Caltech's SAT/ACT scores hit the stratosphere for Fall 2010 Class (Class of 2014)

<p>If Stanford gets props for proximity to Berkeley for collaborative research, then Caltech should get it for proximity to UCLA. In reality, I don’t see this as being a major factor for either school in attracting undergrads. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Thanks, this is really interesting food for thought. </p>

<p>Another reason for Caltech losing the cross-admit battle is that the school is just not as well known as MIT, at least to STEM-interested high school students. The east coast students don’t know the school, so they apply to MIT. The west coast students DO know the school, but want to go away, so they apply to both and then choose MIT.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think I buy the “its not as well known as MIT” argument. The super super STEM-interested high school students, by definition, would already know everything about Caltech, probably one of their “dream” schools since the age of 10. </p>

<p>however</p>

<p>I do buy the “want to go away for school” argument for Southern California kids, where going away is MIT and Harvard or even Stanford.</p>

<p>remember, the difference between a 36% yield and a 56% yield is only about 80-125 students</p>

<p>Edit, crosspost</p>

<p>@SlitheyTove definitely. I didn’t want to point out the more controversial fact that MIT is much more prestigious and probably pulls more students in because of its name. (IMO that’s the only reason that Harvard narrowly wins in cross-admit battles with Stanford.)</p>

<p>@onecircuit: All of the LACs have comparatively “low” yield rates, whether because students apply to more than one top LAC and then the top LACs “cannabalize” each other’s yields, or because these students tend to choose universities, or just because of the market of acceptances for LACs. The big 3 LACs all have yields in the low to mid 40s, I believe. So combined with the fact that it’s a hard engineering school, it doesn’t surprise me that Harvey Mudd has an even lower yield.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s a good point, but I think he/she was indicating that MIT is more prestigious in the general public. Caltech is definitely known, but MIT’s prestige, I would say, is what gives it an advantage over Caltech. (Note that this is not saying that Caltech is inferior; it’s just not as prestigious in the general public.) Students shouldn’t choose schools based on or care about general public prestige, but they unfortunately do. But apparently this often–but not always–guides them right in this decision: at Caltech, students are more than twice as likely to drop out as at MIT. That’s significant, so MIT is probably the right choice for a lot of students.</p>

<p>aha!..I figured it out:</p>

<p>Maybe the cross admit loss to MIT, Stanford, Harvard, UC Berkeley etc is from foreign students, where in their land, these schools are a lot better known and much more prestigious than Caltech.</p>

<p>% Foreign Students
14% - Harvard
10% - Caltech
9% – MIT
8% – Stanford</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>phanta, you beat me to it - my next post was going to discuss this very topic of the yields for the top LAC’s</p>

<p>Enrollment Yields of Top LAC’s
44% - Williams
40% - Amherst
40% - Swarthmore
40% - Pomona</p>

<p>That’s definitely possible–though I have no idea how prestigious Caltech is abroad (or the others, for that matter, but I’ve heard four you listed are the most prestigious abroad). The only thing that might complicate this is the difference in admissions and financial aid policies. MIT, I think, is need-blind for internationals, whereas Stanford is not. International admissions to these colleges is even more of a crapshoot than for domestic students, so it’s hard to say whether this is what kills Caltech’s yield.</p>

<p>Rather than look at cross-admits, I’d like to know more about the characteristics of Caltech grads vs those who transferred out. Do the transfers stay in STEM fields? Are their incoming high school GPA and SAT scores similar to those who stay? Does involvement in competitions like Intel etc correlate with likelihood to graduate? </p>

<p>I’d also like to see a comparison of graduation rates and so forth for Mudd, Caltech and Olin. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This to me is a perfect illustration of how prestige is perception/recognition and not an actual difference in quality. The two schools offer different experiences, but a STEM degree from either serves as an equal marker of achievement, work ethic and intellect. Can you pick this apart on a micro level and argue that either school holds an edge in (choose a major)? Sure. Does it really make any substantive difference in the quality of the education received? Nah.</p>

<p>re, Cal Tech’s 89% graduation rate:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The implication necessarily of dissatisfaction w/ Cal Tech.</p>

<p>Frosh year at CIT is intensive pass/not-fail, I believe, and I’m sure those not CIT material, despite supreme stats from hs, probably, flunk out. Some will get the hint and xfer out. Some, I’m sure were dissatisfied.</p>

<p>Freshman Retention Rates (for students that started in 2008)
98% - Caltech
97% - MIT
91% - Harvey Mudd
95% - Olin</p>

<p>Graduation Rates - 6-year (for students that started in 2003)
89% - Caltech*
91% - MIT
91% - Harvey Mudd
93% - Olin</p>

<p>*Caltech’s 2004 cohort 6 year graduation rate is 90%</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I get the point, but one must be suspect of the matriculant data. Financial aid is a HUGE consideration for internationals. Caltech is not need blind for internationals. Neither is Stanford. In both cases, internationals requiring aid are separated out and compared against each other and the finaid budgets. Cal expects internationals to be full pay.</p>

<p>H (and MIT?) are rich enough to provide free tuition to all.</p>

<p>… maybe pass/fail frosh year, slows down the progress of those who have trouble in their first year. Too many possiblities from those who enter as frosh who entered in 2003, leading to the 89% graduation rate. Not too much different than MIT or Harvey Mudd for those who entered in that same year. </p>

<p>But one thing I’ve learned is one year is just a snap-shot, with some fairly certiain consistency from year to year though not anywhere absolute, though with trends upward and downward can lead to significant differences within the two years’ data presented, and certainly, one cannot mix and match years, such as the two datas you presented.</p>

<p>bluebayou, that is it</p>

<p>I believe that Harvard, Princeton and Yale are need blind for Internationals. Surprised that Stanford is not.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>drax, who is mixing/matching the figures?</p>

<p>All universities were compared for the 2008 entering freshman retention rate</p>

<p>All universities were compared for the 2003 entering freshmen 6 year graduation rate</p>

<p>… is one cannot conclude that the data you presented from one is going to lead to the (outcome of the) other. If that were true, then Harvey Mudd would have 100% retention from 2nd year to graduation. That ain’t gonna happen. Data presented from what will be five years difference may indeed be different and reasonably discrete (wrt each other).</p>

<p>And, two, Cal Tech has an incredibly small class. If we were to live in teh > amount of grads -> fairly stable numbers from year to year (principal), the opposite could be true wrt Cal Tech, ie, maybe they could have gotten a bad batch or something. ; )</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This (emphasis on supreme stats) was actually my whole point, going back to the thread topic. Why is it that Caltech chooses students who end up not being Caltech material? Either Caltech is not providing a wholesome environment where students can always succeed (possible), or Caltech sometimes chooses students with high extremely high stats who actually aren’t prepared for Caltech. The SAT, as everyone knows, is not a strong predictor of success in college; so the fact that Caltech seems to place so much emphasis on it, especially when it has a “drinking-from-the-firehose” environment, is just baffling.</p>

<p>Of course, this is all guesswork. I can’t think another good explanation though. A Caltech student would say, “They have high SAT scores because it’s the hardest school to get into. They drop out at high rates because it’s the hardest top school.” I don’t buy it; I think the two points are related at least somewhat, though the latter point has the additional variable of general difficulty in STEM fields.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Stanford has stated in the past that it’s waiting for its endowment to grow larger, which is BS. Financial aid is primarily drawn from the Stanford Fund and donations, and they wanted to expand aid policies to keep up with the Joneses (e.g. Harvard). So they chose to do that rather than make the school need-blind for internationals. If they spent just a little more money from the endowment, they could guarantee a need-blind policy. Let’s face it: the payout from the endowment dropped over $200million over one year, because of the recession, so clearly Stanford has been able to take a big hit and be fine. A very very small hit in endowment payout would’ve been enough to make Stanford need-blind for internationals.</p>

<p>Regardless, that’s just the policy. While Stanford is not officially need-blind for them, any international who gets in and has need will get financial aid, in the same amounts as domestic students. And a large portion of them are on financial aid:</p>

<p>[Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2010-2011](<a href=“http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html]Stanford”>http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html)</p>

<p>Nonresident aliens: 493 (B2)</p>

<h1>nonresident aliens on scholarship or grant aid: 314 (H6)</h1>

<p>314/493 = 64% nonresident aliens who are on financial aid.</p>

<p>But the average aid package is much lower on average: $31,411 (H6), as opposed to the average student financial aid package of $40,298 (H2). Since Stanford guarantees the same aid policies for all accepted students and since it meets 100% of student need, it appears that international students on financial aid are on average a little more wealthy than than domestic students on financial aid.</p>

<p>So Stanford’s close to becoming “de facto” need-blind for internationals, with or without the official policy, though that would make it more in line with Stanford’s general student population. But considering that Stanford’s endowment was $17billion when it said it wanted to wait for its endowment to grow larger before it became officially need-blind for internationals, it’ll probably be a few years from now that it actually does.</p>

<p>Takeaway point: it’s not unlikely that Caltech’s yield is at least somewhat harmed by international students choosing Stanford, possibly because Stanford’s aid is just better.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>drax - ahhhh, but I never stated that the data from one is going to lead to the outcome of the other, did I?</p>

<p>I hear life at caltech is awful.</p>

<p>here is something interesting…it is not just California kids that are attending Caltech. Even more out of state students than Stanford, Occidental and Harvey Mudd</p>

<p>Percent out of state Students
65% - Caltech
65% - Pomona
60% - Harvey Mudd
59% - Stanford
53% - Occidental</p>

<p>A 30 point difference between 25th and 75th percentiles is absurd</p>

<p>try this for scary:</p>

<p>Percent of first‐time, first‐year (freshman) students with scores in each range:</p>

<p>Math SAT I (700-800)
99.0% - Caltech
95.5% - Harvey Mudd
87.5% - MIT
79.0% - Princeton
77.0% - Yale
66.7% - Stanford</p>