<p>^ While I don’t disagree with USNWR’s flaws, all this ranking shows by itself is that Tulane values high test scores. I know, for instance, that it gives very generous merit scholarships to high-stat kids. Does this necessarily make it a “better” school than Cornell? No. (Nor does Cornell’s prestige necessarily make it a better school than Tulane.) To use a ranking by any single criteria, however useful, is dangerously flawed.</p>
<p>bc:</p>
<p>are you sure of the data for Tulane? With ~6,700 undergrads, your data indicate that 43% are 700+ (when IPEDS shows Tulane’s 75th CR at 720)… Of course, that also ignores the fact that 40+% of Tulane’s apps submit the ACT…</p>
<p>Keil: I’m not saying Tulane is a better school than Cornell – would never do that. What I am saying is that this particular Hawkette list illustrates what a joke it is for USNWR to allot 25 percent of overall scores to Peer Assessment. PA is the “single criteria” that is the most “dangerously flawed.” It is also my opinion that a school cannot be considered “top” anything, regardless of reputation, if it attracts students with substandard test scores.</p>
<p>BlueBayou: here is a link to the Tulane 43% 700+ figure:</p>
<p>[Tulane</a> University Admissions: Tulane University College Admission Requirements](<a href=“College Search | College Finder | Colleges by Major & Location”>College Search | College Finder | Colleges by Major & Location)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But only 24% of Tulane’s entering freshmen score 700+ on SAT Math. Compare that to the percentages of 700+ Math scorers at the other schools mentioned: </p>
<p>Cornell 64%
USC 50%
Brandeis 43%
Boston College 42%
NYU 37%
Wake Forest 33%</p>
<p>Tulane’s students are comparatively strong on CR but comparatively weaker—in some cases much weaker—in Math. As a result, Tulane ranks towards the bottom of this group of schools in combined 75th percentile CR + M scores (only Wake Forest is lower). It shows how misleading it can be to look at just a single statistic, like % scoring 700+ on CR. Tulane students are NOT, on the whole, stronger than those at the other schools harvardgator mentions, though they are stronger on CR. And this has nothing to do with PA scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I think all this ranking really shows is that Tulane values high CR scores. Very few universities are so lopsided in that direction. Math/science/engineering-heavy schools, for example, are often lopsided in the other direction, with stronger Math scores. Many schools keep a pretty close balance. </p>
<p>Now that’s an interesting fact about Tulane, and something that applicants with lopsided scores—high in CR, weaker in Math—should keep in mind. But it doesn’t really tell us very much about the strength of the school, except perhaps that it might be a better place to study the humanities and non-quantitative social sciences than math, science, or quantitative social sciences. But before reaching that conclusion I’d want to know something about the quality of the faculty, for which the PA score is the closest thing to a proxy in the US News ranking.</p>
<p>The presence of engineering will goose a college’s 700+ scorers in Math (eg, look at U Illinois) and would advise folks to be on the lookout for this, particularly when comparing against a school with no or very small engineering. </p>
<p>As a way to balance for this, I have extended the measurement to include BOTH Critical Reading and Math. The full list is provided below. </p>
<p>For the Tulane situation (which has a tiny engineering dept as a result of the cuts after Katrina), you will notice that its combined level of 67% lags some, but not all, of those mentioned in this discussion. I also included a few publics to provide further perspective on how Tulane students stack up. </p>
<p>% 700+ on CR PLUS % 700+ on Math ,
College</p>
<p>105%, Cornell
83%, USC
81%, Brandeis
71%, Boston College
69%, NYU
68%, U Michigan
67%, Tulane
66%, Georgia Tech
64% U Ilinois
58%, Wake Forest </p>
<p>Here is the full list:</p>
<p>% 700+ on CR PLUS % 700+ on Math , Private National University</p>
<p>176% , Caltech
152% , Yale
150% , Princeton
143% , MIT
141% , Wash U
140% , U Chicago
132% , Dartmouth
131% , Northwestern
130% , Columbia
128% , Duke
124% , Brown
124% , Tufts
123% , Stanford
122% , U Penn
118% , Rice
114% , Notre Dame
113% , Vanderbilt
110% , Georgetown
106% , Emory
105% , Johns Hopkins
105% , Cornell
99% , Carnegie Mellon
83% , USC
81% , Brandeis
80% , TOP PUBLIC (UC Berkeley)
75% , Rensselaer
71% , Boston College
69% , NYU
67% , Tulane
65% , Case Western
64% , U Rochester
58% , Wake Forest
57% , Lehigh
50% , Worcester
47% , U Miami
40% , George Washington
38% , Boston University
35% , Yeshiva
33% , Pepperdine
33% , BYU
32% , SMU
24% , Fordham
17% , Syracuse</p>
<p>na , Harvard</p>
<p>% 700+ on CR PLUS % 700+ on Math , State University</p>
<p>80% , UC BERKELEY
76% , WILLIAM & MARY
72% , U VIRGINIA
68% , U MICHIGAN
66% , GEORGIA TECH
64% , U ILLINOIS
60% , UCLA
56% , U WISCONSIN
55% , U N CAROLINA
47% , U MARYLAND
46% , UC SAN DIEGO
46% , U MINNESOTA
42% , U FLORIDA
41% , U PITTSBURGH
40% , U TEXAS
33% , U IOWA
32% , OHIO STATE
31% , U WASHINGTON
26% , UC IRVINE
26% , CLEMSON
26% , RUTGERS
25% , U GEORGIA
24% , UC DAVIS
24% , UC S BARBARA
24% , U DELAWARE
22% , PENN STATE
22% , TEXAS A&M
21% , MICHIGAN ST
21% , VIRGINIA TECH
20% , PURDUE
20% , U CONNECTICUT
16% , INDIANA U
15% , UC S CRUZ</p>
<p>% 700+ on CR PLUS % 700+ on Math , LAC</p>
<p>158% , Harvey Mudd
150% , Pomona
124% , Williams
124% , Swarthmore
123% , Amherst
109% , Carleton
107% , Claremont McK
105% , Bowdoin
105% , Wesleyan
103% , Haverford
102% , W&L
100% , Vassar
97% , Middlebury
93% , Oberlin
91% , Wellesley
88% , Hamilton
84% , Colgate
81% , Davidson
80% , TOP PUBLIC (UC Berkeley)
79% , Macalester
77% , Colby
76% , Scripps
75% , Grinnell
75% , Barnard
67% , Whitman
65% , Kenyon
60% , Bryn Mawr
60% , Mt. Holyoke
56% , Colorado College
56% , Trinity
55% , Bucknell
49% , Smith
46% , Occidental
46% , Lafayette
44% , US Naval Acad
40% , US Military Acad
39% , Holy Cross
38% , Furman
37% , Sewanee
33% , U Richmond</p>
<p>na , Bates
na , Bard</p>
<p>bclintonk,</p>
<p>I think you misused the word “concentration”. It should be “number” instead. Concentration is always expressed as x relative to y. The percentage you were using is actually a type of concentration.</p>
<p>Thank you, Hawkette, you always add much needed “balance” to these discussions.</p>
<p>Thank you, hawkette, for your diligent work on this. Fascinating to look at the numbers from different angles.</p>
<p>Just curious-- does Harvard not release this data? Is that why it’s NA?</p>
<p>*** also, is anyone looking at the writing scores yet??</p>
<p>jym,</p>
<p>Here is a thread that I created on the Writing segment of the SAT.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/786196-college-comparison-xiii-standardized-tests-focus-sat-writing.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/786196-college-comparison-xiii-standardized-tests-focus-sat-writing.html</a></p>
<p>However, to my knowledge, there is no data yet available for numbers of students scoring 700+, 600+, 500+ on this.</p>
<p>Thanks, hawkette!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t think so. Your definition is the chemistry definition. Another widely accepted usage of the term “concentration,” coming from geography, is “the spatial property of being crowded together.” That’s the more natural meaning of the term in any demographic context. It may be that a small town in Alabama where the only economic activity of any note is a single automobile assembly plant has a very high “concentration” of automobile production in your sense—relative to other economic activity in the town, or as measured by autoworkers in proportion to all workers, or whatever. But no one would say that such a one-horse town has a higher “concentration” of automobile production than Detroit, even though auto production may represent a smaller fraction of total economic activity and total employment in Detroit. Detroit is just the epicenter of auto production in the United States—where the industry is “concentrated,” even though some smaller towns may be, proportionally, even more dependent on auto production than Detroit.</p>
<p>Similarly with 700+ CR scores. You’ll find far more of them at the top publics; that’s where they most tend to cluster, and in that sense are most “concentrated.” I happen to believe with the economist Richard Florida that as we move forward in the knowledge-based economy, it is the places where talent tends to cluster or “agglomerate” that have the most creative potential and therefore the most growth potential. We’ve already seen that in Massachusetts’ Route 128 boom in the 1970s and Silicon Valley in the 1980s and 90s. The next waves of intellectual, technological, and economic innovation will not come from small boutique schools. They are far more likely to come from places where large numbers of talented and hard-working faculty at the top of their disciplines are engaged in cutting-edge research, surrounded by large numbers of talented, future-oriented, and risk-taking students.</p>
<p>bclinktonk,</p>
<p>Silicon Valley and MA’s Route 128 do have some of the highest proportion of the population with degrees in engineering/hi-tech. </p>
<p>I still think your usage is confusing. Your defintion - “the spatial property of being crowded together” actually has an element of relativism; often, it means you are zeroing in that particular segment or spatial area. It’s just not so black and white. I think if you say Maryland has higher “concentration” of smart people than Yale, many people will have a problem with it. To some, it may mean what you meant but to others, esp. those who’ve taken chemistry, it would mean “fraction”/“density”. It’d be easier and much clearer if you say higher “number”.</p>
<p>^ Well, I hate to quibble, but . . . I wouldn’t say Maryland has a “higher concentration” of smart people than Yale, because that usage (“high” v. “low” concentration) implies exactly the chemistry-type ratio you discuss. So let’s agree on that much. But I might say that Maryland has a “larger” concentration of smart people. You’d insist that I refrain from using “concentration” because it might confuse chemistry-oriented people like you; you’d use “number” instead, as in “Maryland has a larger number of smart people.”</p>
<p>But I don’t think “number” quite captures the concept I’m trying to convey. To go back to my auto production analogy: until the recent plant closure there, GM employed 3,000 people in its assembly plant in Doraville, GA, population 9,863. Thus over 30% of the total population in Doraville, and well over half its workforce, were directly employed in the auto industry. So would you say that Doraville had a “higher concentration” of auto workers than metropolitan Detroit, where the “Detroit Three” employed a total of about 130,000 people as of 2007—out of a metropolitan population of approximately 5 million and a total metro-area workforce of 2.6 million? As a ratio of auto company employees to total workforce, it’s not even close—the industry was more “concentrated” in Doraville in your sense of the term. Yet I, and I suspect the vast majority of competent users of the English language, would find it perfectly natural, and perfectly correct, and not at all misleading or confusing to say that the auto industry and auto employment are “concentrated” in and around Detroit, by virtue not just of the total number of jobs involved, but by virtue of the clustering and networking effects that come from having that much of an industry co-located in a single place. Just as we’d say the financial services industry is “concentrated” in New York City, even if some back-office credit card billing department in some small town in South Dakota employs a larger percentage of that town’s total workforce. Just as we’d say the movie industry and the people who work in that industry are “concentrated” in and around LA. Or, to slightly change the terminology, the largest “concentration” of auto workers is in and around Detroit, the largest “concentration” of financial services sector workers is in New York, and the largest “concentration” of film talent and technical production people is in and around LA. These, I submit, are perfectly natural usages. And by using the term “concentration” we’re indicating something more than a mere body count (as in "number’). We’re also implicitly saying something about spatial clustering and the kinds of networking opportunities it creates.</p>
<p>Interesting, indeed. What year were the numbers from? I noticed that a few places have incorrect numbers, if one goes by the most recent class profile on the college websites. You also didn’t have the top 20 LACs.</p>
<p>Looking at the LAC list, don’t forget that SAT-optional schools have skewed percentages. Bowdoin, for example.</p>