<p>
</p>
<p>Well, CH, let me rephrase it in simpler terms: </p>
<p>How can your purported hard data possibly support the fact that Smith PA is higher than Harvey Mudd? Of course, it might also be worthwhile to remember that Harvey is a school that specializes in engineering and is to viewed as a peer to Caltech or MIT for the difficulty of its programs. Accordingly, is its graduation rate really that “unusually” low? Ifa four point difference with Caltech that .. unusual? </p>
<p>For the record, Smith PA is 4.3 its freshman retention is 91% and its graduation rate is 85%. Harvey Mudd’s numbers are a PA 4.1, a freshman retention of 95%, and a graduation rate of 85%. </p>
<p>Smith has one of the highest acceptance rates (over 50%) and lowest selectivity among its peers (and a rank of 46 in selectivity.) Harvey Mudd, in spite of a 30% admission rate is the most selective LAC with SAT of 1420-1550, 94% of its freshmen being in the top 10% of their class. </p>
<p>So, please tell us how the PA of Smith and Harvey Mudd correlate to any of the hard data for the schools, except for the MOST ASININE graduation rate expectation?</p>