of Rochester 12.0%
Clemson University 11.8%
Tufts University 11.6%
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 11.1%
Brandeis University 10.4%
Brown University 10.3%
University of California-Santa Barbara 10.3%
Northwestern University 10.0%</p>

70

<p>Who's not?</p>

<p>little change in apps 2001 to 2006, or a drop
IPEDS</p>

<p>Texas A & M University 4.2%
Stevens Institute of Technology 3.9%
University of California-Los Angeles 3.6%
Pennsylvania State University-Penn State Main Campus 3.6%
Yeshiva University 2.1%
Rutgers University-New Brunswick/Piscataway 1.8%
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1.0%
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 0.4%
California Institute of Technology -1.0%
Georgetown University -1.7%
University of Colorado at Boulder -1.8%
Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus -2.4%
Michigan State University -4.7%
Ohio State University-Main Campus -4.7%
Brigham Young University -5.4%
Iowa State University -14.6%</p>

71

<p>I'm glad to see my alma mater, likely to be oldest son's "safety" school, on the hot list. Its athletic conference rival to the south is in decline, perhaps because that state is losing population.</p>

72

<p>College Help:</p>

<p>Wow, that is an amazing stat that even me, the non stat guy can respect.</p>

<p>To me the sheer volume of applications is astonishing the past 5 years and maybe 10 years.</p>

<p>And what is more there are some surprises in that group.</p>

<p>Amazing.</p>

<p>I do know, however that Wake Forest reported a slight decrease this year.</p>

<p>I dont know why or if it is even significant for any reason, or if schools typically see up and down years from time to time.</p>

73

<p>collegehelp, what was Penn's increase? It's not on the list--maybe the increase was less than 10% during that time period? Much of Penn's significant growth in applicants has been in the last couple of years--from 2005 to 2007, the number of applicants grew by 20.4%.</p>

74

<p>Hawkette:</p>

<p>I did not mean to imply that so many were "dilettantes" in the elites. I fully acknowledge that many even come from "out back" ...meaning non prep schools and from states that are not commonly known as big producers of Ivy students. Some come from relatively modest or middle income families and public schools. So please excuse my impression to the contrary.</p>

<p>Yes, I am very passionate about my cause: which is a dovetail to yours I believe, that kids/parents need to look in a broad spectrum for colleges whether or not their stats are in the stratosphere, for many reasons. Often enough some lower ranking schools will actually offer that person a much better financial package. Nothing against the elite schools per se. But my real angst is aimed at people (some here on CC) who are obsessed with the minutiae of statistics and if their school is higher ranked than another school and if their johnny or suzie can get in or not and if not, is the world going to end? Its not.</p>

<p>If you ask MOST kids why they are applying to a particular school and if you elicit a truthful answer will you it has to do with prestige and ranking.</p>

<p>That is very sad. They may very well be overlooking a great school, which may be not too far from home (or maybe it is) that would be a great fit for them, they might get more money and everyone would benefit from the experience.</p>

<p>I know that a large pool of applicants each year (I use a round figure of 25,000 but it could actually be higher) who apply to 10-15 schools each year....all of whom are in the top 10. Some fail to apply to any match or safety schools. Many kids apply to the elites and its really MORE than a reach. What that does is muddy the waters for the kids who are qualified and who REALLY want to go there.</p>

<p>I consistently state that the world of college admissions would be MUCH better for everyone involved, including the colleges, if kids only applied who had a serious interest and a high likelihood of accepting an offer of admission.</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with dreaming and reaching, within reason.</p>

<p>OF course, for some schools where the tuition is dirt cheap instate and the school is amazing, like Michigan, UVa, UNC-Chapel Hill etc....they get tens of thousands of applications from instate kids almost like a lottery.....and it has the expected results.....some get in and some dont and sometimes its hard to figure out what is going on because the results are quirky and peculiar at times....where legacy gets figured in etc.....or the school has a penchant to favor Early Admission applicants even though they are not obliged to attend if admitted. (Chapel Hill).</p>

<p>I just want a more even playing field.</p>

<p>But thanks.</p>

<p>And I do know a few dilettantes.</p>

75

<p>45 Percenter-
Penn's apps went up 6.9% from 2001 to 2006 from about 19,100 to 20,500.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
Its athletic conference rival to the south is in decline, perhaps because that state is losing population.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>tokenadult, are you referring to Iowa? Iowa State is down 14 %, but University of Iowa is up 21 %. Is that due to the decline of farming and ranching in Iowa? (I'm assuming Iowa State, as the land grant institution, has the core of the ag-related studies.)</p>

77

<p>Collegehelp, I found your posts about the numbers of applications very interesting. Near the top of the list is St. Louis University. My husband has had reason to visit the campus rather often in recent months and has been very impressed with what is going on there; new programs, new buildings, campus beautification, a real spirit of a school on the move. Their initiative has been helped greatly by urban renewal in some St. Louis neighborhoods near the campus.</p>

<p>Tulane is a bit of a mystery though.</p>

78

<p>dstark,
I feel like you’re trying to play “gotcha” with all these SAT inquiries, but it really isn’t that mysterious. :)</p>

<p>For college admissions, SAT is one data point in an application of a student and, for me, is one data point in an overall evaluation of a college. For a single individual (whether a student applying or a employer interviewing), its usefulness can range from very important to irrelevant. For an evaluation of an entire institution, it is one of the main measuring sticks for measuring student body quality and is one of the few standardized data points that an outside observer can use. But if this were the sole criteria (or even the most important factor), many of the top schools could fill their enrollment with 1500+ scorers, but, of course, this is not the case; there are many students on all of the elite campuses with scores well below this. </p>

<p>If you are asking me to evaluate a college and consider its status vs another school, SAT is but one data point contained in the following broad areas:
1) Quality of students
2) Size of the classroom
3) Quality and nature of the instruction
4) Institutional resources and willingness to commit them to undergraduate education</p>

<p>So, if you are asking me to compare Williams to USC to UC Berkeley to U Chicago, then the framework above would be my guide and not the SAT score on its own. But I will also add that individual fit should supersede all of these quantitative comparisons. </p>

<p>Collegehelp,
Any chance that you have data going back to 1999 for applications? That was the beginning point for my analysis. </p>

<p>It would also be interesting to see if there is a correlation between the schools with higher applications and the relative selectivity of their enrollees.</p>

79

<p>collegehelp, thanks.</p>

<p>By my math, that's more like 7.3%, but it's still lower than I would have expected. 19,100 in 2001 must have been a bit of a bump for Penn because, according to ivysuccess.com, the numbers for 2003-2007 were as follows:</p>

<p>2003 18,827
2004 18,314
2005 18,800
2006 20,479
2007 22,634</p>

<p>Over the 4 years from 2004 to 2007, that's a 23.6% increase.</p>

80

<p>I'm just trying to understand your posts. :)</p>

<p>I see what you want as a business person in a student and I am trying to see how the average SAT score of a school is relevant to what you want.</p>

<p>"For college admissions, SAT is one data point in an application of a student and, for me, is one data point in an overall evaluation of a college. For a single individual (whether a student applying or a employer interviewing), its usefulness can range from very important to irrelevant."</p>

<p>I am trying to see how the average SAT score of a school is relevant to you because I read so many posts from you on this subject. </p>

<p>So you have written hundreds and hundreds of posts about average SAT scores when comparing schools and it is just one data point to you, and really not that important a data point, is it?</p>

<p>Williams doesn't really have more students that fit your criteria, than Chicago, USC or Berkeley, does it?</p>

<p>So what does average SAT scores tell us about the following...</p>

<p>"If you are asking me to evaluate a college and consider its status vs another school, SAT is but one data point contained in the following broad areas:
1) Quality of students
2) Size of the classroom
3) Quality and nature of the instruction
4) Institutional resources and willingness to commit them to undergraduate education"</p>

<p>In 2 and 4, high average SAT scores tell us nothing.</p>

<p>1) Quality of students... High average SAT scores might tell us something, but schools with average SAT scores that are lower than others may have many more strong students, and stronger students in many fields. There may be enough quality of students to study with at schools with lower average SAT scores than others, so I find this metric suspect if high average SAT scores are used here to say one school is better than another.</p>

<p>3) Quality and nature of the instruction</p>

<p>Do high average SAT scores reflect this?</p>

<p>They might, but how high is high? Do schools where average SAT scores are not at the top, have programs for top students? Does the school teach down to meet the needs of average or below average students to the detriment of the top students? Are the professors not as good at schools where the average SAT scores are not the top? Are there enough top students so top students can be academically challenged by their peers? </p>

<p>I am just trying to figure out how to use all this objective data. :)</p>

<p>Did you know that MIT overstated its average SAT scores for years? Does this mean the school wasn't as good as people thought?</p>