<p>Dstark,
LOL-we agree. I concur that there is some merit to the idea that threshold levels make sense to evaluate when looking at standardized test scores. I like to look at them in combination with the absolute levels of 25/75 ranges. That is part of the interpretation that I believe one should make of data points related to a school’s selectivity. </p>
<p>People will disagree on what that “threshold” level is; some will claim 700 or 600 on an individual SAT section or 30 on an ACT exam. Whatever it is, the data that is presented can be a very insightful indicator of student body depth/strength. </p>
<p>BTW, among national universities, your U Michigan ranks as follows on the various thresholds for standardized tests:</p>
<p>1 For 700+ on SAT CR: 35th (tied with U Rochester)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>For 700+ on SAT Math: 27th </p></li>
<li><p>For 30+ on ACT: 26th
(note: several schools either don’t report ACT scores or have insufficient numbers to present meaningful data-among those that did not report ACT scores and likely had higher performance than U Michigan were Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, Tufts, Boston College, UC Berkeley)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Well then we are getting somewhere aren’t we? lol</p>
<p>I believe in one of Loren Pope’s books he quotes somebody from Harvard as saying if a student scores a 650 SAT verbal score, that student is more than capable of handling the work at Harvard. </p>
<p>And remember Hawkette, an amount of students can cause a threshold to be reached. It doesn’t have to be an average. A certain amount of smart students can do it. Or it doesn’t have to be a certain amount of smart students. Maybe it’s a school that has a strong department in something you love.</p>
<p>And I’m not giving you a bad time when I mention the book “The Outliers”. It’s about what it takes to make somebody successful. I really do think you would enjoy it.</p>
<p>Stories about Bill Gates and Bill Joy. Stories about people with very high IQs. What it takes to make a person great.</p>
<p>Re the Harvard comment, I would have a higher threshold. Using something as simple as a 650 would mean that the average student at a Wake Forest (CR 610-690) or a U Rochester (CR 600-700) or a U Virginia (CR 600-710) is the same strength of student as what you’d find at Harvard (CR 690-800) or even a slightly lower profile school like Northwestern (CR 670-750) or Rice (CR 650-75). I don’t believe that is the case. </p>
<p>I’m familiar with Gladwell’s book and his concept of 10,000 hours goes a long way to creating an “expert.” I think that partly explains my confidence in the data and my own perceptions when it comes to comparing colleges. :)</p>
<p>That’s fine Hawkette. And maybe the average student is stronger at Harvard than the other schools.</p>
<p>I don’t think because a student is stronger at 17 than another student, that student is going to be stronger at 21. There are maturity issues. Motivational issues. There are issues of experiences and opportunites that students have. They are not equal at 17. Harvard takes the stronger students at age 17.</p>
<p>The average thing. I just don’t see it your way. The averages tell a story, but there are other stories. </p>
<p>One of the other things talked about in Outliers is that IQ scores measure a certain type of intelligence. But there are other kinds. IQ scores don’t measure creativity. And SAT scores don’t either.</p>
<p>And when analyzing data, don’t you think it helps to know how the data is derived? How it is complied? What it measures? If there is any other data out there that isn’t measured? Etc. You complain about how the PA scores are derived. Well…the same thing applies to objective data too.</p>
<p>I read the TA info and I scratch my head. The financial resource data and I scratch my head. How did they get this data and what does it really mean?</p>
<p>I talk about Michigan because my daughter went to Michigan. So when I look at the data from Michigan and compare it to my daughter’s experience and her friends experiences…the data doesn’t always mesh with their experiences.</p>
<p>My daughter had 1 class taught by a TA. One class. Maybe other students at Michigan had more than 14% of their classes taught by TAs. I don’t know. But her other friends didn’t seem to have had 14% of their classes taught by TAs either. So what does the 14% mean? And the same for other schools. What do the percentages mean for other schools? What does it mean for the students?</p>
<p>And are you more likely to have a class taught by a TA in certain fields than others? And aren’t you less likely to have a TA teach your class as you move to upper division classes?</p>
<p>“I’m familiar with Gladwell’s book and his concept of 10,000 hours goes a long way to creating an “expert.” I think that partly explains my confidence in the data and my own perceptions when it comes to comparing colleges.” </p>
<p>Dstark,
I concur with the view that students change and evolve. I also agree with the contention that standardized test scores don’t tell the whole story of a student (tho I think it is our most reliable, publicly-available data point). </p>
<p>My conclusion, however, is different from yours as I think both of those factors weigh in favor of the schools that
provide a better learning environment (which I broadly define as smarter classmates, smaller classes, teachers more committed to undergraduate teaching, and larger/more institutional resources dedicated to undergraduates); and
rely more on a holistic admissions process that is not numbers-driven. </p>
<p>My belief is that both of these are much more the case at the top privates than at the top publics.</p>
<p>Re your daughter’s experience at U Michigan, glad that it went well, but you’re looking at one data point. You’re also not comparing it to anything that another student might be experiencing at peer institutions like Boston College or NYU or UCLA or Tulane. If you talk to some grads from those places, you’ll discover a few things, eg, they, too, had a good undergraduate experience and they, too, have passion for their school. Or they, too, didn’t encounter a lot of TAs at their colleges. Or they, too, experienced important development during their college years. </p>
<p>That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t automatically translate into an equivalent experience to what students got at Harvard, Northwestern, Rice, etc. It might’ve been good enough for their tastes (and that’s really all that matters to the consumer, right?), but that does not mean it’s equivalent to the best. Some folks are perfectly happy with a Toytota and have good experiences with them, but that doesn’t automatically mean that Toyotas are as qualitatively good as a Mercedes.</p>
<p>I don’t remember commenting negatively on the schools you mentioned. Students can get great educations at all the schools mentioned. Maybe a little different, but just as great. BC, NYU, UCLA, Tulane, Harvard, Northwestern, Rice are all great schools. When I talk about Michigan, I’m not saying other schools aren’t great.</p>
<p>I don’t rank schools. Remember? I also don’t rearrange rankings. Because that does imply that one school is better than another.Or maybe not imply, state. And for the top schools, that’s bs. That’s one reason I dislike your posts.</p>
<p>And your love of SAT scores goes against point number 2.
And point number 1 doesn’t really have to rely on SAT scores either.</p>
<p>“Re the Harvard comment, I would have a higher threshold. Using something as simple as a 650 would mean that the average student at a Wake Forest (CR 610-690) or a U Rochester (CR 600-700) or a U Virginia (CR 600-710) is the same strength of student as what you’d find at Harvard (CR 690-800) or even a slightly lower profile school like Northwestern (CR 670-750) or Rice (CR 650-75). I don’t believe that is the case.”</p>
<p>My argument is that because Harvard’s average student is stronger Northwestern’s or Duke’s, this doesn’t necessarily translate into you getting a better academic experience at Harvard. You might…but…</p>
<p>Duke has strong enough students. Northwestern has enough strong students so a student can get the academic experience she wants at the school.</p>
<p>You might not disagree so far. Then because a school like UNC has so many strong students, a strong student can get the academic experience she wants at that school. It doesn’t matter that there are students not as strong at UNC. What matters is that there are enough strong students.</p>
<p>I think the metric is not how strong the average student is but if there are enough strong students.</p>
<p>Now…this might matter…</p>
<p>Are 30% of classes taught by TAs at UNC? Because that is beyond my threshold. :)</p>
<p>Well, I think that’s more of a comment about the rather low classroom standards at Harvard…or almost any other school, for that matter. Let’s be perfectly honest - you don’t really need to be a genius to simply pass at Harvard or Michigan. Granted, it may be excruciatingly difficult to get top grades, and certain majors may be impossible to complete, but if you want to simply pass your classes while in a creampuff major - which most schools offer - you don’t need to be a genius. </p>
<p>Since Michigan is a topic of discussion, consider the words of former UM quarterback and current Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh regarding how UM keeps players academically eligible. {Note, Stanford may not be much better in that respect.} :</p>
<p>*Stanford coach and former Michigan quarterback Jim Harbaugh raised eyebrows in these parts two years ago when he challenged Michigan’s academic integrity when it came to admitting football players.</p>
<p>“Michigan is a good school and I got a good education there,” Harbaugh said. "But the athletic department has ways to get borderline guys in and, when they’re in, they steer them to courses in sports communications. They’re adulated when they’re playing, but when they get out, the people who adulated them won’t hire them.*</p>
<p>The implication is therefore that non-football-playing UM students can similarly take the same courses that the players do and graduate with relatively little effort. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid I can’t agree simply due to the seductive power of social forces and immediacy that most people face. Let’s be perfectly honest: most people will do whatever is readily available. For example, if you want to lose weight, you should throw away all your junk food and begin an exercise regime with friends. While it’s possible to choose not to eat that bag of chips that’s just sitting on your desk, most ostensible dieters won’t be able to resist. Similarly, it is tremendously trying and lonely to lose weight all by yourself, particularly when all your friends continue to laze around and eat junk food. That is why the country continues to get fatter - 2/3 of the country is now overweight. </p>
<p>Similarly, while it is possible for students to seek out other strong students, the fact is, many (probably most) won’t do so. They’re going to interact with whomever happens to be around them. The reality of social networking and interaction is that they are heavily influenced by physical geography.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why 4 year graduation rates aren’t relevant while comparing colleges and universities. </p>
<p>From my perspective the higher the 4 year graduation rate the better. </p>
<p>Now I totally get that there are lots of perfectly valid reasons why they may differ, I wouldn’t expect a large urban state school to have the same percentage as a small top tier liberal arts college. I also get that graduation rates shouldn’t serve as some sort of proxy for quality, which is what seems to be what’s getting people worked up.</p>
<p>But why isn’t this information relevant when comparing very similar colleges or universities to each other? Why is Michigan’s percentage so much higher than Wisconsin’s? Why is Amherst’s noticeably lower than Williams’? There must be reasons. It can’t be random.</p>
<p>Actually, Harbaugh’s complaint was not at all about the overall quality of a Michigan education. Quite the opposite; he thinks he got a fine education there. His complaint is that he thinks too many recruited athletes at Michigan are “steered” by their coaches away from a “real” Michigan education, into programs like General Studies (which he disparages) and Kinesiology, more particularly the athletic training and physical education majors within Kinesiology, in which most of the courses seem to consist of various kinds of athletic workouts, courses about how to teach others to do athletic workouts, and courses about how to avoid, assess, and treat athletic injuries. Great if you want to be a football coach. In support of Harbaugh, it does seem to be the case that a very large proportion of football players in particular are in either of these two programs—though I don’t think the General Studies program is necessarily as Mickey-Mouse as he seems to think. A lot of creative interdisciplinary types choose General Studies because it seamlessly allows them to create their own majors. Many football players say they choose General Studies because it’s one of the few undergrad programs that doesn’t have a foreign language requirement; because foreign language courses typically meet 5 days a week, they’re especially hard to fit into a demanding athletic practice and travel schedule. Nonetheless, the “steering” point is a fair point to make if you’re a college football coach competing with Michigan to recruit the same athletes, as Harbaugh is at Stanford. </p>
<p>Are these programs, as sakky suggests, open to other Michigan students? Sure. If they want to end up with phys ed or General Studies degrees. The vast majority don’t. And frankly, from the point of view of the general student population at Michigan, it’s hard to see how you’re adversely affected if the football players are off on the athletic campus doing athletic workouts to meet the requirements for their phys ed degrees; it only means they won’t be slowing down the pace of that chemistry or econ or history class you’re taking.</p>
<p>ncram,
What you are doing is exactly why the information is posted here (and in other threads). Bravo!</p>
<p>Look at the data…compare colleges of similar type…scan for differences, etc. If things seem unusual or different from your expectations, investigate further and try to find out WHY. That is the whole point of these threads. To compare and build understanding, awareness and knowledge for the aspiring student/family. </p>
<p>Over time and after seeing many data points on various aspects of a college, patterns emerge and you will be a much more informed consumer/observer, thinking for yourself rather letting some academia-generated list tell you how you should think. The reward is that you will be able to match the reality of the numbers with the hype behind an individual school and see if the two meet. Sometimes it does; often it does not, both on the high and on the low side. </p>
<p>Thank you for your post. You just made my day. :)</p>
The students who are confused with a subject usually aren’t going to speak up in class and slow it down. In my experience, it’s been the smart kids that want to show off and steer the discussion into some tangent.</p>
It’s only relevant if you are comparing apples-to-apples. It’s not meaningful if you are comparing a school that offers mainly liberal arts with a school offering everything else, especially professional programs that require more than 4 years to complete (e.g., architecure, pharmacy)</p>
<p>And, it’s only relevant if you dig up the ‘Why?’, as many of us have suggested, and see if you fit into that category. If, as I contend, a large portion of the 6-year graduators at a public Uni are from the low income group – they gotta work to support themselves and their families – the six grad rate is meaningless to you, a full payor walking in the door with 10 AP courses (particularly since public Unis are extremely generous with AP credits). Or, if the lot of the five-year grads are engineering majors who took longer so they could take some humanities electives…their grad rate is meaningless if you are a prospective English Lit major. OTOH, if you are a Engineering prospie who loves english lit…</p>
<p>For example, Cal-Berkeley’s four-year grad rate is not super, but I met a couple of kids last summer who graduated in less than three years by cashing in AP/IB credits from HS. It’s easily doable.</p>
<p>^^Right, and I was trying to make the (nuanced) point that you can also compare across dissimilar colleges. If you are a full-payor with AP’s, than Cal-Berkeley’s four-year grad rate is just as good as Williams or Amherst.</p>
<p>In general graduation rate are tied to the level of FA offered by the institution. A couple of years ago I spoke with someone that had done an analysis of family income and graduation rates. Their results suggested that the level of FA resources a college offers predicted five year graduation rates. I went to a T10 LAC and got to direct witness the benefits of a strong FA program. I had a friend whose family was going through a rough period financially. His mother had lost her job and she was worried about covering the rent and groceries. My friend had decided to withdraw from school so he could work to help support his family. The FA office in an effort to retain the student increased his FA package (extra grants). He ended up using extra cash to support his family. He managed to stay in school and graduated in 4 years.<br>
Please keep in mind most of the T20 national university have large engineering programs and professional programs (MIT & CalTech). Yet the bulk of their students manage to graduate in four years. Wealthy schools offer a greater level of support (FA, student services, advising) to their students. Why is it difficult to believe that there is a positive relationship between level of available resources and a college’s graduation rate.</p>
<p>Because the student bodies of different schools come from different economic backgrounds.</p>
<p>If one school’s median income for an average student is $200,000 and another is $80,000… the FA packages don’t have to be as large at the school with the median of $200,000 incomes, everything else being equal. The kids from families with $200,000 incomes are probably going to have fewer money issues.</p>
<p>Then how many students need scholarships at a school?
If you have one school where 12% of the students are on Pell Grants and another where 30% are on Pell Grants…the odds are pretty good the one with 30% of the students on Pell Grants is going to have students with more financial problems. More dropouts.</p>
<p>Top 10 LACs are filled with students that are full payers. The financial problems of the students are less than other schools. The top LACs do take care of the poorer students, but how many poor and middle class students are at the school? Students have to get into the schools first. That isn’t so easy.</p>
<p>Blue Bayou-- Are you suggesting that the data is available to compare 4 year graduation rates of full pay students with lots of APs at Berkeley to those at Williams? It would be interesting to see. Maybe you are right–the graduation rates would be similar. But unless that data is available, we have to make do with what is available. </p>
<p>Dstark – I get that the students at different schools have different economic characteristics. I get that students at Amherst are more affluent than students at other schools. I get that you have to look at the graduation rate data with that in mind. But once a kid has decided he wants to go to a Big 10 state university, or a top 10 NE LAC, or one of the UC’s, well I think those types of schools share enough similarities in terms of their student bodies and the courses offered so that the graduation rates tell you something. </p>
<p>Again, I ask, why are Michigan’s rates so much higher than Wisconsin’s? Lot’s of kids from my area look at both schools. Why are William’s rates higher than Amherst’s? I think these are valid questions.</p>
<p>I don’t know why Michigan’s grad rates are higher than Wisconsin’s. It’s something to look at.</p>
<p>I’m not sure the difference between Amherst and Williams means that much. Plus you have to get into both schools to worry about it. Well, I guess you can apply ED to one. I do wonder if Williams’ grad rates are higher than Amherst’s every year.</p>
<p>Some schools take more chances on students than others.</p>