Columbia USNWR 2008, #10

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
61

<p>


</p>

<p>I think you're really confused. And you're absolutely right, the reason why Columbia has a lower % rate has nothing to do with the University and what it has to offer. No, it's just NYC and Ivy - at least those are the main reasons. Sorry, and you got that information from which statistic?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>I don't have that information and neither do you for half the bs you've been coming up with. The fact is, that many very (SAT) qualified applicants have been rejected. When you get to this standard of university, Caltech, Columbia and the rest get quite similar applicants. It only makes sense to deduce that fact. Stop being so pedantic.</p>

<p>Hard feelings? I think you're posting in the wrong thread, because it looks like you've come up with crap and have moulded in about 20 different ways to adjust to each time I rip through your argument.</p>

<p>Stop embarassing yourself, kid.</p>

62

<p>in other news, my male member is bigger than lamp's.</p>

63

<p>Didn't Duke move to 7 LAST year?</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
Of course if a person has a 70 point higher SAT score than another, I wouldn't claim that the high scorer is smarter. But what I would claim is that if a student body comprised of hundreds of individuals has an SAT score on average of 70 points higher than than another student body, then that student body as a whole is more academically talented.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>normally i dont agree with anything vesalvay says but in this case i must. the sat measures nothing but the ability of a student to take the sat's. we all know there is nothing to show that higher sat's = better performance in college. raw intelligence can account for scores up to 650-700. anything higher is simply a product of studying for the sat</p>

65

<p>


</p>

<p>I'm actually heartbroken. Tell me you're lying!</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
And you're absolutely right, the reason why Columbia has a lower % rate has nothing to do with the University and what it has to offer. No, it's just NYC and Ivy - at least those are the main reasons. Sorry, and you got that information from which statistic?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>if you don't think the size of columbia's applicant pool (and, by extension, its acceptance rate) is hugely influenced by its NYC location and ivy status, you're retarded. next to HYP, who all receive tons of throwaway applications, columbia, being in the city, is probably the least self-selecting of the ivies.</p>

67

<p>Guys, CalTech is good and deserves a place in the Top8 IMO. Of course it'll have a higher SAT score than Columbia, we're not a tech school. It's in the nature of tech schools to have higher SAT scores, so Lamp's SAT argument is useless. I would expect someone who got into CalTech to know this, but oh well... </p>

<p>Duke on the other hand just does not deserve its ranking. It doesn't matter though, because we all know that Columbia>Duke, :D</p>

<p>"next to HYP, who all receive tons of throwaway applications, columbia, being in the city, is probably the least self-selecting of the ivies."</p>

<p>Yea, and the fact that we do not use the CommonApp clearly supports your point, lol... Let's be honest, Cornell is probably the least self-selecting school of all Ivies, because it serves as a back-up for Ivy-applicants. I did it, my friends did it and later we all rejected Cornell for other Ivies...</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
Cornell is probably the least self-selecting school of all Ivies

[/quote]
</p>

<p>moreso than Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia?</p>

<p>no.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yea, and the fact that we do not use the CommonApp clearly supports your point, lol...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>'cause it's so</a> hard to apply online, right? most schools that use the common app require supplemental material anyways.</p>

<p>
[quote]
[Cornell] serves as a back-up for Ivy-applicants.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>CAS acceptance rates are comparable to the acceptance rates of peer institutions. for, say, a prospective English major, Cornell is no easier to get into than Brown, Dartmouth, or Penn.</p>

69

<p>uh... I would say it's significantly more difficult to gain admissions into Brown and Dartmouth than Cornell CAS.</p>

<p>As for Penn, the acceptance rate is only slightly higher than Dartmouth and Brown because it has a larger class size. But regardless, it's also definitely harder to gain admissions into Penn than Cornell.</p>

<p>On a side note...did I just defend Penn? I think I need a cookie and a pat on the back for being so open-minded.</p>

70

<p>US News rankings are not only based on selectivity, but also factors such as yield rate, and ED, just to name a couple. That explains why Washu consistently makes the top 15, but is relatively not well-known, compared to schools like Brown, which is ranked lower.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind these are undergraduate rankings, so the quality of graduate schools are not taken into account. Otherwise, Harvard would be at the top of the list. Instead, Princeton, which is known for its undergraduate program, is :)</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
it's also definitely harder to gain admissions into Penn than Cornell [CAS].

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You sure about that?</p>

<p>
[quote]
[Penn] received 22,634 applications for the Class of 2011 entering in the fall of 2007; Penn admitted 15.9 percent of those applicants, representing its most selective admissions year in history.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
In 2006, the most selective undergraduate college was the College of Arts and Sciences, which admitted only 14.6% of applicants.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Note that those are last year's stats. Looks like CAS is actually harder to get into than UPenn.</p>

<p>
[quote]
uh... I would say it's significantly more difficult to gain admissions into Brown and Dartmouth than Cornell CAS.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>uh... I would say that you're wrong here, too.</p>

<p>
[quote]
[Brown's] class of 2011 has an admittance rate of 13.5%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would bet on CAS' 2011 acceptance rate being lower than 13.5%, but even if it isn't, I said that CAS rates were "comparable" to those of peer institutions -- and 13% is certainly comparable to 14% (not "significantly harder," as you claim).</p>

<p>Dartmouth:</p>

<p>
[quote]
For the Class of 2010, 13,933 students applied for a little over 1,000 places in the class, and only 15.4% of applicants were admitted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Those are last year's stats, but so were the Cornell stats I cited. Dartmouth is not "significantly harder" to gain admission to than Cornell CAS; as with UPenn, CAS was actually tougher to get into last year than Dartmouth.</p>

72

<p>Haha, this is getting way too out of hand.</p>

73

<p>Truazn, can you PM me the link of the source?</p>

74

<p>To say that a 70 point diff in SAT means nothing is absurd. The difference is measuring some difference and it is statistically significant. Also, most academic tests inc SAT have some loading with factor "g" that underlies many intercorrelations. There are lots of correlations between vocaulary size (good predictor of IQ) and SAT etc. To imply that scores above 700 just reflect test taking ability is ridiculous. In fact, to the extent that high scores reflect ability to beat the test, apportion time, function under time pressure and under stress and make fine distinctions and get the correct answer, these are things commonly called intelligence. So, if someone after repeated attempts fails to get above 730 and someone gets 780 first shot, sure the latter is smarter. Since most people have scores less than say 2350 they will advance a self serving, face saving argument.</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
. To imply that scores above 700 just reflect test taking ability is ridiculous. In fact, to the extent that high scores reflect ability to beat the test, apportion time, function under time pressure and under stress and make fine distinctions and get the correct answer, these are things commonly called intelligence. So, if someone after repeated attempts fails to get above 730 and someone gets 780 first shot, sure the latter is smarter. Since most people have scores less than say 2350 they will advance a self serving, face saving argument.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1) "beating the test" is just that. it is all about understanding how the test is structured and how to take it. here's a good example: the extended and short readings. when taking a test, students (at least in the us) are conditioned to read, in their entirety, any and all directions and prompts. however, when you go to an sat tutor, they teach you all the little tricks about how to skim, key words to look for, etc. that is NOT intelligence (keep reading to see why)</p>

<p>2) the abilities to apportion time and work under time limits also do not display intelligence. these are skills that can be taught. i wouldnt call the burger flippers at mcdonalds intelligent just because they know that they need to put the big macs on before the chicken.</p>

<p>now, while you may call those things intelligence, i do not. i would argue the point that intelligence is the ability to solve problems in an innovative and efficient manner. the sat does not, in any way, promote this. the sat demands that you learn the specific skill set that college board deems important.</p>

<p>this is the reason why princeton review, kaplans, etc can produce score improvements of 100 points in a short time</p>

<p>also, to say that i am trying to save face is absurd. i got into columbia with a 2100 and now have a 3.8 gpa. why would i care about the sat at all? answer: i dont. i do STRONGLY believe that the sat is an extremely flawed test that panders to those with money and access to tutors.</p>

76

<p>I don't normally agree with Skraylor, but I'm going to have to on this one.
:)</p>

77

<p>skryalor, I am a psychometrician by profession and you do not have a clue about testing. If Kaplan etc raise your score by 100 points it is usually because there is a practice effect in most tests, also increased motivation etc. Kaplan and PR give their own tests which give an illusion of raising scores, they beat you down with their first test, then you will increase. Psychometrically, most students will show an increase because there are fewer top scorers where there will be a regression to the mean. The very fact that there are thousands of students who do not score into the 2300s despite heavy coaching is proof enough that something beyond beating the test is called for. You ,sir, will never get a 2400 even if you practised with Kaplan for ever. Let me give you an example: vocabulary is endlessly available to everyone, even those who never got taught math. So, vocab size is heavily correlated with IQ. Yet, despite the fact that everyone has same access to words, some develop a great vocabulary and comprehension skills and most others don't. That is because of neuronal organization. Your 2100 is a mediocre score, by the way and shows why you are making the argument. Also 3.8 is mediocre for Columbia. You may be an Olympic star etc but based on these two academic tidbits you don't belong in Columbia. Sorry.</p>

78

<p>sorry, one error. I hastily read your GPA as the one you had when you got in, that is HS. A 3.8 at Columbia is a good one, depending on your course choices, but 2100 is mediocre. No wonder you dismiss the test. Now, let us end this debate with a wager: let us get a pool of those who got aobe 2350, then get a similar pool of those who got under 2150. I will bet $100,000 to your $50,000 that the latter will be significantly lower on all intelligence tests incl non verbal and culture free ones. Anyone willing to take this up? Let me call the bluff that goes on in CC.</p>

79

<p>I haven't read the part of this thread that was a "my school can beat up your school" ****ing match, but...</p>

<p>Skraylor: while the SAT is not a final determinant of life status or a truly objective measure of intelligence, nobody is arguing that it is. You're arguing against a strawman.</p>

<p>However, I should note that the SAT correlates with IQ tests as well as IQ tests correlate with each other. At some point, it's better to have a flawed measure and then work to make the flaws as little as possible, than it is to dismiss it out of hand because it's not perfect. It measures something, and that something is predictive of academic success and lifetime earnings. It does not determine them, it predicts them. Can money and practice improve your score? Sure, but in that case, you are then a better candidate for future academic performance, as a result. Is that 100% fair and egalitarian and The American Way™? Probably not, but it beats the hell out of the way elite-school admissions were run 100 years ago.</p>

<p>That said...</p>

<p>Ramaswami, you're completely off-base and are resorting to personal insults here to try and make your point stronger. All it does is make you look like a complete douchenozzle. I may agree with several of your more salient points, in the sense that no student can simply be crammed with sufficient knowledge to get a top score, so therefore it must measure SOMETHING that is at least partly innate. OK, fine. I think you could've made that argument a little more strongly, but that's nitpicking.</p>

<p>Oh, nitpicking you say? Let's not forget:

[quote]
Psychometrically, most students will show an increase because there are fewer top scorers where there will be a regression to the mean.

[/quote]

this statement makes no sense. And yes, I'm aware of what regression to the mean is, and yes, I get a vague idea of what your point is. But the way you have worded it makes it carry zero meaning. Perhaps you meant one of the following:</p>

<p>(1) The students taking these classes tend to not be top scorers already [ed: something I would dispute given the students i've met whose parents are crazy enough to pay for SAT tutoring]. Students retaking a test will tend to have scores which regress to the mean [ed: also something i'd dispute], so you'll have more below-average scorers tending up than above-average scorers tending down.</p>

<p>(2) Most students taking the test will show an increase in scores, because at the part of the spectrum where the difference in score is just noise and accidental mistakes (i.e. the very top), those students will tend to have random variations in scores, whereas everyone else taking test-prep is actually having their success improved by coaching and practice.</p>

<p>(3) Hi i'm ramaswami and i'm going to use big words to try to make myself sound like an authority on this subject. I can do this because this is the internet and internet people don't have feelings, and you can always win an argument by attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. I'm going to start sentences with words like "psychometrically", despite the fact that i'm just talking about basic statistical distributions. I'm then going to personally insult other users on the board who dare disagree with me, because that will make me seem more reasonable and level-headed.</p>

<p>Let's move on.

[quote]
Your 2100 is a mediocre score, by the way and shows why you are making the argument. Also 3.8 is mediocre for Columbia. You may be an Olympic star etc but based on these two academic tidbits you don't belong in Columbia. Sorry.

[/quote]

I can't talk rationally about this quote because it makes me very angry. But briefly, and to just stick to the facts,</p>

<p>(1) a 2100 is not a mediocre score. A 1500 is a mediocre score (what's the national median? about 1550?). a 2100 is probably a mediocre score among columbia applicants. Fortunately, columbia looks at more than a single score. calling someone who is at the 97th</a> percentile mediocre says you're not a very good psychometrician.</p>

<p>(2) 3.8 is not mediocre for columbia. the stats over at gradeinflation.com indicate that the average columbia GPA is a 3.3. I would imagine that a 3.8 is between 1 and 2 standard deviations above the mean, putting skraylor around the 80-90th percentile at columbia. for you to condescendingly demean him (her? I can't remember) over this is just plain factually wrong.</p>

<p>edit: ok, so you're backpedaling on that one. fine. but even a 3.8 in HS (which is what you thought skraylor said) would probably be the median or slightly below the median among admitted students. I had a 3.3 UW GPA in high school, clownshoes. Do you think I didn't deserve to go to columbia, too? It's a damn good thing you're not an admissions officer.</p>

<p>(3) He/she already goes to columbia! how in god's name can you tell them they don't belong there? I have personally met maybe a thousand columbia students after 4 years there. I can think of exactly one who I would say didn't belong there, and even she was an athletic recruit who was among the best in the country (I dated her for a while, she was a lot of fun but had trouble competing with other students academically). If you can get a 3.8, you are most definitely not outclassed on campus.</p>

<p>I don't want to deprive skraylor of a go at you, so I'll just end this with a nice plain "go *&^% yourself".</p>

80

<p>***** Slapped.</p>