@merc81 You make an interesting point about standardized test scores. I do believe that tests can indicate a certain type of ability, but only to an extent. Of course, it’s easy for me to say that because testing has never been very difficult for me and I fall around or above the 75th percentile at every school that I applied to. But really, is there much of a difference between a 2100 and a 2400? A 2100 is still the 96th percentile (according to 2015 data). Is that a significant difference from the 99th? There’s also the correlation between performance on those tests and family income to keep in mind. I see what you’re saying, though, and I appreciate your comment for making me consider Bates and Hamilton from a different angle.
You sound perfectly normal and well rounded and I think you’ll find your tribe at either school. I actually think at smaller schools, like Bates & Hamilton, there can be less cliques because you end up knowing a greater % of the student body and can move more fluidly through and with groups. You’ll walk into the cafeteria or library and even if you don’t immediately know people, you will recognize people and invariably they will nod and smile vs being closed off into some kind of do not enter group. At least that is how my D who is at a different LAC says it works!
You mention the prep factor at Hamilton. When I toured with my D, she wasn’t feeling the prep, but that could have been because our tour guide was a bit boho/intellectual. But she knows multiple kids at both schools, who would be considered kind of like urban/prep, but again that’s a small sample size and there will be outdoorsy and artsy kids at both schools as well.
@hopeful1660: If you are asking me in more than a rhetorical way, I’d say that Yes the difference between a 25th percentile ACT score of 28 (Bates) and a one of 31 (Hamilton) might effect the classroom experiences at these schools.
However, my intent was not to emphasize standardized testing, but rather to simply point it out as one of the differences between your choices. I avoid placing colleges within any hiercharchy (and don’t understand what the number ten has to do with anything), but prefer to appreciate them for their singular attributes, where they exist.
Bates: Admirally founded by early abolitionists under severe regional opposition. Current administration seems committed to providing an inclusive, welcoming environment for all students. Compact campus on the edge of Lewiston.
Hamilton: Benefits from the curricular, architectural, spatial and, to some extent, cultural legacy of having been two colleges of different characteristics and attributes. A balanced curriculum, but also a writers’ college. Former fraternity houses are now beautiful residence halls.
Higher test scores at Hamilton can also just be an indicator that high test scores are important to Hamilton. Doesn’t make the student body “better” or more interesting. Different schools chose to weight different criteria when deciding on who to accept. Bates’ very long term policy of being test optional shows it is not a factor they weight as heavily as Hamilton. The test optional policy at Bates isn’t some recent attempt to game the ratings game. My guess is they find little correlation between test scores and academic and career success.
Bottomline, you can parse data for weeks and, given the fairly even standing of both schools on many levels, it won’t matter as much in the long term as picking a school where you feel comfortable and supported. Could be either school or both.
I would spend some time looking through the course catalog. I’ve found big differences between LACs on course offerings. Even among similar schools, some schools have tons of courses that would interest me while others have ones that sound dry and boring, as much as one can go by course descriptions. Look at what might appeal to you in different areas of study. If you are interested in dabbling in some art classes, also check out how easy it is to get into a class as a non-art major.
@hopeful1660, it’s a great choice to have! My DD’s are going through the same decision making process; the good news is that there is never a best choice for everyone - just the best one for you…
Well… but who’s to say the non-submitters didn’t score as highly, or wouldn’t have, for those who didn’t take the test?
This doesn’t prove anything regarding test scores, since we don’t know what the non-submitters’ scores were or would have been.
I think we can fairly say that a higher test score means, per se, that you know more right now than a kid who scores lower than you. It does not, of course, mean that you are smarter or more capable; maybe you’ve just had better teachers or a broader curriculum, or more practice, or the test was more important to you.
As general points, I’d say that 1) the information standardized testing indicates about an individual differs considerably from that which it may indicate about a group and 2) colleges with strong academic reputations often report correspondingly high standardized scoring profiles.
“I think we can fairly say that a higher test score means, per se, that you know more right now than a kid who scores lower than you.”
I’m not sure you can even draw that conclusion. Some people are just bad at certain test formats that have nothing to do with knowledge. I have one of each in my kids. One kid has always been good at standardized tests, another not so much. The one who isn’t will often know the material but just doesn’t respond well to the testing conditions and format.
Some of those kids who score higher also might not be great test-takers. So if we have a kid with a 32 and a kid with a 30… maybe neither one is great at standardized tests. We probably shouldn’t assume it’s only the kid with the lower score who has issues with tests.
Proving intelligence in one person isn’t easy. Proving the difference between two or more people… ugh. hehe
Some colleges, Bowdoin is one I believe, request test scores for matriculating students after the fact. I think they track these things and know it makes little difference. I don’t think many non-submitters are passing on test taking completely, they are just choosing not to report.
I’ll leave the discussion on testing now as it really isn’t the point of the OP’s thread. But I stand by my previous statement that at some point all this hashing out of stats is splitting hairs between two schools of this caliber.
Bates and Hamilton are pretty darn even overall. I’ve learned, through this thread, some of the history that defines their campuses, their admissions philosophy, their overall vibes. So, per the uzhe:
No, instead of, “you know more right now than a kid who scores lower than you,” it really just means one tested higher on that specific material, that test format. That may reflect more prep or native luck, but not “know more.”
No one is arguing that a high ACT score, along with a similar gpa, doesn’t have a correlation to success in college. The point is that students are equality successful with lower ACT scores. Twenty percent of enrolled Hamilton students didn’t submit ACT or SAT scores. I believe they’re doing just fine.
Not to beat the SAT question to death, but Bates reports all students’ scores, even those of non-reporters. US News assesses a huge penalty to schools that report scores for less than a certain threshold of students. I’m sure there are a few students who don’t have scores to report, but overall one would expect Bates to have lower test scores than schools where everyone is submitting scores as a regular part of the application. The non-submitters have high high school GPA’s so they’ve demonstrated that they’re strong students.
We’ve skipped the fact some don’t report with their apps because one score is lopsided. The fact the 75th percentile is nearly the same for both schools is telling. And remember, top colleges that don’t demand scores are still vetting thoroughly. How you perform in hs, related to your possible major or interests, the rigor, the nature of your activities, how you write, etc, show drives, thinking, potential. Not just SAT or ACT.
The reports on hs performance vs “college success” often fall back on quantitative - eg, soph college grades. That’s not always an effective comparison, especially not at a ‘highly competitive,’ where the great mass of students are highly educated through high school, intellectually alert, have ideas about their futures.
Odd that one link used some WV college and Houston Baptist as examples. Not the same league as we’re talking.
Indicates 19% at Hamilton do not report SAT 1 or ACT scores. All report standardized scoring in some form.
The OP, and readers of this thread, can reach their own conclusions as to whether the standardized scoring profiles of these schools are materially similar.
The 19% and 51.5% numbers thrown out above are really comparing apples to oranges. Different reporting requirements so they can’t really be compared to each other.
