<p>It seems like there are a lot of prospective students out there who would love to go to Smith but are concerned about the relatively high admit rate (like around 50 percent). People always talk about the "self-selective" nature of the school that makes up for this, but I'm not convinced. Does the high admit rate of the school play much of a role on academics on the campus?</p>
<p>Well, you can do the math for yourself. 50% of the potential applicants eliminated on account of gender, and perhaps another 20% eliminated because they won't apply to a school that contains only their own gender.</p>
<p>Academics are not determined by those who don't attend.</p>
<p>The academics are strong. Academic stress is high. Slackers are very few.</p>
<p>As Mini indicates, the best way to look at the admit rate is as an academic bargain: "Gee, a school like this would ordinarily have an admit rate of 20 percent if it were co-ed but I have a 50 percent chance of getting in!"</p>
<p>I agree with Mini and TD wholeheartedly. By self-selecting, that is what is meant. Only young women who wish to attend a school like Smith apply, and only the best of those get in.</p>
<p>Smith, at around 2600 students, is also significantly larger than many of its peer liberal arts schools, like Swarthmore and Amherst (I believe these both have around 1600 students apiece). This, combined with the fact that a lot of high school girls automatically cross women's colleges off of the list right off the bat, helps to account for the relatively high admit rate. It also has the reputation of being one of the most "out-there" LAC's around, with a very liberal student body and a relatively high percentage of LGBTQ students; purely anecdotally, I think this scares some prospectives off.</p>
<p>I know this last to be true and I have done my best in one-on-one conversations to dispel any concerns. It's such a non-issue.</p>
<p>The only college that D looked at that scored as high, figuratively speaking, was Yale. Wellesley--another women's college--was half a notch behind and Barnard a half notch behind that. Ny D, who had not started out looking at womens colleges, found them collectively very attractive upon actual investigation and Smith the best (for her) of the lot. A case study for a mind being changed. I wonder if there's an alternate world where she went to Georgetown. Probably never would have been a Math major if she had, which I think would have been too bad.</p>
<p>There are a number of ways to view these statistics, but I would begin by asking the question "why does the admit rate really matter"? Here are some interesting statistics from the Collegeboard website. [Name of College-% Entering students with a minimum 3.75 gpa-% of Applicants admitteded] Colgate - 32% - 27%; Vassar - 48% - 29%; NYU - 36% - 37%; Mt. Holyoke - 38% - 52%; Smith - 61% - 48%. Conclusion: Smith had the highest admit rate and at the same time, the highest average gpa of matriculated students. Which of these schools is actually the most selective?</p>
<p>Good data, good interpretation USM.</p>
<p>Good responses, especially about the GPAs.</p>
<p>I noticed that SAT scores are lower overall...is this because Smith tries to get more low income students?</p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>arianneag, </p>
<p>Personally, I think that Smith's SAT scores reflect positively on the college. The SAT is an extremely flawed indicator of collegiate success, let alone success in life. The fact that Smith's averages tend to be lower than many peer schools simply suggests that Smith admissions is willing to go beyond a measurement system that is rife with gender, ethnic, and socio-economic bias. Check out fairtest.org and look beyond the surface in your search for the school which is the right fit, not the most prestigious.</p>
<p>According to the CollegeBoard's own data, an 1360 on the old SAT is an 1160 plus $100k in family income.</p>
<p>Smith has not gone the "SAT optional" route but has reduced its weight in consideration for admissions. Nice SAT scores can still be the gateway to some nice merit aid however.</p>
<p>Before leaving Smith, Ruth Simmons set up a committee of faculty and admissions office folks to ask two questions: 1) Do students with higher SATs perform better once they get to Smith, and 2) Does the use of SATs in admissions work against the college's historic commitment to economic diversity. Reporting back two years later to Pres. Christ, the committee answered 1) no; and 2) yes.</p>
<p>As a result, the pres. instructed the admissions office to de-emphasize reliance on SATs (or so I was told by the director of admissions, with whom I was consulting.) They did not do away with them, however, because they found them useful 1) to ensure that students had at least some math competence; 2) to evaluate non-traditional applicants like homeschoolers and international students. I would be surprised, however, if one of the other reasons was not that they needed them for purposes of figuring out how competitive they needed to be with merit awards - not that they would rely on them totally, but they would need to know how the competition viewed them.</p>
<p>What percentage of Smith students are 'poor' such that they would be expected to have lower SATs? How would this compare to Bryn Mawr or Amherst for example? If 10% are 'poor', their SATs at 100 points lower than the school average would not really impact that much on the average SAT of the school as a whole. If the average SAT were 1360, for example, 10% at 1160 would only bring down the average to 1340. Not much of a difference in terms of the average of the school. Now if 50% were 'poor' the resultant SAT would be 1280. It actually takes a lot of 'poor' students to make much of a difference in the average SAT. Maybe this is not a big a reason for lower SATs than 'comparable' LACs.</p>
<p>What do you think? I am not trying to be difficult or anything, as I am considering applying!</p>
<p>27% on Pell Grants (i.e. below $40k), another 18% (these figures are 3 years old), below $60k; 61% receiving needbased aid. At Amherst, 46% receive need based aid; 16% Pells; and (from what I can figure out) 9% additional below $60k. At Williams, it would be 10% Pell, and (it seems) roughly 7% additional below $60k. The differences are huge. Differences are much less with Bryn Mawr. The below $60k would likely be the most relevant number, as, adding $100k, $160 would be a relatively standard cutoff for needbased aid. </p>
<p>It just isnt a matter of what percentage receives needbased aid. Several schools (Princeton is the best example) have large numbers of students receiving aid in the $100-$160 family income category. So it just isn't a difference in the percentage of those who are truly poor, but what the entire demographic of the school looks like. (In other words, economic diversity doesn't come solely by selecting very poor students. But it comes at an an SAT price. </p>
<p>Now, you might ask whether Smith could in fact fill 2,700 places with a wealthier clientele. I frankly doubt it, but their endowment and long-term commitment doesn't force them to try. And the Prez's committee related to SATs suggests they shouldn't want to.</p>
<p>I wanted to add that it is difficult to overestimate the difference in the shapes of the student bodies. At both Williams and Amherst (for example), the median student receives no need-based aid, which means the median family income is a mininum $160k (likely higher, probably in the low $200s). Half the students come from families with incomes higher than that. The Smith (and Bryn Mawr) data suggest median family incomes around $80-$95k, or less than half those at Williams and Amherst. This will play itself in campus cultures in myriads of ways, from where students spend their summer vacations, to whether students believe they can take the risk of applying to (and paying for) medical school, to campus conversations and politics, to clothing styles. This isn't to say there are not very wealthy students at all four places, only that the shape of the student bodies are different. Nor is to say that, from this, one is necessarily better than another, only that they are different (and it is great to have choices!)</p>
<p>Mini: Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough response. The differences really are tremendous. I had no idea. And it seems it really isn't just a matter of the percentage of students receiving aid, either, as the Princeton example shows.</p>
<p>It certainly would make for different experience going to Smith rather than a college with an entirely different demographic.</p>
<p>"The differences really are tremendous. I had no idea."</p>
<p>I'm pushing for Mini to have his own FAQ page on the Smith website. His info is invaluable, oui? :)</p>
<p>Mais oui. C'est vrai!</p>