<p>In your opinion which college is more selective (or which has a higher percent of admission rate) and which college among the two; franklin & marshall and dickinson, is better (just generally and maybe considering reputation and the college environment for an international student). Which one gives more need based aid to ints. then???
Thanks...........</p>
<p>Both schools are very similar in selectivity and reputation, and both have many strengths. Both give some FA to international students, but both describe that aid with terms like "limited" and "highly competetive."</p>
<p>Dickinson</a> College Office of International Admissions</p>
<p>Franklin</a> & Marshall - International Student Admission</p>
<p>I'd choose Dickinson because it has a beautiful campus and more people. It's more recognizable and less snotty. Both are great schools though.</p>
<p>D attended CTY at both places....I can't speak to the quality of the school, but I thought the F&M campus was much prettier, and there were more shopping and "other" things going on in Lancaster than in Carlisle. Dickinson has an award-winning library, though, and I think the campus is more compact.</p>
<p>I think that F&M is a bit more selective and has a reputation as a somewhat more academically demanding college. My S is a freshman at F&M so I may be a bit biased.</p>
<p>markr,</p>
<p>It isn't the first time you provide misinformation to people on the board (the first time being wrong or outdated statements about Ohio Wesleyan)...so I decided to double-check and sure enough, here is the correction regarding Dickinson and F&M:</p>
<p>Acceptance rate:</p>
<p>Dickinson College: 43%
Franklin & Marshall College: 46%</p>
<p>Princeton Review Academic Reputation Score:</p>
<p>Dickinson College: 91 (out of 100)
Franklin & Marshall College: 90 (out of 100)</p>
<p>I'd say they look fairly similar to me, if not in Dickinson's favor...</p>
<p>Actually, F&M's acceptance rate dropped this year (class of 2011) to 37%, a statistic that appears on the collegee's website. Dickinson's rate is 42%, according to its website. Be careful about using outdated data in college guidebooks.</p>
<p>It is true, but it wouldn't be news to anyone to say that the acceptance rate decrease did not necessarily translate to "higher selectivity". The high school class rank for the class of 2011 is in Dickinson's favor (64% in the top 10% for Dickison vs 59% in the top 10% for F&M). The SAT average score for the entering class are 10 points higher for F&M than for Dickinson. However for F&M they are optional, while for Dickinson they are not. Due to the signalling effect that causes below-par performers to not submit their SAT score if lower than the school's average, described by Hoxby and Avery, I am sure if you were to take the entire applicants' pool to F&M SAT scores, that difference would disappear, if not reverse. </p>
<p>In any case, with numbers so close to each other, it is not obvious whether one is more selective than the other (which is what you said). I would say they are equally selective and the difference between their classes' scores are statistically insignificant.</p>
<p>Peter05-
Actually, for both schools, the SATs are optional. See the Dickinson website under "Admissions Overview." Get your facts straight if you insist on replying.</p>
<p>You are missing the point if you'll argue over minor points. Apparently, counter to other schools, Dickinson's eliminating the SAT has actually resulted in an increase of their average SAT's (including the ones who do not submit). This is somewhat counterintuitive to what one might expect given the incentives to submit, but is apparently the case:
Dickinson</a> College - Who Needs the SAT?</p>
<p>I can point you to a pdf file for the 2006 numbers, too. Now, I don't know if that's the case for F&M, too...I wasn't able to find F&M numbers for the pool that doesn't submit their SATs. If it is the case for F&M, then both schools will be anomalies to the ones who do not require SATs. In any case, I am not sure how much these arguments undermine the more general claim that if differences between the two schools exist, they certainly are not statistically significant.</p>
<p>I agree with markr. F & M, typically, is thought to be the more academically demanding school between the two. Dickinson is quite liberal. If financial aid is an issue, then let that decide as both schools offer excellent academics and are well regarded. In the not too distant past, there was an agreement among F & M, Dickinson and Gettysburg which permitted easy cross registration-- not sure if this still exists or if I have mixed up the participating schools. Gettysburg is preppy, fraternity oriented and great for the study of history.</p>
<p>Convincing is done by data and proper use of the field of statistics, not opinions. I suppose this can be often an unpopular way on this board, unlike in academia.</p>
<p>They are both pretty equal. They'll both be great for you, so just pick one based little things like F&M has more greek life if you like that, has the house system.</p>
<p>Gotta confess my bias to DC. F<em>M is a fine school, and it may be anecdotal, but I've never known anyone who effervesces about F</em>M. Many from DC. Lancaster generally is an unattractive small city, lots of crime. Yes, Carlisle is smaller, less cumbersome, perhaps less attractive to college students. I get the sense DC is a bit more cosmopolitan in student body makeup; F&M more "East coast." It's essentially splitting hairs trying to differentiate them in terms of reputation, academics, etc. I'm sure there is difference on a programmatic level, but I've no idea about the micro level of things.</p>
<p>Again, just MY general impressions. You asked.</p>
<p>btw, Pete ... you note:
[quote]
Apparently, counter to other schools, Dickinson's eliminating the SAT has actually resulted in an increase of their average SAT's (including the ones who do not submit). This is somewhat counterintuitive to what one might expect given the incentives to submit, but is apparently the case:
Dickinson College - Who Needs the SAT?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And then the DC news release says ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Our applications are up by 35 percent since the requirement was dropped, and the proportion of entering freshmen who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes has risen to 50 percent from 25 percent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I appreciate your point, I cannot agree based upon what DC has reported. All it says is applications are up (as they are at virtually every higher ed institution due to demographics AND increasing proclivity to apply to multiple institutions), and their enrolling class rank is better. As one would naturally anticipate.</p>
<p>It in no way indicates that the incoming students are brighter or better testers. Simply implies that ... and one would expect that the mean SAT goes up when it is no longer required as only those who do well report it. Those who don't but are strong classroom/rank performers go on that. My contention is that eliminating the test, while I think it's sorely overhyped, merely helps places like DC to elevate their rankings in various ways ... SAT mean scores, class rankings, and selectivity, since it inflates the applicant pool while the admit # remains essentially the same. I really think it's playing with the numbers, and effectively enlarges the applicant pool. There is little or no evidence that suggests the students enrolling are better, brighter today than yesterday.</p>