<p>Not really though, you can't show up unless you're invited. As an applicant, you're just trying to gain admittance. Historical yield is a given, so you shouldn't be so concerned that the top 70% of accepted applicants choose to go elsewhere for admission purposes.</p>
<p>Both sets of numbers offer a lot to students. Enrolled numbers say what type of student body will be there, and everything associated with that. However, accepted numbers give you a better idea as to where your application stands(being in the middle of the enrolled numbers could put you in the lower segment of accepted, so while you might be a competitive student at the school, your application may be less appealing than believed). Breaking down by region and minority and all could be helpful, a college could be attempting to attract people from the south, but having trouble enrolling them, if you then applied ED from the southern states you would have an advantage, which would be visible from the accepted but not enrolled stats. However, how many southerners you could hang out with would be in the enrolled data.</p>
<p>Both sets of data are helpful, why don't these schools make both readily available?</p>
<p>Thanks so much for those links, Papa Chicken. The interesting thing is that many of the schools we looked at said that they really didn't know how to use the Writing SAT scores. Only one, Bowdoin, said that they sometimes download the essay to have a look-- interesting for a school that says that they are unconcerned with standardized test scores. But I guess you can't blame them for using all the information they are given.</p>
<p>maof4-- here's a few threads from last year on SAT Writing scores & there use by admissions departments:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=190992%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=190992</a>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=168275%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=168275</a>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=147230%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=147230</a></p>
<p>I also recall seeing a listing of colleges and their judgments on how Writing would be used for this past season's admissions....perhaps by Princeton Review, but I could not re-find that list....probably outdated by now anyway. I think your approach of asking each school is really the only way to go, as a school's use of the Writing piece is brand new & likely to change year-to-year.</p>
<ol>
<li> As Papa Chicken said, Amherst is good on providing SAT #s for applied, accepted, and enrolled. For Class of 2010 (scroll to page 4): <a href="http://www.amherst.edu/about_amh/ssr/amherstcollege_ssr2010.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.amherst.edu/about_amh/ssr/amherstcollege_ssr2010.pdf</a></li>
</ol>
<p>CR scores:</p>
<pre><code> Applied Accepted Enrolled
</code></pre>
<p>Mean 693 723 711
Mid-50% 650-750 680-790 670-770</p>
<p>The data is broken down by 50-point ranges. By the way, the percentages shown in the table in the link are for columns (not rows). That is, the table shows that the percentage of accepted students with CR scores from 750-800 is 45% (not that 45% of kids with CR scores from 750-800 are accepted).</p>
<p>And the data illustrate perfectly why the enrolled #s are somewhat lower than the accepted. Those with 750-800 CR scores constitute 45% of the accepted students; but those with 750-800 CR scores constitute only 38% of the enrolled students. For every other 50-point range, the % of those in that range in the enrolled group is equal to or greater than the % of those in that range in the accepted group. </p>
<ol>
<li><pre><code> As for the dubious way that Middlebury used to report its SAT scores (but no longer does), that has already been explained. But its effect really was quite dramatic -- most particularly at the 25% end of the mid-50% range, which is just what you would expect . Thus, for HS Class of 2003 (college class of 2007), US News reported a mid-50% range for Middlebury of 1370-1490. That was, how shall we put it: nuts. At the time, the 25% numbers for Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore were, respectively, 1310, 1320, 1340. Hell, the 25% number for Princeton was 1370. ("I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine; Senator, Middlebury is no Princeton." Google it.)
</code></pre></li>
<li><p>Papa Chicken's point on the omission of the Middlebury February admits from the acceptance numbers, when February admits are both a non-trivial number and accepted from the same applicant pool as the September admits, is well taken.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>What is that quote from, wesdad? Couldn't find it on google</p>
<p>Well, the first two phrases are part of a famous retort by Lloyd Bensten to Dan Quayle in the 1988 Vice Presidential debate. I took some liberties with the last part.</p>
<p>Here's the real exchange:</p>
<p>"Quayle: Three times that I've had this question — and I will try to answer it again for you, as clearly as I can, because the question you are asking is what kind of qualifications does Dan Quayle have to be president, what kind of qualifications do I have and what would I do in this kind of a situation. And what would I do in this situation? [...] I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur. </p>
<p>Judy Woodruff: Senator Bentsen. </p>
<p>Bentsen: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. (Prolonged shouts and applause) What has to be done in a situation like that is to call in the — "</p>
<p>It was devastating.</p>
<p>This year, Middlebury accepted 1,479 applicants for September and 148 for February out of a total of 7,185 applicants. Add those two numbers together and you get an acceptance rate of 23%, which is what Middlebury publicized.</p>
<p>bravo!....I am hopeful that the 23% figure (vs 21% w/out Febs) will be the one ending up calculatable from the CDS (which then gets into US News & others).....problem is that since the acceptance rates are calculated from CDS "first time, first year" for fall enrollment fall (section C1), how will Midd factor those Febs in so a 23% number can be calculated? I'll bet ya 20 CC bucks that 21% is what ends up in the 2009 US News! [& 23% is still remarkable]</p>
<p>why would they publicize one number and report another to usnews?</p>
<p>the disparity would be publicly known...also, they would have just 'lied' in the first place</p>
<p>It would seem that the schools that have ED 1 and ED 2 would have higher yield numbers and a smaller disparity between the SAT scores of admits and enrollees than schools with only one early decision program. In the extreme, a school like Colgate which extends ED 2 to the bitter end would have the most favorable yield numbers but lower publicized SAT scores relative to schools that have only ED 1. Clearly paying students with lesser credentials can, and do stagger their early decision applications by applying to a far reach ED 1 and a closer reach ED 2. Seems like a win/win for the rich students and the well endowed institutions. This is nearly as inequitable as what goes on with waitlists where paying students are even more favored and yield numbers can be more grossly manipulated because admission from waitlists is rarely need blind and students are often required to verbally commit before they are sent the enrollment materials.</p>
<p>Apropos of not much, one other quirk of the secondary sources (USNews, CB, PR) combined SAT mid-50% range scores is that they are constructs, not actual numbers. This doesn't matter for comparing across schools because the methodology is the same for all; but it might make some difference in a student's comparing his/her own SATs to the USNews etc. numbers.</p>
<p>In the CDS, schools report the mid-50% range separately for CR, M (and now WR); they do not generally report a combined mid-50% range. The way US News etc. give you a combined mid-50% range is by adding together the mid-50% ranges for CR and M (and now WR). This tends to deflate the 25% end of the range and inflate the 75% end. </p>
<p>This is illustrated by data from schools that do report combined numbers.</p>
<p>For the Rice class of 2010, the numbers are:</p>
<p>CR 650-760
M 680-780</p>
<p>US News etc. will report this as mid-50% of 1330-1540</p>
<p>But Rice actually reports a real combined score on its website: 1350-1510</p>
<p>For Washington & Lee Class of 2010:</p>
<p>(from CDS linked to on W&L site):</p>
<p>CR 650-740
M 650-730</p>
<pre><code> (construct combined score: 1300-1470)
</code></pre>
<p>Actual combined score reported: 1330-1450.</p>
<p>^That's a good point. It's best to compare individual scores or overall combined.</p>