About Conn's SAT numbers.

<p>OK. I admit that I don’t get it.</p>

<p>The Conn website (conhttp://<a href=“http://www.conncoll.edu/admissions/stats/index.html”>www.conncoll.edu/admissions/stats/index.html</a>) posts numbers on the ADMITTED (not matriculating) class of 2008 and 2009. In both cases, the composite SAT score (not the median or mean, mind you) is 1390. The 2005 edition of US News lists Conn’s middle 50% range SAT scores as being 1205-1390, which would put the middle somewhere around 1300.</p>

<p>Princetonreview.com reports a middle 50% score from last year (class of 2009) of 1250 - 1400, which would place the middle at around 1325.</p>

<p>I’m going to make some guesses:</p>

<li><p>Like most colleges, the admitted class has better stats than the matriculating class, so US News and princetonreview.com, which rely (IIRC) on the common data set, are the correct numbers for the matriculating class.</p></li>
<li><p>The 25-point jump in SAT scores from the matriculating class of 2009 can be attributed, at least in part, to Conn’s decision not to require SAT scores (I believe that was when that policy was implemented, wasn’t it?). Naturally, those with low scores will choose not to submit them, so Conn counts only those SAT scores they have available. (Note: this is a nice trick to influence the US News rankings if you think about it.)</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Am I correct in these assumptions?</p>

<p>You're right about the admitted vs matriculating students' stats. Obviously, 1390 looks a tad inflated as a median score given that Williams' is only 1415 (2004 US NEWS Data). And of course, admitted students' stats tend to be better than matriculating students' stats at most schools. Unless you are talking about places like Harvard where SAT scores isn't really much of a well, factor. </p>

<p>As for the jump in SAT scores, no I don't think it should be attributed Conn's decision not to require SAT scores. Conn definitely implemented the optional SATs policy before matriculating class of 2009, because it's already stated in the footnotes in my 2004 data (which will probably be for graduating class of 2006 or 2007).</p>

<p>they have been sat optional for years- since before 1999.
this year the new sat average was a 2070.</p>

<p>oh, and its definitely not a trick to influence the usnews ranking, considering that since 1999, they unexplicably dropped from 24 to 35 in the usnews rankings</p>

<p>huskem:</p>

<p>Do you have a link for that 2070. That would represent a SUBSTANTIAL increase in the SAT score from the year before. In fact, it would be such a substantial jump that is looks very, very, VERY suspicious.</p>

<p>its from the admissions website.
whats with the conncoll hate?</p>

<p>Actually, the website wrote 2080, but it's again for admitted students rather than for matriculating students. it's in the FAQ page, <a href="http://www.conncoll.edu/admissions/admitfaq.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.conncoll.edu/admissions/admitfaq.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Q: What are the average test scores?
A: The average SAT Reasoning score for admitted students in the class of 2010 is 2080 and the average ACT is 28. SAT subject scores range from the high 600s to the low 700s. </p>

<p>I don't think it's worth raising an eyebrow over that 'substantial increase', even if the statistic is for matriculating students. You can't really take the new score x 2/3 and expect that to be comparable to the old SAT score. Using that formula and taking the old SAT score to be 1330 will give you a projected 2000 on the new SAT. The actual result is expected to be higher given the fact that the composite score is taken from the highest individual score in each section. Probability dictates that it is much, much easier to experience an increase in composite score by retaking the new SAT compared to the old SAT, since there's 3 sections in the former. In the past, there's a good chance that you can bump up one of your two section scores. Now, it's almost granted that you can at least bump up one of your THREE section scores, which easily result in an inflated composite score with more retakes. Yet, 2080 is hardly any higher than the number you'll get if you take 1390 x 2/3 (in fact it's a bit lower). So I really don't think it's a point for contention at all.</p>

<p>woebegone:</p>

<p>Your are absolultely correct that there is not inconsistency between the numbers for ADMITTED students in past years and ADMITTED students this year. The inconsistency I THOUGHT I found was between the US News numbers and princetonreview.com numbers for actual MATRICULATING classes. That discrepancy in numbers is either between one year and the next or the same year. It's not clear.</p>

<p>huskem:</p>

<p>I don't hate Connecticut College. I have had two children apply and be accepted there. In both cases, they chose other schools.</p>

<p>This topic was initially raised by you on another thread on another board (one involved with just exactly which US colleges could be classified as "elite") in which you INSISTED that the 1390 number was for matriculating students. Then, you invited me over to THIS board to discuss the numbers. So, I am here at your invitation.</p>

<p>I don't hate Conn at all, but I do hate duplicity. Right at the moment, I am tempted to think there is a high probability that CC's admissions department is playing fast and loose with the numbers. That does not speak well of the moral character of Conn's leadership. </p>

<p>I also have good reason to believe that YOU are playing fast and loose with the numbers until I see some evidence otherwise.</p>

<p>i just report what i read. why in the world would i make up numbers?
i didnt 'insist' on anything. just giving the information that i have found on the websites and guidebooks. why do you think conn is lying with numbers? you dont think other schools slightly inflate their numbers? what about schools that offer free applications, so the acceptance rate is much lower? bowdoin and middlebury are sat optional as well. are you questioning their integrity too?</p>

<p>just out of curiousity, where did you kids go to school?</p>

<p>huskem,</p>

<p>To answer your question, child #3 went to Harvard. Child #7 is going to Chicago in the fall. CC was a safety school for both of them, but they would have been happy going there if other schools had turned them down, I'm sure.</p>

<p>Now to the matter at hand.</p>

<p>If you got your MATRICULATING numbers from the CC common data set (I have not been able to locate that document on their website or anywhere else) please give a link. If you have a link to some secondary source that uses the common data set from CC as its source and that corroborates your numbers, that would be useful, as well. I doubt you'll find corroborating evidence.</p>

<p>Repeatedly, you have said that you have taken your numbers about MATRICULATING CC classes from such common sources as US News, and yet I can find no corroboration of a 1390 SAT average score from US News. In fact, here is a link to US News that places the middle 50% from 1250 to 1400, which puts the interpolated median at around 1325 <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/premium/libartco/tier1/t1libartco.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/premium/libartco/tier1/t1libartco.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>princetonreview.com cites the very same numbers as US News here: <a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/admissions.asp?listing=1023114&LTID=1&intbucketid=%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/admissions.asp?listing=1023114&LTID=1&intbucketid=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Yet, you have repeated that you got your numbers from US News as well as stating this previously on a different thread. Here are your quotes from that thread and the links.</p>

<p>The first quote:</p>

<p>(gellino- conn has an average 1390 SAT, trinity has like a 1310. conn's acceptance rate is in the low 30s, and in 2006 was rated the 26th most selective LAC in the country ... i can understand trinity not being there, but not having conn with bates and hamilton is ridiculous- <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=211418&page=6&pp=15%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=211418&page=6&pp=15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The interpolated median SAT score for Bates is 1345. Hamilton's is 1350. One can argue, and perhaps successfully, that CC's interpolated SAT score of 1325 is not that far behind, but I think one would have a VERY difficult time arguing the idea that it is "ridiculous for Bates and Hamilton to be included on a list of elite colleges when CC is not. At least, based on the SAT criteria on the US News and princetonreview.com websites, instead of the scores you presented (which appears to be a dead falsehood unless you can prove otherwise). </p>

<p>BTW, you were closer on selectivity, but still not accurate. This year's US News (see link above) places CC's selectivity as 27th, not 26th. And while one could technically say that the acceptance rate is "in the low 30s," a 34% rate would qualify only if "low 30s" is everything below 35%. I'd call it the mid-30s, but I'll give you that one on the technicality.</p>

<p>BTW, you were close on Trinity. They claim a median of 1303. </p>

<p>The second quote:</p>

<p>i took my numbers from the usnews, as well as from each individual nescac school site. this isnt the forum to discuss conn selectivity (again, i must reiterate that in 2006 it was the 26th most selective LAC according to the usnews), but i welcome your opinions, no matter what they are, on the conn forum. <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=211418&page=7&pp=15%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=211418&page=7&pp=15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As you can see, you invited people over and "welcomed" our opinions. I'm not entirely sure what confirmed data have to do with "opinion," but here I am as you asked. I admit I did not expect to be accused of "conn coll" hate by you. I was merely trying to get the numbers straight ... a process you have tried to hinder with your questionable numbers and research.</p>

<p>Is the practice of not requiring SAT scores and then reporting the numbers as though they are comparable to those of other schools that report ALL SAT scores slimy? Yes. And I don't care who does it. </p>

<p>It would be quite easy to have an administrative assistant strip off the SAT scores of all applicants who don't want them considered for admissions purposes. The files could then go to admissions officers without the SAT scores. When the matriculating class is admitted, the SAT scores could be included on the common data set. Instead, the practice of not requiring SAT scores is a very well known means of inflating those scores for reporting purposes.</p>

<p>Do I think other school "slightly inflate their numbers?" Since the numbers are unaudited, I suspect there is a fair amount of slight inflation going on. You, however, appear to have inflated CCs average SAT number by approx. 65 points ABOVE the inflation already attributed to the SAT-scores-optional practice!!!!! To call that "slight inflation" is like saying a bank heist is equivalent to a parking ticket. Worse, you directly COMPARED CC's SAT numbers for ACCEPTED students to the SAT numbers at other schools for MATRICULATING students. </p>

<p>So here is what I've learned about Conn. There are people from there who are well-educated and rational, and who are careful about the data, such as woebegone. Children #3 and #7 would have enjoyed being in class with him/her. Then there are people like huskem' who have an axe to grind and use selective data to make invalid points. Either this was deliberate or the product of carelessness. Either way, #3 and #7 would probably have transferred if their classes had a preponderance of huskems.</p>

<p>So, which is it? What's the average student at Conn like? More like woebegone or huskem? Child #8 (the last one, thank God) may need to know.</p>

<p>PS -- Huskem: If my data are wrong, then I apologize and look forward to your rebuttal. At this point, I believe the probability that you are right to be very, very low, which is why I've taken such an aggressive tone. </p>

<p>I don't like being lied to.</p>

<p>oy oy oy tarhunt. you are not a happy person. and i did not lie to you. i am not a liar and have never been accused of being a liar. i only report what i read. i must have confused the usnews (which i dont have a copy of) with the 2005 (or 2006. dont accuse me of lying when its a simple case of not being able to remember) barrons guide to the northeastern colleges (which i own). i assume that the data there is reporting the same data for all colleges. (and by the way, conn is listed in the same tier as all of the most elite schools in the country).
that book is at my parents house, but the next time im there i will make sure to send you the numbers asap.
i apologize for any misunderstanding. it seems to me though, that you hold some sort of grudge towards either me or camels in general. and i dont like that.</p>

<p>i also dont like being called a liar.</p>

<p>oh yeah, and the fact that i quoted a '26' in selectivity instead of '27:' if that makes me a liar, then you need to get out more. sorry i missed it by one- i guess you never make memory errors, must be nice.</p>

<p>huskem:</p>

<p>You got caught. You claimed a reference for a number and that reference contradicted your claim. One important thing you need to learn is never to make false claims that can be verified (or not) by others. (I'd prefer you just didn't make false claims at all, but I suspect you're past that point.)</p>

<p>Now, having been caught, you play the victim. You think your behavior is not the problem. I'm sure that, in your mind, your behavior is never the problem. It is always those "other people" isn't it? They're always out to get you.</p>

<p>So, my indignation at being given a false reference, and my upbraiding you for giving me that false reference, makes me "not a happy person" instead of someone who is exercising justified anger at having been deceived. I must have something against you, against Connecticut College, against "camels" or, who knows, against "husks"!!! It can't possibly be the fact that you cited a false reference to prop up your specious numbers.</p>

<p>If you were in my class, I would check every reference on every footnote. I would also make sure to do a thorough check for plagiarism.</p>

<p>ive been "caught?" for what, confusing my references? i said that i saw those numbers somewhere, and i already apologized for stating it was usnews when in actuality i saw them in barrons. thankfully, im not writing a term paper, in which my liberal arts education taught me how to think for myself, where i would be double checking references, or writing another one of my academic journal articles where i would be checking and rechecking references 50 times before they get published.
do you also check every stats claim made on this site? </p>

<p>ps. i assume you dont actually hunt for tar, because then theres no point in arguing with you. if you are referring to the tarheels, im shocked you didnt get my huskies reference.</p>

<p>pps. stop trying to use big words as if i would be impressed. guess what. using big words in an informal environment makes you look quite pretentious and full of yourself. would you like me to cite the psychological study that proved that? ill be happy to tickle your fancy.</p>

<p>Using "big" words? They don't seem "big" to me. My children have often had this problem, though. They have been accused, in the past, of trying to "impress" people when all they were really trying to do was convey shades of meaning as accurately as they could using common words in our household. I do write rather formally. I always have and always will. It is the way I was trained. I try (not always successfully) to use proper spelling, punctuation, and grammar, as well.</p>

<p>I don't apologize for that, for my working vocabulary, or for the working vocabularies of my children.</p>

<p>By all means, please give me a reference for the psychological study that "proves" that everyone who uses "big words" in an "informal environment" is "quite pretentious" and "full of" him or herself. I am a psychologist, and I am always interested in new data, especially data that deals with individuals in such a way that all diagnoses can be made from a single, subjective datum.</p>

<p>I am not a Tar Heel. My handle refers to an historical period with which I'm sure you're not familiar, and is an oblique reference to some early work of mine on the effect of myth in behavioral norming.</p>

<p>You were most certainly caught out, and you know it. In response to a challenge to your original numbers, you cited a reference that was supposed to put the challenge to bed. Unfortunately, you forgot that one can check references. I did.</p>

<p>unnecesssary "big" words: dupliclity, upbraid, corroborate, interpolated, indignation, etc. and dont worry, i understood all of them, as i too possess a very high vocabulary level, but i dont like to throw them into everyday converstations, for the fact that it makes me seem like im trying to impress people.</p>

<p>youre right, im not familiar with tarhunts. so that must prove the fact that i am an uneducated fool.</p>

<p>i dont really care what you think of me; but for you to call the admissions office immoral, etc, thats what really gets me. do you have proof that they are pulling the wool over the sheeps eyes?</p>

<p>i also must add, that if your kids did end up at chicago and harvard, i dont think they would be happy at conn, which is an extremely different atmosphere.</p>

<p>im not about to go make a special trip to my parents house to 'prove' to you that i just report what i read. im sure you never confuse if you read something in the new york times vs saw it on cnn. and once again, i do know how to check sources. i'd be happy to show you my vita if you would like some proof.</p>

<p>again. i just report what i read. im not about to do some crazy indepth analysis for this website. </p>

<p>ps. what kind of psychologist are you? (again, this is just curiousity, completely separate from the tone of the above post).</p>

<p>huskem:</p>

<p>In my house, all the words (except one) that I used are common, everyday vocabulary. The sole exception is "upbraid," which is only two syllables, so it's not that large a word. I chose it specifically, though, because it seemed to best convey the tone of what I have been trying to do. Every other word that occurred to me seemed too harsh or too weak.</p>

<p>Words are building blocks of meaning. I can't help it if your own attempts to convey meaning are so sloppy that you are willing to substitute fuzzy terms for more precise ones. That is your choice.</p>

<p>I did a quick thesaurus check on the words you cite. Of them, I think only "corroborate" could have been changed without damaging the intent of the words, but only with another "big" word. "Interpolate" is a mathematical term for which there is no substitute. "Indignation" cannot be replaced with any close synonyms that conveys precisely the same shade of minor outrage. </p>

<p>But the whole issue of "big words" is, of course, classic misdirection. I've played along to see where it would lead, and I must say that it's been fun. </p>

<p>You are probably right that those who are happy at Harvard and Chicago would probably be underchallenged at Conn.</p>

<p>I would not advise going to your parents' house. The copy of whatever it is you think you says CC has a 1390 average SAT score almost certainly does not exist. To the best of my knowledge, all the publications on colleges contain numbers from the same source: the common data set. That is why the US News and princetonreview.com numbers match up. It will be the same with all publications.</p>

<p>I hardly think that looking up a number on a website is "crazy indepth analysis," but I realize that there are a number of people to whom even the easiest confirmation of numbers is more work than they are willing to do. They prefer uninformed opinions. So be it.</p>

<p>Your CV is not useful. You are quite likely to make it up.</p>

<p>This should pretty well end this very pleasant exchange. You will probably not take my advice, but I will offer it, anyway. The next time someone expresses doubt about your numbers, and expresses reasons why they seem unlikely and provides conflicting evidence, it would be best to actually check a reference instead of pretending to check a reference.</p>

<p>My field is a hybrid. I analyze motivating factors in cultural environments, using the three major theories of motivation as well as newer research on the effect of cognitions on brain function.</p>

<p>tarhunt- after looking over your other posts, it seems you are quite belligerent towards everyone that disagrees with you, so i will also end it here, as there is no point to this. but your word is not the gospel.</p>

<p>i still stand by what i said.</p>

<p>there is also someone on this board that got into chicago this year but not conn (chicago does after all have a much higher acceptance rate but thats a whole different story), and there were several people in my sisters HS graduating class this year who got rejected from conn so had to go to places like colgate and vassar. (this year conn turned down 45% of valedictorians who applied- check the admissions blog). also, conn was my safety school as well, and i turned down several higher ranked schools to go to new london. i meant that your kids wouldnt fit into the social environment- yes we like the social environment at nescac schools, quite dissimilar from the 'social life' at schools like chicago - NOT the academics, in which most departments can stand up to just about any school in the country (just take a look at which grad schools alumni end up).</p>

<p>and how dare you say my cv is BS, when i have worked extremely hard to make it completely outstanding for someone my age (according to several clinical psychologists and psychiatrists at yale med school as well as uconn med school who have advised me over the past couple of years). you probably wont believe that either, but i wouldnt expect you to, because i have no proof that you are a 'psychologist', yet i am too mature to accuse YOU of lying or inflating your background.</p>

<p>i hope to never have to meet someone as bitter and supercilious as you, and i will no longer respond to any of your posts, on this board or anyother.</p>

<p>huskem:</p>

<p>I do not expect you to respond to future post, nor would I want you to. By all means, though, continue to make up data. You and Ward Churchhill can be happy together.</p>

<p>We're happy that you care. Sincerely, it's great to see you (both) are principled and believe passionately. </p>

<p>Please keep in mind that there are brand new young students who are warily approaching their soon-to-be new home away from home (and they're scared). Some of them use the internet to find out as much as they can about their new colleges. It's very easy to find your discussion, which is not disparaging of Connecticut, but could be interpreted as such by a scared kid. </p>

<p>Please be careful with your words and tone. We'd appreciate it most sincerely.</p>