@bclintonk I always enjoy your posts and these are no exception. There is one thing I would like to add and it is my feeling that the M score is being set too low (deliberately?). Too many strong applicants are bumping 800. At the very least I would expect M scores to show a similar score distribution as CR. If this were done, I would expect a better calibration of student quality at the right tail than it is presently possible. (I would also expect STEM majors to stretch their lead, score-wise, over other students). In short, I think this over-emphasis on the “eliteness” of the school here on CC without factoring in the “eliteness” of the major is unwarranted.
@Data10 Math/CR ratio- why have I not thought of it? Good analysis.
Thanks for mentioning that @ucbalumnus. I havne’t followed this thread through all 47 pages!
But to add to that comment you referenced, and hopefuly not pulling this convo too far afield, I also know several Ivy grads who have gone on to be excellent administrative assistants for . . . Ivy League schools. Like, the same schools that they graduated from. Again: there is no shame in this and if they’re happy, I’m happy for them. But at least one person has mentioned to me over and over for the past 11 years, that in his case he never had a chance to figure out anything about what he wanted to do. He diligently got on the “path” trusting his parents, and moved forward.
While Prime Minister Blair could get Euan into Yale (on scholarship even), I doubt he could make Euan earn a degree in physics. While it is mathematically possible that Harvard is accepting a large number of lopsided students @bclintonk, it is much more likely that for reasons of institutional need, they simply accept a student body with a more diverse academic pedigree.
bclintonk you and the other posters seem to completely misunderstand the admission system. Caltech pretty much admits a small class based on grades and test scores. Harvard and the other Ivies on the other hand field D1A football and D1 basketball, hockey, soccer and many others. A non-hooked student with a 1390 has a near zero chance of admission. On the other hand a top QB will be admitted even lower. The regular admit students are more than equal to the Cal Tech students in every way. It’s easy to see the 75th percentile student(regular admit) have like a 1580-1590 SAT. YPS are similar. In these schools as well as CalTech, MIT, and Harvey Mudd and 800 in math is common and for HPYS an 800 in verbal as well.
Maybe a few students want to go to a school where academics are truly what matters, not to a school where a significant number of slots are held for athletes (who otherwise would not be admitted) continuing to play the sports they played in high school. And they will not ever be professional athletes, almost none of them.
Au contraire, I’m only commenting on who’s in the entering class at these various schools, not the admissions policies that got them there. I’m perfectly well aware that the Ivies place a much greater emphasis on competitive intercollegiate athletics than do schools like Caltech and MIT, and that’s reflected in their entering class stats.play a rol as well. But that doesn’t explain why MIT, which doesn’t emphasize competitive intercollegiate sports, enrolls so many more students with sub-700 SAT CR scores than do the other schools in this group. Let’s be clear here: MIT’s entering class is very strong. But it’s undeniably more lopsided in favor of M over CR than HYP or even Caltech. That’s a significant difference.
If there is such a salary gap (controlled for other factors) between the various groups of colleges, then college tuition should reflect that. Why pay the same tuition for the same major to get the same education but only to get a far worse financial return? Pay less, invest the balance of the money and use the returns from the investment to close the salary gap. I hope this type of research is widely distributed to aspiring college applicants so that the market adjusts with lower tuition for lower ranked colleges.
Just not true. There are several colleges in FL that have strong support programs for kids with LDs, etc. Many students need to go to these labs for math help, or writing help. These kids will fail in a large U, but in these smaller colleges, they receive the support that they need.
Caltech’s admission history suggests a different policy, as they reject most perfect stat applicants, like HYPSM does. Their CDS and website also suggest looking in to more than grades and test scores. The CDS ranks 4 non-score criteria as more important than GPA. Their admissions website goes in to more detail about including things looking for applicants with a genuine and consistent interest in STEM, likely to have a positive impact on the Caltech community, and the way applicants answer their ethical dilemma essay. This does not mean that Caltech admission is the same as HYPSM. My earlier posts in this thread mentioned significant differences, such as things like the degree of academic allowances for top athletics and achieving desired ethnicity/gender balance (gender balance has improved more recently). They also have different focuses and in some cases different admissions requirements, such as Caltech not requiring/recommending applicants to take foreign language in HS.
Scores are one of many factors that are considered for admission at ivies and similar holistic colleges. There is not a cutoff, such as need to either be above a 1400+ threshold or have a hook. Instead it’s more considering scores in the context of the full application, where higher is better, but there are other factors than can be more influential. With FERPA requests and various publications, we have been seeing more specific details about the factors and admission process in recent years. For example, Duke reviewers rates applicants on a scale of 1-5 in 6 categories, then writes a short summary of the applicant. Only 1 of the 6 categories relates to scores. This process leads to hooks having notably lower average ratings in all 6 categories (according to Arcidiacono study), but if you look at any single category, many in the lower quartile are not typical hooks and instead shine more in other areas besides that single category.
Using a specific example, when I applied to colleges, I did really abysmally on the vocabulary section of the SAT (this section has been modified on newer SATs), leading to a CR score that was well in to the bottom 1% of the entering class at HYPSM… type colleges. Nevertheless I was accepted to Stanford, MIT, and Ivies without hooks. Instead I more shined in other areas of the application that were more relevant to my planned engineering major, such as taking math/science/electives at a local university, which were far beyond the level available at my high school; perfect scores in standardized tests related to math/science; and background/ECs/LORs consistent with a genuine interest in math/science and desired personal qualities.
1W1K It’s because the answer seems pretty obvious and for the most part the career path one chooses usually out weights the exact school all things being relatively even. A doctor will out earn a PA and engineer will usually out earn a teacher.
@1Wife1Kid, considering this thread is at 48 pages, and there are a number of other threads on similar topics, I really don’t see how no one is interested in the issue…
I find it humorous that the minding the campus article (hey I thought no blogs!) quotes a Bill Bowen book Reclaiming The Game as support for the second section, while ignoring another book of his, The Shape of The River that totally contradicts the paragraph that proceeds it.
Full disclosure/humblebrag: I spent a few weeks in China with Bill Bowen a long time ago. Delightful guy.
No responsible “elite” college representative will tell you that choosing college X is more likely to bring financial success than choosing college Y. Although this issue is much discussed on CC, nobody can produce a definitive list because the evidence is sparse and contradictory. It is hard to tease out treatment effects from selection effects. Talent, effort, choice of major, and work/internship experience are more likely to influence financial outcomes than the college choice per se (up to a point, at least).
The admission processes at these schools are “holistic”. So are the desired outcomes.
The reason is it’s hard to come up with a good answer. Imagine two t-shirts, identical everything except one with a well known logo while the other nothing. Better yet, one of inferior quality but with the logo. Which one is better? Furthermore, financial rewarding when? 1 year after graduation, 5, 10, or 60? Is benefit to the next generation included?
I find it amusing that even after the study has been peer-reviewed and published while controlling for other intrinsic factors independent of the school, people on this forum keep saying that evidence is sparse.
No, evidence is not sparse. Yes, research has been done and it is quite clear to anyone who reads the paper that as selectivity of school increases so does pay, while holding identifiable and measurable intrinsic factors the same. It’s time to accept that.
Instead people are discussing whether holistic admissions is better and whether financial reward is worth chasing. That is neither here nor there. The article doesn’t talk about either of the two things. It just takes facts, parses the facts, and comes up with a conclusion - that selectivity increases financial rewards, ceteris paribus. To me, this either indicates that selective schools train the kids better, or that reputation of the selective schools help the kids succeed more in life, or both (I tend to think that it is both).
The only real argument I have seen being made against the conclusion of the research is that there may be some non-identifiable, non-measurable factor that is causing the gap. That’s a valid argument, but since it can neither be proved or disproved, there is really not much point in dwelling on it.
I think the College Scorecard initiative is a fantastic one in that it is making such data accessible to the public. Now people can make informed choices about whether to choose selectivity or not. We need more data put into the scorecard, including admissions parameters and results, which would then demystify the college admissions process.
Edited to add:
For example, let’s say a family is choosing between a full ride at a non-selective school vs. paying full fare at a selective school. The family should look up the difference in lifetime financial award (on a discounted cash flow basis) at the school level for a selected set of majors that are likely going to be the kid’s focus, and compare that to the delta of the current value of the estimated 4-year tuition between the two schools. (Yes, this is a lot of financial mumbo jumbo, but the Federal Govt can easily put the calculations in a web page so that the family just has to plug the tuitions in.) Then they can make the right financial decision for the lifetime of the kid.
