You’re agreeing with a point I was not actually making. My point is/was that both applicant pool (Who is applying?) and acceptance rate (How choosy can I be from my pool of applicants?) contribute to the academic and non-academic quality of a student body. And “selectivity” can not be determined just by looking at the stats of a student body, because those stats do not indicate how choosy the admissions office was able to be in building a class.
But they are useless for that task without additional data. The most important question for a safety is “Am I sure I will get in?” The most important question for any of these is “Given my own profile, how likely am I to get in?”
You can’t possibly be suggesting that a student can just compare their own SAT CR+M to this list and successfully make that call. A student’s likelihood of getting into a school with a 1300 median SAT is not identical at a school with a 43% acceptance rate and a school with a 13% acceptance rate.
No, using this response to a critical argument is a distraction.
Have you seen the Hiss study of test-optional schools? Among its conclusions:
“College and university Cumulative GPAs closely track high school GPAs, despite wide variations in testing. Students with strong HSGPAs generally perform well in college, despite modest or low testing. In contrast, students with weak HSGPAs earn lower college Cum GPAs and graduate at lower rates, even with markedly stronger testing.”
So any school that games the numbers by shifting lower test score students into the spring or summer sessions - all those students are excluded from these numbers. And some don’t accept test scores from international applicants, that could totally skew their numbers - picture eradicating the bottom 25% of your pool, so now the lower portion of your middle 50% becomes the bottom 25% and no longer part of the middle 59% numbers.
Would it be cleaner just to show all numbers for accepted students instead so there is no gaming?
I’ve always wondered why no one considers when looking at SAT scores that certain schools like the UC’s don’t superscore and most of these other selective schools do. I have no specific numbers but I know that my own kids scores when superscored were at least 60 points higher than the numbers they had to submit on the UC application which only accepts single sitting scores.
Re #22, superscoring is a policy adopted by certain colleges for the purpose of internal evaluation. Reports to external agencies are expected to follow a standardized format. Entirely test optional schools, however, would be likely to report standardized scores significantly above those of the actual averages for the students they enroll.
Um, maybe no. Many test optional colleges request and incorporate scores, after admission.
Ime, superscoring is a chance for adcoms to see your best scores, regardless of what’s done with the detail after admit.
I still don’t understand how external agencies can standardize scores of schools that superscore and schools that don’t. Does US News say to the superscocre schools that they must only report the highest sittings of their applicants or do they ask UC to go back and then refigure the scores of their applicant based on superstores? I seriously doubt that this happens. My understanding has always been that if UC and other schools that don’t superscore-and they are usually public schools that don’t want to disadvantage poor kids who can’t keep retaking exam due to cost–were to report superscored SAT’s they would be quite a bit higher than currently noted.
“Does US News say to the superscore schools that they must only report their highest sittings . . .?” (26)
Restoring a database of superscores to their raw form would require only the stroke of a computer key. Once in this state, the scores can then just as easily be rearranged into a standardized form. Whatever exact form USNWR explicitly prescribes, it would be with the intent to create uniformity among all colleges. Multiple footnotes in the publication attempt to identify schools that cannot or will not comply with its requests.
Students are in far greater danger of being mislead by hype and marketing than by the statistics. Statistics are a protection against being persuaded by marketing hype.
SAT scores are a good proxy for grades received in rigorous courses.
The statistics like SAT and high school gpa are actually the best criterion for determining how choosy the admissions office has been. Acceptance rates and yield rates and the quality of the applicant pool are not relevant to selectivity. Neither is self selection. SATs and high school gpa and,perhaps significant accomplishments are the bottom line. As an analogy, if you are running a business, what matters ultimately is how many customers lay out their money and buy your product. Who cares how many customers window shop?
Yes, I am suggesting that a student can look at these lists and identify a set of reaches (schools where your SATs are significantly below the midpoint), a set of matches (schools where your SATs are near the midpoint), and a set of safeties (schools where your SATs are significantly above the midpoint). Then prospective students can narrow down the set of reaches, matches, and safeties by considering other factors until they have, say, 5 reaches, 3 matches, 1 academic safety, and 1 academic and financial safety.
I had never heard of the Hiss Study. Do you happen to know what the correlation was between high school gpa and college gpa? That would be interesting. I know that the correlation between SAT midpoint and graduation rate among over 1200 schools in my dataset is +.8 which is very high. If it were not for random variation among colleges in practices like superscoring, the correlation would probably be higher. I wish I had the time to calculate this correlation between SAT and grad rate separately for schools that do not superscore.
I don’t see how stats for accepted students can be helpful because most of those students will not enroll. Stats for accepted students would be misleading.
OP, where do you get your ideas about what’s a good proxy? How are you informed about all this, beyond coming up with a list of stats and grad rates? Can you defend your statements with some references? And how much do you know about the holistic colleges? I ask because you are asserting some points that some of us feel are incomplete.
Simplistic or not, if you plot the OP’s data, there is definitely an observable trend there. Empirically, graduation rate does rise with increasing SAT score.
The first study, which you’ll see is dated 2000, likes to measure college success in terms of grades. I’ve never seen an adcom comment, hey, this kid will get good grades here. (Though it’s fair to say they’re concerned with making it through and graduating.)
There are at least 2 parts to this- picking the right schools for you (where you can be empowered, learn, grow, and go on to your own definition of success) - and getting the admit. A third would be making it to graduation. Just looking at stats for kids who chose that college and various grad rates doesn’t offer conclusions.
Where I think your work has value is with non-holistics, which choose based on stats, high school grades. On first look, might public U of X be “better” than U of Y.
Are there any schools that are NOT holistic? Doesn’t the buzzword “holistic” refer to references, activities, the essay, and the interview? Are there any schools that ignore those things? I think “holistic” college is a euphemism for lower tier colleges that can’t attract the top students. They call themselves “holistic” to put a positive spin on their deficiencies. Are there any schools that completely ignore test scores and gpa? I think all schools look at students’ complete profile although they may weight factors differently. IDK, there might be some large state unis that are almost entirely stats based.
Regarding the use of stats for accepted students…I don’t think it is a good idea to use accepted student stats to determine match schools. What is the goal? To find a match based on the likelihood of getting in or to find a match based on the likelihood of staying in? After all, your peers will be the enrolled students, not the accepted students.
What if a student gets “into” a high SAT school. Enrolls. Gets weeded out of his/her dream major. Has a bad college experience but sticks it out. Graduates.
Collegehelp, do you advise kids? Do you understand that, eg, the Ivies, their sisters, are holistic? Where’s you get the idea it’s a euphemism? And though they will review the whole package, it’s the whole kid they look at (of course, only in as much as any app/supp can capture that.) If you’re kidding, I missed it.
CDad, in even a top school’s eyes, that can be a successful outcome. Presumably, the kid learns and grows during that period.
I would hope not. An unhappy student who probably becomes an unhappy alumni who might not thrive after college due to a poor experience shouldn’t be a successful outcome.
Lookingforward, that was my point. All colleges are holistic to some degree. And, a holistic approach to admissions would include SATs, ACTs, and high school gpa as well as the non-quantifiable factors. A prospective student, however, would have a very difficult time identifying a set of reaches, matches, and safeties based on the “soft” factors such as recommendations, interview, activities, and essay. The stats are a very useful and accurate way to focus in on a set of schools within your range.