<p>haha I'm one of that vast pool of 1600s who will be rejected by Harvard in the RD round,(seeing that I was already deferred) :D</p>
<p>I'll just be a regular old reject... hopefully not.</p>
<p>Byerly, you know your numbers!</p>
<p>All hail, Great Byerly!</p>
<p>i dont know. are test scores that important??</p>
<p>i think the main reason why 4000 gets in is not cuz of their testing.. but to the 40 - 50% who get in, their testing is also a good indicator of their other areas of accomplishment... i personally do not have horrible testing.. 3 800s out of the 5. still. i just dont think ppl should be caught up on testing scores.... testing is just one way for them to make sure that your applicant is consistent.. a 1100 tester is probably not accepted not mainly b/c of the 1100, but his / her other parts of the app also only reflect an average person, an 1100 one...</p>
<p>Check out this thread beginning with #17 and 18: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=31884%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=31884</a>.</p>
<p>Poor old Byerly. Quite desperate, really. Be careful, boys and girls, this kind of evidence tampering could get you into serious trouble at college.</p>
<p>Bad form, Byerly. I'm surprised to see you letting down the side like this.</p>
<p>Wow. I can't believe I'm one of the 3000 valedictorians. I accomplished SOMETHING! I feel special. A little lamely pathetic, but special nonetheless. However, with SATs, no comment. haha!</p>
<p>I'll probably be rejected though. Everyone is SO AMAZING on this board. </p>
<p>April 1, 2005 count down. When do we get the e-mail? March 31? When do they start reading? How much time do they spend on each application? How can they start reading apps if many applicants haven't interviewed yet? </p>
<p>I'm confused.</p>
<p>They review your app if new info becomes available.</p>
<p>Byerley's "facts" are currently under attack at the Princeton and Yale sites. Has he been exposed?</p>
<p>The PR in their latest published rankings of the "Toughest Schools to Get Into" had the following results: 1. MIT 2. Princeton 3. CalTech 4. Yale 5. Harvard. In response to the PR rankings Byerly stated the following:</p>
<p>"silly PR "rankings" (biggest party school, most tree-huggers, toughest to get into, best food, etc) based on tiny, non-scientific returns from survey forms handed out on street-corners at various campuses, on which respondents rate only <em>their own school</em> and don't (how could they anyway?) compare their school to any others."</p>
<p>The reality (from PR itself) is as follows:</p>
<p>"Admissions Selectivity Rating
This rating measures how competitive admissions are at the school. This rating is determined by several institutionally-reported factors, including: the class rank, average standardized test scores, and average high school GPA of entering freshmen; the percentage of students who hail from out-of-state; and the percentage of applicants accepted. By incorporating all these factors, our Admissions Selectivity Rating adjusts for "self-selecting" applicant pools. University of Chicago, for example, has a very high rating, even though it admits a surprisingly large proportion of its applicants. Chicago's applicant pool is self-selecting; that is, nearly all the school's applicants are exceptional students. This rating is given on a scale of 60-99. Please note that if a school has an Admissions Selectivity Rating of 60*, it means that the school did not report to us all of the statistics that go into the rating by our deadline. "</p>
<p>Enough said.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reality (from PR itself) is as follows
[/quote]
Anyone who has tried to prep for the SAT using a Princeton Review book knows that they are total clowns.</p>
<p>mensa, why do you always speak for everyone else? Do you feel it gives your opinions more weight? Have more confidence in your own thoughts. </p>
<p>P.S. It's amazing how long PR's been in business though!</p>
<p>
[quote]
mensa, ...have more confidence in your own thoughts.
[/quote]
That's a new criticism of me....</p>
<p>The silly PR "rankings" (biggest party school, most tree-huggers, toughest to get into, best food, etc) based on tiny, non-scientific returns from survey forms handed out on street-corners at various campuses, on which respondents rate only <em>their own school</em> and don't (how could they anyway?) compare their school to any others.</p>
<p>Oh now they say that in 6 of the categories they use other data, sliced and diced using a "formula" with unexplained weightings and no details, and with the caveat that "these ratings are not intended to be compared directly with those in any prior editon, as our rating computations are refined and changed somewhat annually."</p>
<p>Right. They sure are.</p>
<p>A school can be at the top one year, and not even in the top 20 the next. For example - look at the same list from 2 years ago of the so-called "toughest to get into:</p>
<ol>
<li>Cooper Union</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Air Force Academy</li>
<li>West Point</li>
<li>Anapolis</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
</ol>
<p>They pull this stuff out of thin air, and shuffle their "rankings" ten times more wildly than USNews has ever done. PR should be ashamed of these "rankings" - and I don't mean just the notorious "best drinking school" ranking.</p>
<p>Appafrently they don't want to spend the money to develop a serious alternative to the USNews rankings.</p>
<p>Mr. B, You're spinning again. Your language and PR's language were quite clear.
The discussion had nothing to do with the "other surveys", only one - -"Toughest Schools to Get Into". </p>
<p>Your previous comments had nothing to do with the past surveys. You have obviously spent the last hour or so researching, as best possible, your new spin.</p>
<p>The Chris Avery Study of Early Admissions on which his book is based gave some statistics based on the best data he had available in 2000:</p>
<p>Selected Data from Table 8</p>
<p>College Chances of Admission EA Chances of Admission Regular
With 1600 SAT With 1600 SAT</p>
<p>Harvard 62.0% 37.0%
Yale 78.0% 51.4%
Princeton 97.4% 57.0%
Stanford 88.3% 68.4%
MIT 93.0% 88.0%</p>
<p>Please note that the data was from colleges 1991-1996 and student surveys in 1999-2000. The probabilities are based on average EC levels of applicants to each particular university, adjusted for institutional priority skewing(legacies,athletics, URM's). demographics (male, public school, financial aid), and other factors.</p>
<p>The probabilities are higher than other number reported by the institutions. I suspect that (1) it is because the other skewing factors adjusted for bring down the % in reality, and (2) in 2005, the admissions are much more competitive than the 1991-2000 data indicates. With changed Early Action, Early Decision and EASC policies, increased number os application, that may change the current numbers.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, my sense is that the flavor of the numbers is essentially correct. For instance if you knock 10% of the Harvard numbers and 20% off the MIT number, and adjust for the proportion early, that feels about right, with past reported statistics of 40% Harvard admit of SAT 1600 and 67% MIT admit of SAT 1600.</p>
<p>Source: I can't find the original paper online any more, but found an updated copy, but it only shows graphs rather than the raw data which I saved a copy of on my hard disk.</p>
<p>Remember too, that many of the Avery et al numbers come from a SURVEY - albeit a large and carefully selected survey. No survey can be expected to mirror with precision the actual statistics at any school, although it can be expected to mirror, in a general way, the basic differences among the pool of applicants/admits at a range of schools seeking to enroll strong students.</p>
<p>The Avery study is a biased and tainted study (written by Harvard employees). The study is ignored by GCs at the high school level (as well as high school students themselves) and the book itself appears nowhere (it was a flop). It is a study typically produced by a few here who like where their school came out.</p>
<p>I suggest your time is better spent reviewing the studies of the more independent groups that have been in the business of evaluating schools for some years. Examples include: the Princeton Revie, the Fiske Guide, the Atlantic Monthly, U.S News, etc. - each with teams of researchers who are unbiased and experienced evaluators of undergraduate education. They are also time tested and the most widely used publications at the high school level.</p>
<p>Who really gives a #$%^ about the statistics anyway? I'm amazed that people pounced on a misquote that was off by 10%...30-40%...who cares? And all of the ratings systems...ditto. The reputations are clear enough without needing numerical analysis. Seriously, does it really matter if Harvard or Yale or MIT or Cooper Union is hardest to get in to by a few percentage points?</p>
<p>And as for this thread itself - forget the exact statistics. They mean nothing. The fact of the matter is, the process has an element of a crapshoot to it. There wouldn't be so much bickering over statistics if there weren't that uncertainty about every applicant.</p>
<p>Since Harvard defers and/or rejects at least SOME of its applicants who have ALL of the following:</p>
<ol>
<li> Perfect test scores</li>
<li> Straight A's</li>
<li> Valedictorian</li>
<li> Hardest possible course load</li>
<li> Dual college enrollment (and perfect grades there too)</li>
</ol>
<p>You can safely conclude that the percentages don't matter. What difference does it make if 40% of the people I just described get rejected or if 90% do? You won't be able to predict anything from that.</p>
<p>Throw in subjective measures and you've still got perfect scholars described above who ALSO have strong volunteerism records, active involvement in athletics and the arts, shine in their personalities, lead in their schools...and still don't get in.</p>
<p>So...why worry about the numbers? Focus on being the kind of person who everyone thinks should get in even if you don't.</p>