<p>You are correct and I completely missed the SAT-optional part when I scanned Bowdoin's CDS. It's just about impossible, then, to really compare the two school's SAT scores - one hides them and the other is optional. </p>
<p>The ratio between applicants and freshman class size is about the same for both schools, however, so I don't think that the size of the school would weigh in on selectivity. </p>
<p>But Bowdoin's yield is very high (42% for 2007-08!), which would affect its admission rate. Maybe it attracts a very focused applicant pool.</p>
<p>Yes, Colgate (on their website) includes the top scorers (by using accepted students) that actually go to Dartmouth and Williams instead (not that they know that yet when they're applying) and Bowdoin doesn't include its lowest scorers by making the SAT optional and completely distorting the median. </p>
<p>Middlebury has used this tactic too, although now at least includes the avg SAT score for the entire class post facto, which when I saw a year or two ago was 1349 (the exact average as Colgate that year). I'm not convinced, based on the range, that Midd's 25-75% also includes the entire class. </p>
<p>At least sites like princetonreview, collegeboard, collegedata, etc report stats for the enrolled class at Colgate, although will likely always be 1-2 years behind the most recent class. I think it would be fine for Colgate to report accepted students averages (who is invited to the party) as long as they also report enrolled students averages (who actually attends the party). I've seen Bucknell report both simultaneously and thinks it's a fair representation and gives candidates the most information of what it takes to be accepted and who actually attends.</p>
<p>Really, it would be very nice for Colgate to join the ranks of most other selective schools and actually publish its Common Data Set on its website; it's a bit unseemly to appear sneaky about its real stats since they are undoubtedly impressive to begin with.</p>
<p>Perhaps Colgate could be "less sneaky", but also I think it's important to also think that maybe Colgate doesn't care SO MUCH about the numbers - I'm NOT saying they don't matter! BUT, I know from personal experience that Colgate seriously considers the entire application and really cares about KNOWING the person they're admitting. Maybe one way of showing this is to devalue/destress/"de-publish" those numbers. -- just thinking of the flip side of the coin.</p>
<p>I generally find Colgate to be less 'toolish' when it comes to reporting student stats than most other schools. They're not sprinting to out-do other schools on April 1 to report how they rejected 75+% of applicants the way Harvard and Princeton or even Williams and Amherst do even if when they do display their class profile a few months later, it shows their student stats to be consistent with a top 30 school. Most students drawn to Colgate don't seem too concerned with whether their school's avg SAT is 1360 or 1370 in any given year even if they are good enough to be at a school with an avg SAT of 1360 or 1370.</p>
<p>I agree that most schools have their own way of tooting their own horns. S goes to Williams and I agree they are a bit "superior." </p>
<p>But I wouldn't kid myself about whether Colgate "cares" about the numbers. Those numbers are important to every selective college; there's just no way to avoid that. The CDS may not be perfect, but it's standard and allows an apples-to-apples comparison among schools. Why not just let people look at it? That being said, I agree that most students don't care about these numbers, except to the extent they affect admissions chances. </p>
<p>I've said before that Colgate has been good to us. D loves it there, is busy and involved, has been pretty successful and has made great friends and memories. I'm not knocking Colgate. I'm proud to wear my sweatshirt and wrap up in my lap blanket in the winter. I just think they could be more open in this respect.</p>
<p>As a follow up to previous posts, there's a recent thread in "Search & Selection" showing the 2007-08 IPEDS middle 50 percentiles of the combined SAT (CR + M) for enrolled students. Bowdoin - 1300-1470; Colgate 1250-1430.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a follow up to previous posts, there's a recent thread in "Search & Selection" showing the 2007-08 IPEDS middle 50 percentiles of the combined SAT (CR + M) for enrolled students. Bowdoin - 1300-1470; Colgate 1250-1430.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, though, that's not going to include the lowest 20-25% of SAT scorers at Bowdoin, which when included will bring down the overall range ~ 20-30 points. However, there is no question that Bowdoin does at least do a little better than Colgate in admissions, although to me not so much so that it should be a main criteria in picking the school.</p>
<p>by artificially inflating its matriculant numbers, I think Colgate does prospectives a disservice. By looking at the published numbers, prospectives might be dissuaded to apply becos they think they are below the median or below the 25%, when in fact they could be above both.</p>
<p>
[quote]
by artificially inflating its matriculant numbers, I think Colgate does prospectives a disservice. By looking at the published numbers, prospectives might be dissuaded to apply becos they think they are below the median or below the 25%, when in fact they could be above both.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I felt Colgate did this to try to attract the 1460 SAT applicant aspiring to Dartmouth or Williams that has somewhat (but not great) chance to be accepted there, but look at Colgate with a 1415 median accepted SAT and think maybe Colgate isn't beneath them after all and apply there too. When these candidates get W/L or rejected at Dartmouth or Williams, suddenly Colgate has a chance to get a high level student that they might not have gotten otherwise.</p>
<p>I get the impression that this type of approach is what helped Middlebury become such a hot school by being able to report such a high SAT average because they were SAT-optional and not reporting the scores of the lowest 30-40% of the class. For a couple years, they were actually reporting higher SAT averages than Dartmouth or Williams until they started reporting the SAT average of the entire enrolled class (instead of cherry-picking their highest scorers); however, at that point the desired effect of becoming a more sought after school was achieved.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, for the average unhooked applicant, their chances are pretty low if they are at the published 25% point, and still not all that great if they are just below the published median.</p>
<p>You folks are aware that Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, Penn, Cornell and Columbia play Division I sports? Biggest difference between the Ivies and Patriot League schools -- in terms of athletics -- is that the Ivies don't offer any athletic scholarships and Colgate and its league members offer a limited number. By limited I mean far fewer than they are permitted under NCAA regulations. Personally, I think Division I sports adds an extra, positive dimension, to schools like Colgate, Harvard, Georgetown, Davidson and Holy Cross. And in many cases, at highly selective schools such as those mentioned, the GPAs of athletic teams exceed that of the general student body. Athletic prowess doesn't necessarily indicate lesser intelligence.</p>
<p>Hudsonvalley, I agree D1 sports is a positive for many of those schools including Colgate. But I don't think in "many cases" the GPAs of the athletic teams exceed those of the general student body.</p>
<p>Of course, and that reinforces my point. A prospective who thinks he is below the median might look elsewhere because he thinks 'Gate is too much of a reach, but in fact, his SAT score could be at or slightly above the median. Ditto the 25th -- if below, a kid's gonna need a big hook. If above, perhaps great ECs, recs and essays could work. But, the point is that the prospie does not know the real numbers.</p>
<p>jrpar -- I am hesitant to revoke my assertion that many athletic teams at highly selective schools outperform the general student body. By "many" I don't mean to imply a majority of teams, but I do think it is more than just a handful. The problem is that I can't quantify my claim without more work than I care to undertake. I would also say that my statement doesn't apply to the "revenue sports," such as men's basketball, football and, in some cases, hockey and lacrosse. I do believe that minor sports teams often are comprised of students who perform at a level higher than the general student body. I know that at my daughter's Patriot League school the swimming & diving team, women's tennis team, women's basketball team, track & field team and cross country team the GPAs exceed the student average.</p>
<p>Maybe the Patriot League has records that could clarify this, but for now I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. BTW, I have no dog in this hunt as neither daughter or myself are/were Division I student-athletes.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, I don't think I am reinforcing your point. I think the prospective student's prospects at those two data points is pretty grim- I do think Colgate is probably too big a reach and the applicant shouldn't be all that encouraged. If Colgate published data for enrolled students, a prospective student looking at enrolled students' data would be even more misled to think they have a better chance than they actually do. Again, I'm talking about the unhooked applicant. </p>
<p>Hudsonvalley, I don't have a dog in this hunt either, and I'm certainly not anti-jock. I just don't think that athletes' GPA's are higher at these schools. On a couple of teams, sure. I do agree that many of these athletes are as dedicated in the classroom as they are as athletes.</p>
<p>Colgate absolutely accepts athletes when their applications are not even complete. They also accept lower test scores for athletes. This is a fact. I know someone who would never had been admitted with the stats he had but received admission due to his sport.</p>