Next 100 publics
67 15 1 TX 13151 16692 550 670 590 710 25 31 The University of Texas at Dallas
67 15 1 OH 21751 24572 510 640 520 650 23 28 University of Cincinnati-Main Campus
67 15 1 NE 16331 19964 480 630 510 650 22 28 University of Nebraska-Lincoln
67 15 1 FL 12446 16180 530 620 540 630 24 28 University of South Florida-Main Campus
67 18 1 WA 8767 15939 440 570 470 600 20 25 University of Washington-Bothell Campus
67 15 1 WA 16127 22895 460 580 470 585 20 26 Washington State University
66 18 1 NY 11473 14242 550 640 600 690 CUNY Bernard M Baruch College
66 18 1 MI 15506 18862 460 585 480 580 21 26 Grand Valley State University
66 16 1 NJ 14199 19370 440 530 470 570 Rutgers University-Newark
66 15 1 NY 19665 22578 490 580 500 590 22 26 SUNY at Albany
66 18 1 NY 17854 20044 500 590 510 590 22 27 SUNY College at Oswego
66 16 1 CA 13571 19866 420 520 450 550 19 24 University of California-Merced
66 19 1 MA 15271 19358 440 540 450 550 19 24 Westfield State University
65 19 1 AZ 8120 12348 480 588 480 580 21 26 Arizona State University-West
65 19 1 VA 19580 23316 440 540 430 530 18 23 Longwood University
65 15 1 LA 15962 17532 500 620 510 630 23 28 Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
65 17 1 NJ 23092 24670 Montclair State University
65 21 1 NH 16447 19931 480 610 500 610 22 26 University of New Hampshire at Manchester
65 18 1 IA 14339 17009 425 600 460 620 20 25 University of Northern Iowa
65 15 1 UT 13792 15396 520 640 530 660 21 27 University of Utah
64 16 1 MO 14066 16619 583 678 603 698 25 31 Missouri University of Science and Technology
64 16 1 OH 21905 23769 490 600 500 600 21 26 Ohio University-Main Campus
64 15 1 AR 16793 17867 500 600 510 620 23 29 University of Arkansas
64 15 1 KY 17156 20878 500 620 500 630 22 29 University of Kentucky
64 16 1 MD 20285 23094 550 650 570 670 24 29 University of Maryland-Baltimore County
64 21 1 MN 8685 13560 490 580 530 690 22 28 University of Minnesota-Morris
63 15 1 KS 16189 18642 Kansas State University
63 20 1 NH 17351 21173 440 540 440 530 18 24 Keene State College
63 21 1 FL 10079 11990 600 700 540 650 26 31 New College of Florida
63 16 1 OK 14044 18448 480 590 490 610 21 27 Oklahoma State University-Main Campus
63 15 1 OR 19410 24198 490 620 500 620 22 28 Oregon State University
63 22 1 PA 22860 27192 460 570 510 640 21 27 Pennsylvania State University-Penn State Erie-Behrend College
63 18 1 PA 20389 24636 440 550 490 660 22 27 Pennsylvania State University-Penn State Harrisburg
63 18 1 NY 17366 19742 480 610 510 600 21 25 SUNY College at Plattsburgh
63 15 1 KS 17383 20530 23 29 University of Kansas
63 16 1 RI 18638 22727 480 580 490 590 22 27 University of Rhode Island
63 20 1 WI 14267 16659 20 25 University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
62 16 1 IN 16230 19088 500 590 490 580 20 24 Ball State University
62 18 1 PA 17991 21068 430 530 440 540 18 23 Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
62 22 1 CA 15515 18342 California State University Maritime Academy
62 17 1 CA 9305 14347 450 550 470 570 19 24 California State University-Fullerton
62 22 1 ME 20414 23755 450 560 480 580 21 25 Maine Maritime Academy
62 18 1 CA 15681 19808 450 560 470 590 20 25 San Jose State University
62 19 1 NY 18198 21123 450 570 450 550 22 27 SUNY at Fredonia
62 21 1 NY 21371 23276 500 610 470 570 20 27 SUNY at Purchase College
62 21 1 NC 12280 15898 530 640 510 610 23 28 University of North Carolina at Asheville
62 15 1 VA 21089 24358 490 610 490 590 21 27 Virginia Commonwealth University
61 19 1 AZ 15714 15385 490 610 523 640 22 28 Arizona State University-Polytechnic
61 16 1 NC 15470 19148 480 560 490 570 20 24 East Carolina University
61 18 1 PA 19964 22994 470 560 460 570 19 25 Millersville University of Pennsylvania
61 16 1 NJ 19550 22825 520 630 590 680 23 29 New Jersey Institute of Technology
61 18 1 CA 16849 21644 440 540 440 540 19 24 Sonoma State University
60 18 1 NY 12053 15345 480 570 520 610 CUNY Queens College
60 16 1 MS 18109 19494 21 28 Mississippi State University
60 15 1 TX 15875 19969 500 590 520 610 22 27 Texas Tech University
60 15 1 AZ 17715 19545 University of Arizona
60 15 1 MS 17233 19087 500 610 500 620 22 29 University of Mississippi
60 18 1 WA 7863 15078 430 550 430 550 17 23 University of Washington-Tacoma Campus
59 18 1 MA 19791 21157 440 550 450 540 19 24 Bridgewater State University
59 18 1 GA 19227 20817 520 610 510 610 22 26 Georgia College & State University
59 18 1 NJ 17859 22781 440 550 450 570 Rutgers University-Camden
59 16 1 ME 15697 18364 470 590 480 600 21 26 University of Maine
59 18 1 MN 12623 19378 460 600 510 610 22 26 University of Minnesota-Duluth
59 19 1 MN 16314 19977 390 560 400 510 20 25 Winona State University
58 20 1 CA 16059 20262 California State University-Channel Islands
58 18 1 VA 16334 20729 Radford University
58 15 1 HI 14037 16568 480 580 490 610 20 26 University of Hawaii at Manoa
58 15 1 IL 14419 21821 480 580 510 655 21 27 University of Illinois at Chicago
58 21 1 PA 17518 19892 460 560 460 555 20 25 University of Pittsburgh-Greensburg
58 18 1 SC 17606 19515 460 570 450 565 20 25 Winthrop University
57 17 1 CA 8159 13397 400 500 400 510 16 22 California State University-Fresno
57 18 1 CA 8826 13540 California State University-Stanislaus
57 16 1 MI 14281 17821 450 570 440 570 20 25 Central Michigan University
57 19 1 PA 18959 21835 420 520 420 520 19 24 East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania
57 18 1 IL 14967 19853 18 24 Eastern Illinois University
57 21 1 PA 21631 25940 430 540 440 570 19 24 Pennsylvania State University-Penn State Berks
57 22 1 PA 13292 18455 430 580 470 600 22 28 Pennsylvania State University-Penn State Lehigh Valley
57 18 1 NE 15061 18200 400 490 430 530 19 25 University of Nebraska at Kearney
57 16 1 NC 14090 18127 510 590 520 610 22 26 University of North Carolina at Charlotte
57 18 1 WI 14443 17332 420 520 470 590 20 25 University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
57 15 1 WV 10947 13832 455 560 460 570 21 26 West Virginia University
57 18 1 NC 15377 18446 450 560 460 560 20 25 Western Carolina University
56 15 1 FL 14770 16050 520 610 510 600 23 27 Florida International University
56 18 1 PA 20258 23398 430 530 440 540 18 23 Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
56 20 1 NY 18019 21196 500 590 530 620 23 27 SUNY Maritime College
56 19 1 WA 13077 18501 480 620 440 560 20 26 The Evergreen State College
56 16 1 ID 15549 17549 470 590 460 580 21 27 University of Idaho
56 22 1 ME 14172 18251 University of Maine at Farmington
56 16 1 MA 16465 20554 520 620 550 640 24 29 University of Massachusetts-Lowell
56 18 1 MA 18837 20795 450 550 460 560 21 26 Worcester State University
55 19 1 CA 11691 17257 California State University-Monterey Bay
55 18 1 CA 8242 12239 390 490 390 490 16 20 California State University-San Bernardino
55 18 1 MA 17360 20845 440 540 450 550 20 25 Framingham State University
55 16 1 OH 19100 21070 470 580 480 580 21 25 Kent State University at Kent
55 18 1 PA 19276 22674 440 540 440 540 18 22 Kutztown University of Pennsylvania
55 18 1 MO 15233 17372 465 615 490 613 21 26 Missouri State University-Springfield
55 16 1 ND 14934 16597 495 645 505 645 21 26 North Dakota State University-Main Campus
55 18 1 NH 20023 22575 Plymouth State University
55 16 1 ND 13952 16205 480 580 480 610 21 26 University of North Dakota
55 16 1 WY 12373 14999 470 600 490 610 21 27 University of Wyoming
In measuring “Selectivity” for national universities and LACs, USNWR considers:
- Critical reading and math portions of the SAT and composite ACT scores (weighted 65%)
- High school class standing in top 10% (weighted 25%)
- Acceptance Rate (weighted 10%)
If we use something like the USNWR method, would the 6y graduation rate be correlated strongly with Selectivity?
A few years ago I tried to reverse engineer the US News selectivity assessment for 75 “top” colleges (universities and LACs). I used an average of SAT CR+M (but not the ACT scores); ranked the scores, class standing, and acceptance rate separately; then took a weighted average of the 3 individual ranks (using the USNWR 65-25-10 weights). I held out schools without published CDS files (such as UChicago and Columbia). By now, the data I used would be about 4-5 years old. FWIW, my top 50 by selectivity were:
Cal Tech
Harvard, Yale
MIT
Princeton
Stanford
Washington U
Harvey Mudd
Vanderbilt
Pomona
Northwestern, Dartmouth
Penn
Duke, Brown
Rice
Tufts
Swarthmore
Amherst
Williams
Bowdoin
Georgetown, Notre Dame
Haverford, JHU
Carnegie Mellon, Cornell
Carleton, UC Berkeley
Wellesley, Claremont McK
W&L, USC
Wesleyan
Middlebury
Vassar, GA Tech
Hamilton
UVA
Northeastern, Rensselaer
W&M, Emory
Michigan, Scripps, Colgate
UCLA
There is indeed a lot of overlap between this set of schools and the set of top ~50 by 6y graduation rate.
However, the rank order of the two sets is a bit different; in some cases, the order is fairly far off.
Among schools that appear both in my T50 and in the T55 by graduation rate, here are a few that I rank much higher by selectivity:
Caltech (1st by selectivity, 12th by graduation rate)
Stanford (6th by selectivity, 17th by graduation rate)
WashU (7th by selectivity, 21st by graduation rate)
Here are a few that rank much higher by graduation rate than they apparently did by selectivity:
Davidson (7th by graduation rate, 54th by my selectivity rating)
Notre Dame (9th by graduation rate, 25th by my selectivity rating)
UVa (20th by graduation rate, 41st by my selectivity rating)
I’m fairly confident that Caltech and Stanford are much more selective schools than Davidson and Notre Dame. But then, it may be the case that some of these schools (e.g Berkeley, GaTech) are much more selective for some kinds of applicants (OOS, engineering) than any of these overall metrics suggest.
It is unlikely that most colleges weigh SAT/ACT scores more than two and a half times as much as high school record, and use class rank as the only way of assessing high school record.
Interesting approach. You should update if you can. Five years is like an eternity these days.
I sincerely hope none would. However, with limited data available for the most substantive factors, it seems that substitute factors, when averaged across student populations, may, with exceptions, serve as a credible basis for the approximation of actual comparative selectivity.
Every time academic stats get emphasized in the context of super-selective colleges, it always comes up that everything else (extracurriculars, essays, etc.), magnified in importance in the colleges’ admissions readings when so many applicants have top-end stats, is often ignored by those discussing the subject, simply because it is inconvenient to quantify with outsider-visible information.
The analogous situation within the realm of academic stats is the overemphasis on SAT/ACT scores, simply because they are a conveniently available measure at almost all selective colleges, even though that ignores or minimizes the effect of high school record that is usually as important or more important to the colleges making admission decisions.
Some schools like leadership Some love advanced languages. Then there are major specific strengths. Selectivity with so many random variables is hard to build unless the schools are looking for the exact same students. Cal tech and mit are not looking for the same student as Williams and brown. Some overlap. But one school may be more of a reach for a profile that is much stronger at another with perceived equal selectivity. And knowing your chances are impossible unless you are a recruited athlete celebrity or Uber wealthy benefactor. Harvard as an example in their lawsuit was found to have filled 30 percent of the class from its “connected” pool which accounted for less than 5 percent of applicants. That’s before counting international urm or artistic groups. Music acting published writing etc. the average great white female is competing for 200 seats against the world. Selectivity measures to build accurate expectations are useless for many of the schools
@merc81 #26
I think that’s right.
I doubt USNWR intends the 65-25-10 weighting to reflect the relative importance of each factor in college admission decisions. If you flipped the test score and T10% weights, you might be closer to the weights college adcoms assign, but I really don’t know if the results would reflect relative admission selectivity better.
Well, let’s try it.
Below are the T50 I get, still using the same 4-5 year old numbers, but with a 25-65-10 weighting (for T10% Standing-Scores-AdmitRate, respectively). I’ve marked some of the schools that move way up in selectivity by this new measure:
Cal Tech
MIT
Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Stanford
Harvey Mudd
Washington U
Penn
UC Berkeley (+21)
Brown
Pomona
Haverford
Northwestern
Dartmouth
Georgetown
Duke
Vanderbilt
Tufts
UCLA (+30)
Swarthmore
Notre Dame
Rice
UCSD (+38)
Williams
Amherst
UVA
Cornell
UCSB (+40)
Bowdoin
JHU
UC Davis (+44)
USC
Carnegie Mellon
Wellesley
Carleton
W&L
UC Irvine (+45)
GA Tech
Claremont McK
W&M
Davidson
UWashington (+42)
Middlebury
Emory
Barnard
Colgate
Wesleyan
Hamilton
Scripps
Many schools above stay pretty close to where they were according to the 65-25-10 weighting. However, some of the West Coast state schools (especially the UCs) move way up. I can’t say for sure which way better represents true admission selectivity. However, … UC-SD’s 2017-18 CDS reports their average entering GPA as “4.08” (even though they’re supposed to be using a 4.0 scale). UC Davis reported its entering average as 3.99; UC Irvine reported its entering average as 3.97. Stanford’s 2017-18 reported average was 3.95; Princeton’s 2016-17 reported average was 3.89. Are UC Irvine, Davis, and SD more selective than Stanford and Princeton? Even by HS academic performance alone? It may be the case that some of the super-selective private schools draw more heavily from super competitive high schools and make allowances for that.
Now if we jacked up the weight for admission rates, I suppose we’d get yet another set of results.
I downloaded this data from IPEDS for schools with certain Carnegie Classifications and grad rates above a certain cutoff. The result was data for 858 schools. Not all of the schools reported SAT scores or ACT scores (154 did not report them). They apparently decided to live in an alternative universe where test scores don’t matter (and objects fall up instead of down). Nevertheless, I did not want to exclude them from the data so I chose to sort based on grad rate instead of test scores. The correlation between SAT (CR + Math) midpoint for 704 schools was +.83 which is very high but not perfect. The correlation dropped to +.74 for the top 200 SAT schools and dropped to +.59 for the top 50 SAT schools. I think this is an artifact of what statisticians call “truncated or restricted range”. Correlations are not accurate reflections of an entire population of schools when you limit the range of scores on one of the variables.
US News publishes a statistic they call “under/overperformance”. It meaures how much below or above the actual grad rate is from the grad rate that would be predicted by their prediction equation which, I think, includes test scores, academic expenditures per student, and public versus private control. I believe underperformance reflects negatively on a school whether or not they have a large engineering/STEM program. Caltech, for example, should do a better job of supporting the perennial best freshman class in the country. They don’t deserve the students they get. It doesn’t matter that science and math are hard subjects in some respects. The faculty should devote more effort to their teaching and less to their research.
By the way, tech schools are not the only ones with lower than expected grad rates. Check out Grinnell, Illinois, NYU, Scripps, Oberlin, Bryn Mawr, Tulane, Binghamtom, and so on.
However, most colleges with predicted graduation rates of ~95% or higher underperform by U.S. News methodology, not just Caltech.
To me, selectivity’s main factors are admission rate, average GPA of admits, and SAT/ACT ranges of admits. That combination tells you how quantitatively strong the admits are and how few of them get in.
If you want a simple, rough guide for chances, start by doing this:
- Start with the admit rate of the round you are applying in.
- If you have a hook, increase that number a little bit (or a lot, if you're a recruit). If you do not have a hook, decrease that number by a little bit.
- Compare your GPA and SAT/ACT to the averages posted by the school (check CDS). If your stats are in the middle, do not change the number. If your stats are higher, increase the number. If lower, decrease the number.
A simple rule I follow is this, for highly selective schools: if your stats are absolutely top of the app pool (4.0/1600/36 or nearly so), double where you are on step 3 and subtract one point. I don’t think you can have 2x the chances of other mostly talented applicants, but maybe you can come close. Most selective privates are holistic, so numbers aren’t everything.
Plug that number into this table for the chance:
High reach: 0-5%
Reach: 5-15%
Low reach: 15-25%
High match: 25-40%
Match: 40-60%
Low match: 60-90%
Safety: 90+%
Caveats:
- Nobody knows exactly how much hooks or better/worse stats move the needle.
- We can only base chancing on quantitative aspects, since it’s so hard to know how adcoms will view the qualitative parts. So it’s an incomplete picture.
- If you are applying directly to a major/program, make sure you use that admit rate, if the school releases that info.
Re: #28
UCs by policy emphasize GPA and deemphasize test scores. The result is that any test score based selectivity ranking will underrate them, while a high school record based ranking will overrate them (note UCLA versus USC in each version). This emphasis also can give unpleasant surprises to test score heavy applicants that fall a bit short on GPA.
Note that UCs do not use rank from the high school, but probably use ELC recalculated rank for reporting these stats.
@prezbucky it’s a nice concept but your really slicing with a razor here with very rough numbers, the idea of high reach and low match is just defining it a little too much. There are applicants that will be denied by UCB but get into Harvard, along with those who get into Penn but denied at Brown. The single most important factors are 1. Are you academically qualified to go (depends on school (3.8+/32+ for most top schools, some caveats here), but the higher the GPA/scores the better) 2. Are you hooked (athlete/URM/FG/legacy in that order, multiples would be super hooked) 3. If not 2 then do you have anything that sets you apart (National competitions, unique abilities, etc.). If you don’t have these than forget about SCEA/REA at HYPS, give yourself the best shot by EDing somewhere.
Because of the uncertainties that have been mentioned, I would recommend to prospective students that they apply to 10 or 12 schools with the largest number being reaches. Such as: 5 reaches, 3 matches, 2 safeties.
I don’t disagree, mainly. It’s a rough guide. I like to try to further divide the large Match and Reach groups. (100% is a large pie, and if Safety is only about 10% of that, that would leave very wide ranges for Reach and Match.)
Regarding the uncertainties mentioned above, IMO the most important take-away message (for applicants/families) is that you need to consider the specific expectations of schools that interest you. For example, a 3.5 (UW) GPA might place UC Irvine/SB/Davis nearly out-of-reach, even though (depending on course rigor or other factors) it might be good enough for some schools with lower admit rates and higher average test scores.
I would say that a college would be a safety if your SATs CR plus Math are in the top 25% for that school. This is based on probabilities, nothing is certain. If your SATs are in the middle 50% between the 25th and 75th percentiles, then the school is a match (in terms of selectivity). If your SATs are below the 25th percentile but within 50 points of the 25th percentile, then the school is a reasonable reach. If your SATs are more than 50 points below the 25th percentile, then the school is a long shot and admission would probably require some kind of hook or other strong qualification.
Of course, there are other factors that relate to “fit”:
Does the school offer your preferred major?
Is it an acceptable distance from home?
Is it in the type of environment (urban, suburban, rural)?
Is it in a desirable part of the country? (seasons, near ocean or mountains, etc.).
Can you somehow find a way to pay for expenses?
I think it is most important that the school offers your major.
The second most important factor is selectivity. Go to the most selective school that you can. Selectivity is correlated with quality. If the school keeps their SAT and ACT scores secret for some reason, then use graduation rate as a proxy for selectivity.
Third most important is distance from home.
Affordability is mostly subjective. If you and your parents really want the best school for you, they should be able to find a way to pay for it. For private schools, ignore sticker price. Instead, find the net price for your income level after financial aid.
I invite others to give their thoughts on this. My basic premise is that young people should become all they are capable of becoming. I want young people to reach their full potential.
Is Loyola New Orleans on this list? For the life of me I can’t find it if it is!
Here is the data for Loyola New Orleans:
state, control, net price for income ranges $0K-$30K, $30K-$48K, $48K-$75K, $75K-$110K, over $110K, grad rate, SAT verbal 25th %ile, SAT verbal 75th %ile, SAT math 25th %ile, SAT math 75th %ile, ACT comp 25th %ile, ACT comp 75th %ile
LA 2 17186 18769 19952 24242 28809 55 520 630 500 610 23 29 Loyola University New Orleans