<p>Right. I was about to say the same thing as mamabear. Size matters, a lot. When you are looking at most large public universities, and even large private universities, the more students they admit, the more likely they are to admit many of them based on fairly simple algorithms of objective information. (It may not all be objective information you consider legitimate, though. I imagine things like geography, race, sex could enter into it.) That doesn’t mean they admit ALL of their students that way, but some significant portion of their students, yes.</p>
<p>Even large colleges, if they are only accepting a third or less of applicants, are probably not reliable. But I think once you get around 40% and higher as an admission rate, more and more of the decisions seem to be based on SAT and GPA.</p>
<p>I remember looking at other schools’ Naviance charts when my children were deciding where to apply. Boston University was very striking – at most schools there was clearly a line (which varied somewhat school to school) representing a linear function of GPA and SATs, and if an applicant was north of that line the applicant was virtually certain to be accepted. Below that line, it was a mixed bag of acceptance, rejection, waitlisting. Pitt (a public university) was much the same way, and I have seen it admit people based purely on test scores and GPA (but without bothering to confirm the GPA – although I suppose it could have withdrawn an offer once it saw a transcript if the transcript differed from the application).</p>
<p>I am reviving this briefly, because I remembered my most practical answers to the OP’s question: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Generally, people know what in-state publics are safeties for them based on their stats. In some states, for some students, it may be the flagship; in others, not. But in almost every state – maybe not California anymore – there’s an answer, and that’s the baseline.</p></li>
<li><p>McGill University and the University of Toronto – two large, world-class public universities whose cost to US students is significantly below that of private and out-of-state public universities of similar overall quality – base their admissions almost entirely on GPA and standardized tests, and thus are very predictable for better students. There are plenty of lower-quality institutions that are less predictable, but there’s no need to face uncertainty if these schools are an acceptable option. They’re not for everyone – they are big, bureaucratic, have lots of huge introductory courses, and to some extent are designed (especially Toronto) to give a wide range of students a chance and then to flunk out the ones who don’t succeed. There are no sports to speak of. But far more US students should consider them a viable option than do. Two close friends of my kids went there, one to McGill, one to Toronto, and they are both in tippy-top US PhD programs now, and both loved their college experience.</p></li>
</ol>
So true … and I probably would be one of those parents. There are about 3000 schools in the US so the top 25% that do not accept all applicants are the top <em>750</em> schools … while I believe in fit and students finding the right place for themselves … I certainly hope my kids land somewhere in the top 750 schools.</p>
<p>I am going to say with a 32 ACT and 3.9 unweighted, your chances of being accepted are very high at somewhere around the 31st school. That assumes you apply early, have taken some AP classes, have decent EC’s, and nothing that flags you as a reject (suspensions,etc.). I am sure there might be exceptions, but normally I’d guess you’d be OK.</p>
<p>hoggirl: at one time, your question might have been one that could have been answered with a straight answer…</p>
<p>After being on here for as many years as I have, and after seeing a ton of local kids not get accepted to schools where they are in the top 25% of applicants based on stats, there is no clear answer…</p>
<p>and fwiw, if you DO get Naviance, it would be very helpful if the ED kids are delineated due to the difference in admissions rates for that decision cycle in many, many schools…</p>
<p>totally disagree from first hand experience with dramadad…unless the “apply early” comment refers to binding early decision…</p>
<p>I realize that you can never say never, but I am sure there is a ranking number where if you have very good stats, your chances of acceptance are very high (again, not guaranteed, but very high). Based on my very limited experience of my two d’s, I am guessing that around school number 31, your chance of being accepted gets pretty substantial. Again, that might not apply to every single school above 31, but I think that its a fair generalization. Certainly by up around 60, your chances are very good at most of those schools.</p>
<p>And at some schools it will depend on your intended major. So, while our in state flagship is probably ranked somewhere in the 40’s or 50’s getting admitted to say the engineering school or even the business school is a whole lot different than getting admitted to the college of liberal arts and sciences.</p>
<p>The University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa use the Regents Admissions Index for admissions decisions. It is strictly formula driven although you can submit an application for a manual (holistic) review if you do not meet the index. Iowa is ranked somewhere around 75 and ISU 94 or so.</p>
<p>It’s a moving, changing target board, so it’s difficult to give any absolutes. The high school guidance counselor can usually list local schools that are definites for given students.</p>
<p>SteveMA: ditto your response on Cappex
You can filter for applied, accepted, wait list, rejected, applied won’t attend. One of the most instructive things is to look only at rejected states for high end schools. They cluster heavily in the upper R corner as the lower left doesn’t apply and almost everyone gets rejected. It is an eye opener to see how many far upper right kids Stanford rejects.</p>
<p>I took a quick look at Cappex, and you’d better take the accepted claims with a grain of salt–I think people aren’t necessarily telling the truth.</p>
<p>I took a look at Cappex too, and it’s all self-reported by people who happen to sign up for the site, isn’t it?</p>
<p>On the one hand, the mass of top-right rejects from highly selective schools should send a message, I suppose. On the other hand, it’s not clear to me that this site would be useful for identifying good-bet schools. I’d be too concerned about the self-selected sample. Also, anecdotal information indicates that not only one’s GPA and test scores are important, but it’s relative to the high school. Cappex doesn’t tell you what kind of results people get from your high school. I haven’t seen Naviance (since my kid’s school doesn’t use it) but suspect it’s more useful than Cappex.</p>
<p>We also don’t have Naviance so having Cappex is better than nothing. Individual data points might not be valid, but when you look at the charts from a high level & see a high # of red dots in the upper right hand corner (a la Stanford) or a sea of soothing blue & green dots surrounding your little yellow star, it gives a perspective to students (and parents) that can be more effective than just reading the stats. It’s a visual way to show you where you are in that school’s particular world. Infallible? Of course not, but that’s kind of the point of this thread for the higher ranked schools, no?</p>
<p>I would think that even at schools that don’t use Naviance, the GCs take on your kid’s chances would be more useful and reassuring than a self reported and self selected sampling from other schools whose school report/grading system/academic opportunities may differ greatly from your own.</p>
<p>weatherga–I guess that depends on what you are looking for. For the 6 schools on our S’s list right now, our high school has blocked the Naviance information for all 6 of them so we have no idea what stats from our school got into these schools or were rejected from these schools. </p>
<p>Yaledad-same could be said for the GC information as Cappex info-how good is your GC? What experience do they have with the schools your child is interested in? Have kids from your school attended those schools in the past and what was their experience? Many people here report less than stellar information from their GC so that could all be taken with a grain of salt as well.</p>
<p>Point being, on Cappex, while I am sure there are people that exaggerate, what would the point in doing so be? If someone is interested in their chances of acceptance, padding your stats is not going to help you get good information.</p>
<p>It is a whrong way to choose UG based on matching stats to UG ranking. Choosing UG based on ranking is not a good idea at all. Choose the UG that you like, that matches the best to your personality and wide range of interests. The goal is to enjoy your 4 years and get great college GPA and grow as a person. UG Ranking has very little with any of these.</p>
<p>I found Cappex scattergrams great for that quick look general spread of admit/reject and also who is applying. I wasn’t trying to mine the data for fine variation, but just getting that quick visual. It also helps to see some of the SAT vs GPA variation. Some charts skew green at the top of the X axis and some favor the Y, it seems. And, again, some are just a sea of red which is instructive too.</p>
<p>“But, I still sort of think there has to be some line of demarcation where if a student is in the top quartile of admission stats, barring something really bizarre …, they are pretty much going to be accepted …”</p>
<p>Sometimes the applicant simply isn’t what the school needs at the time. DD applied to an OOS Ivy, with 90th %tile stats for the school’s accepted students. Waitlist. The school simply had too many of the type DD was. I’m not saying every school is a crapshoot. But if your student is applying to the ChemE program at UDelaware, s/he needs to be top shelf … and s/he might not get in even then.</p>