<p>hawkette:</p>
<p>I concur with i-dad re income inequalities. And, yes, UVa has done reasonably well, but remember, it's only in the past couple of years that UVa has even considered recruiting low income kids. Up until a few years ago it had only ~7% Pell Grantees, in contrast to UMich at 16% and Cal at 33%. Thus, we can safely assume that at least some of the URMs at UVa were well heeled.</p>
<p>Report from April 2008</p>
<p>Table 2. Four-Year Colleges and Universities With Small or Nonexistent Black/White Six-Year Graduation
Rate Gaps, 2006</p>
<p>Institution, State,Sector, 2006 Black Six-Year GraduationRate, 2006 White Six-Year Graduation Rate, Black/WhiteGraduationRate Gap 2006</p>
<p>Florida State Univ. FL Public 72% 69% 3%
Cornell Univ. NY Private 90% 92% -3%
Rutgers–New Brunswick NJ Public 71% 73% -2%
Vanderbilt Univ. TN Private 90% 89% 1%
Stony Brook Univ. NY Public 67% 52% 15%
Smith Coll. MA Private 88% 86% 1%
Richard Stockton Coll. NJ NJ Public 66% 66% 0%
Spring Hill Coll. AL Private 88% 64% 24%
Longwood Univ. VA Public 65% 66% -1%
Villanova Univ. PA Private 86% 88% -2%
Towson Univ. MD Public 65% 64% 1%
Emory Univ. GA Private 86% 86% -1%
SUNY at Albany NY Public 65% 64% 2%
Univ. of Southern California CA Private 85% 84% 1%
The Univ. of Alabama AL Public 65% 63% 2%
Univ. of Richmond VA Private 83% 83% 0%
Coll. of Charleston SC Public 65% 60% 4%
American Univ. DC Private 80% 71% 9%
UNC–Wilmington NC Public 64% 66% -2%
Regis Univ. CO Private 80% 59% 21%
Winthrop Univ. SC Public 64% 57% 7%
Southern Methodist Univ. TX Private 78% 74% 4%
UC–Riverside CA Public 61% 64% -3%
Loyola Marymount Univ. CA Private 73% 74% -2%
George Mason Univ. VA Public 60% 54% 6%
Rollins Coll. FL Private 73% 69% 4%
Univ. of Tennessee TN Public 59% 60% -1%
Baylor Univ. TX Private 72% 75% -3%
Texas State Univ.–San Marcos TX Public 59% 54% 5%
McDaniel Coll. MD Private 72% 73% -1%
Temple Univ. PA Public 58% 60% -2%
Tulane Univ. of Louisiana LA Private 72% 73% -1%
Radford Univ. VA Public 58% 57% 1%
Immaculata Univ. PA Private 71% 56% 16%
UMBC MD Public 58% 56% 2%
Elon Univ. NC Private 70% 73% -3%
UNC–Greensboro NC Public 58% 50% 8%
Univ. of San Francisco CA Private 69% 61% 8%
Christopher Newport Univ. VA Public 57% 51% 6%
Univ. of Miami FL Private 68% 71% -3%
East Carolina Univ. NC Public 56% 57% -1%
LaGrange Coll. GA Private 67% 55% 11%
Troy Univ. AL Public 54% 50% 4%
Northeastern Univ. MA Private 66% 65% 1%
California Univ. of Pennsylvania PA Public 53% 49% 4%
Loyola Univ. New Orleans LA Private 66% 62% 4%
Univ. of South Florida FL Public 52% 49% 3%
Berea Coll. KY Private 64% 57% 7%
UNC–Charlotte NC Public 51% 49% 2%
Mount St. Mary’s Coll. CA Private 63% 57% 6%
Old Dominion Univ. VA Public 50% 49% 1%
Oglethorpe Univ. GA Private 61% 59% 2%
Marshall Univ. WV Public 50% 48% 2%
Wesleyan Coll. GA Private 61% 57% 4%
Frostburg State Univ. MD Public 50% 49% 1%
St. Francis Coll. NY Private 58% 57% 1%
Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville AL Public 49% 44% 5%
Chestnut Hill Coll. PA Private 58% 55% 3%
CUNY John Jay Coll., Crim. Just. NY Public 49% 44% 5%
Aurora Univ. IL Private 58% 49% 9%
Western Carolina Univ. NC Public 48% 47% 1%
The Univ. of Tampa FL Private 57% 55% 3%
Univ. of North Texas TX Public 48% 45% 3%
LeTourneau Univ. TX Private 57% 51% 6%
Univ. of Tenn. at Chattanooga TN Public 46% 45% 1%
The New School NY Private 56% 56% 0%
Georgia Southern Univ. GA Public 45% 42% 3%
Christian Brothers Univ. TN Private 56% 54% 1%
Univ. of North Florida FL Public 44% 45% -2%
Univ. of La Verne CA Private 56% 52% 5%
Florida International Univ. FL Public 43% 42% 1%
High Point Univ. NC Private 54% 55% -1%
SUNY Coll. at Buffalo NY Public 43% 44% -1%
Newberry Coll. SC Private 54% 52% 2%
Middle Tennessee State Univ. TN Public 43% 42% 1%
Mary Baldwin Coll. VA Private 53% 50% 3%
Univ. of South Carolina–Aiken SC Public 43% 41% 2%
Trinity Washington Univ. DC Private 51% 50% 1%
Virginia Commonwealth Univ. VA Public 42% 45% -3%
Mercer Univ. GA Private 51% 53% -2%
Mississippi Univ. for Women MS Public 42% 43% 0%
Coker Coll. SC Private 50% 41% 9%
Yale Univ. CT Private 96% 97% -1%
Columbia Coll. SC Private 48% 46% 2%
Harvard Univ. MA Private 95% 98% -3%
Pfeiffer Univ. NC Private 48% 44% 4%
Wake Forest Univ. NC Private 94% 87% 7%
Johnson & Wales Univ.–FL Campus FL Private 45% 41% 4%
Indiana Wesleyan Univ. IN Private 93% 71% 22%
Curry Coll. MA Private 44% 44% 0%
Dartmouth Coll. NH Private 92% 94% -2%
Saint Leo Univ. FL Private 42% 43% -1%
Northwestern Univ. IL Private 90% 93% -3%
Marymount Manhattan Coll. NY Private 40% 40% 0%</p>
<p>Table 4. Four-Year Colleges and Universities With Large Black/White Six-Year Graduation Rate Gaps, 2006</p>
<p>Institution, State, Sector, 2006 Black Six-Year GraduationRate, 2006 White Six-Year GraduationRate, Black/White Graduation Rate Gap 2006</p>
<p>Univ. of Michigan–Ann Arbor MI Public 71% 90% -19%
Geneva Coll. PA Private 39% 60% -21%
The Coll. of New Jersey NJ Public 57% 88% -31%
Gwynedd Mercy Coll. PA Private 38% 79% -41%
Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison WI Public 57% 79% -22%
Savannah Coll. of Art and Design GA Private 38% 74% -36%
Michigan State Univ. MI Public 54% 78% -24%
Webster Univ. MO Private 38% 61% -22%
Citadel Military Coll. of South Carolina SC Public 53% 72% -19%
Concordia Univ.–Wisconsin WI Private 38% 69% -31%
Indiana Univ.–Bloomington IN Public 51% 73% -22%
Widener Univ.–Main Campus PA Private 37% 62% -26%
Univ. of Iowa IA Public 45% 67% -21%
Ashland Univ. OH Private 37% 60% -23%
Univ. of Colorado at Boulder CO Public 44% 67% -24%
Robert Morris Univ. PA Private 37% 57% -20%
Oklahoma State Univ.–Main Campus OK Public 40% 60% -21%
Rochester Institute of Technology NY Private 36% 63% -27%
Kansas State Univ. KS Public 38% 61% -23%
Daemen Coll. NY Private 35% 54% -19%
Murray State Univ. KY Public 36% 57% -21%
Univ. of Hartford CT Private 35% 56% -21%
Rowan Univ. NJ Public 36% 73% -37%
Univ. of Indianapolis IN Private 34% 54% -20%
California State Univ.–Fullerton CA Public 33% 54% -21%
Univ. of Detroit Mercy MI Private 33% 60% -27%
Bloomsburg Univ. of Pennsylvania PA Public 31% 65% -35%
Fontbonne Univ. MO Private 32% 62% -30%
CUNY Brooklyn Coll. NY Public 31% 58% -27%
Molloy Coll. NY Private 31% 62% -30%
Univ. of Cincinnati–Main Campus OH Public 31% 54% -24%
Northwood Univ. MI Private 30% 56% -26%
Southern Illinois Univ. Edwardsville IL Public 27% 50% -23%
Philadelphia Univ. PA Private 30% 62% -32%
Minnesota State Univ.–Mankato MN Public 26% 50% -24%
California Baptist Univ. CA Private 29% 57% -28%
Indiana Univ. of Penn.–Main Campus PA Public 25% 51% -26%
Univ. of St. Francis IL Private 27% 63% -36%
Univ. of Central Missouri MO Public 25% 52% -27%
Oklahoma City Univ. OK Private 27% 54% -27%
Lock Haven Univ. of Pennsylvania PA Public 24% 54% -30%
Nova Southeastern Univ. FL Private 26% 46% -21%
Mansfield Univ. of Pennsylvania PA Public 24% 49% -25%
Lawrence Technological Univ. MI Private 26% 49% -23%
Univ. of Toledo–Main Campus OH Public 24% 48% -24%
Baker Univ. KS Private 25% 64% -39%
Univ. of Wisconsin–Whitewater WI Public 22% 54% -32%
Saint Thomas Univ. FL Private 25% 69% -44%
California State Univ.–Fresno CA Public 22% 55% -33%
Catholic Univ. of America DC Private 25% 72% -47%
Rhode Island Coll. RI Public 22% 48% -25%
Dominican Coll. of Blauvelt NY Private 25% 51% -26%
Univ. of Michigan–Dearborn MI Public 21% 50% -29%
Wilmington Coll. DE Private 25% 51% -26%
Univ. of Wisconsin–Milwaukee WI Public 21% 47% -25%
Lewis Univ. IL Private 24% 59% -35%
Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha NE Public 19% 41% -22%
Concordia Univ. IL Private 23% 59% -36%
California State Univ.–Bakersfield CA Public 19% 46% -27%
William Carey Univ. MS Private 22% 42% -20%
Youngstown State Univ. OH Public 16% 39% -23%
Coll. of Mount St. Joseph OH Private 21% 65% -44%
Univ. of Akron Main Campus OH Public 15% 42% -27%
Roosevelt Univ. IL Private 21% 49% -28%
Ferris State Univ. MI Public 13% 37% -24%
McKendree Coll. IL Private 20% 57% -37%
East. New Mexico Univ.–Main Campus NM Public 13% 35% -22%
Polytechnic Univ. NY Private 20% 50% -30%
Salem State Coll. MA Public 11% 42% -31%
Trevecca Nazarene Univ. TN Private 20% 48% -28%
CUNY Coll. of Staten Island NY Public 11% 55% -44%
NY Inst. of Tech.–Manhattan Campus NY Private 18% 45% -27%
Wayne State Univ. MI Public 10% 45% -35%
Southern Wesleyan Univ. SC Private 17% 51% -34%
Indiana Univ.–Northwest IN Public 9% 28% -19%
Olivet Nazarene Univ. IL Private 17% 56% -38%
Saginaw Valley State Univ. MI Public 8% 37% -29%
Columbia Coll. Chicago IL Private 16% 43% -27%
Univ. of Dallas TX Private 50% 70% -20%
Alverno Coll. WI Private 15% 40% -25%
Adelphi Univ. NY Private 47% 70% -23%
Southern Nazarene Univ. OK Private 14% 50% -35%
Maryville Univ. of Saint Louis MO Private 47% 68% -21%
Medaille Coll. NY Private 13% 39% -26%
DePaul Univ. IL Private 46% 67% -21%
Friends Univ. KS Private 11% 48% -38%
Saint Xavier Univ. IL Private 46% 66% -20%
East-West Univ. IL Private 10% 50% -40%
Villa Julie MD Private 45% 65% -20%
Felician Coll. NJ Private 10% 44% -34%
Seton Hall NJ Private 40% 60% -20%
Davenport Univ. MI Private 7% 28% -21%</p>
<p>alex,
When I look at the CDS data for Cornell, Brown and U Michigan, I am having a hard time reconciling the data that I find there with your statement,</p>
<p>"20% of Brown, Chicago, Columbia and Cornell students have sub-27 ACT scores and 33%-43% have ACT scores of 29 or less…sub 28 ACT scores are not at all uncommon, even at some of the most selective universities."</p>
<p>What are you looking at that supports this statement?</p>
<p>Michigan meets 100% of resident need.</p>
<p>"Re your response above to my question of there being more lower scoring students outside of the Black/Hispanic/Amer Indian group, I take your answer as "yes."</p>
<p>No, that was not my answer. My answer was that Michigan cannot be classified so easily. Let us leave it at that.</p>
<p>"Also, don't LSA, Engineering, and Ross represent over 90% of the students at U Michigan?"</p>
<p>At the moment, there are 22,731 students enrolled in those three colleges. That's 87% of the 26,083 undergrads currently enrolled at the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>"On the ethnicity question, do you know what the numbers are within U Michigan's Honors College, ie, how many total students are in this program and how many are URMs and what is the breakdown by group?"</p>
<p>Honors college students aren't broken down into ethnicity and citizenship.</p>
<p>Here you go Hawkette.</p>
<p>Brown University
Mid 50% ACT range: 28-33
Students scoring less than 28: 25%
ACT scores between 24-29: 33%
ACT scores between 18-23: 4%
ACT scores 29 or less: 37%</p>
<p>Cornell University
Mid 50% ACT range: 28-32
Students scoring less than 28: 25%
ACT scores between 24-29: 38%
ACT scores between 18-23: 5%
ACT scores 29 or less: 43%</p>
<p>University of Chicago:
Mid 50% ACT range: 28-33
Students scoring less than 28: 25%
ACT scores between 26-29: 24%
ACT scores between 21-25: 8%
ACT scores between 16-20: 1%
ACT scores 29 or less: 33%</p>
<p>Which part is hard to reconcile?</p>
<p>Alexandre, where is that info for Columbia?</p>
<p>I forgot where I read Columbia's stats, but if I recall, they were similar to Brown's and Chicago's.</p>
<p>alex,
I am still struggling a bit with the numbers as I was looking for a little more definition on the breakdown at/below the 25% ACT thresholds and the distribution of scores in the 24-29 ACT score range. I can't determine the breakdown and thus I can't conclude that 20% of the students are scoring at the 27 or lower level. For example, when I look at Brown, I see a 25% threshold of 28 and also the fact that 37% of their ACT-submitting students scored 29 or below. How are you determining that 20% of these are at 27 or lower?</p>
<p>I think it is important to point out the smallish number of students at Cornell., Brown et al submitting ACT scores. Of the incoming freshmen, only 21% at Cornell and 27% at Brown submitted ACT scores (while 97% and 93% respectively submitted SAT scores). In actual student terms, the numbers would be:</p>
<p>Cornell</p>
<h1>with ACT scores of 28 or below: 158 students (6 of whom scored 24 or lower)</h1>
<p>Brown</p>
<h1>with ACT scores of 28 or below: 100 students (16 of whom scored 24 or lower)</h1>
<p>If I extend this analysis to include sub-600 scorers on the SAT, then I get the following:</p>
<p>Cornell</p>
<h1>with SAT CRITICAL READING score less than 600: 350 students (29 of whom scored less than 500)</h1>
<h1>with SAT MATH score less than 600: 204 students (none below 500)</h1>
<p>Brown</p>
<h1>with SAT CRITICAL READING score less than 600: 124 students (14 of whom scored less than 500)</h1>
<h1>with SAT MATH score less than 600: 83 students (none below 500)</h1>
<p>There is likely great overlap in these numbers as some students will submit both ACT and SAT scores and some will score sub-600 on both sections of the SAT. Are you counting them as separate individuals in order to reach your conclusion that 20%+ of the students are scoring at this level?</p>
<p>Also, what are the absolute numbers of freshmen students enrolled in the U Michigan Honors program?</p>
<p>
[quote]
6-Year Black Graduation Rate , All Students 6-Year Graduation Rate , National University</p>
<p>93% , 89% , Caltech
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The number is a little odd considering that Caltech has maybe 5 black students in any given year. How did they get this 93%?</p>
<p>middsmith,
The numbers were drawn from the NCAA database. I agree with your suspicions and frankly, this is one of those that, as a result of its small size, would be subject to great swings in a given year. interesteddad warned us about this earlier in the thread and this is a good example. You may notice that in subsequent posts that I did using the Education Trust data, I excluded Caltech as they claimed that the URM graduation number was something like 67% and it was clear that a change of just a few students had an enormous (and probably misleading) impact on the percentage calculation.</p>
<p>I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the effect of athletics on black graduation rates at Michigan. According to the latest NCAA statistics, 77 of 716 black male undergrads at Michigan, approximately 11% of the total, were there on athletic scholarships. The 4-year average graduation rate for black male student-athletes at Michigan was 44%, compared to 73% for non-athlete black males and 73% for black women overall. (There were only 15 black women scholarship athletes out of 1038 black women undergraduates, and their graduation rate was a more respectable 67%). That means the black male student-athletes pulled down the overall black graduation rate by a good 3%.</p>
<p>Obviously, Michigan has more to be concerned about than its athletic programs, but the athletic programs clearly need some attention.</p>
<p>I don't know why Div I revenue sport athletic programs even bother with the charade of graduation rates and academic standards. Just pay a professional team to "represent" the university the same way the Falcons "represent" Atlanta and stop with the nonsense.</p>
<p>Because most of these kids will not make the pros and are choosing schools for academic reasons, thus it's important for them to graduate. </p>
<p>Even at the best division I athletic programs, most people on the team don't make the pros.</p>
<p>We talk about Ibanking hard to get, how many people goto the NBA from UNC or Duke? NFL from OSU and Michigan?</p>
<p>If it's important for those "students" to graduate, then why are they being asked to play a full-time professional sport while "in college"?</p>
<p>This year 6 Michigan football players were drafted by NFL teams and another 4 signed as undrafted free agents, for a total of 10 getting a shot at the NFL. This number is fairly typical for Michigan, but quite a bit higher than for the average Div 1A school. </p>
<p>In comparison, Michigan had 97 players on its spring football roster, and NCAA rules limit football scholarships to 85 per school at any given time. So despite the fact that only 1.8% of all NCAA college football players will ever get to the pros, the odds are actually much, much better for a Michigan player on a football scholarship. If you assume the pro prospects come entirely from the pool of scholarship athletes, and on average about a quarter of the scholarship athletes come out every year, it looks like nearly half (10 out of 21.25) are getting their shot at the pros--though that figure is probably inflated somewhat by the fact that some scholarship athletes wash out of the program early and their scholarships are recycled to other players, so each scholarship supports on average something more than 1 player over the course of 4 years. </p>
<p>Not all those who get their shot will stick in the NFL, of course: some will be cut in practice, others will knock around for a few years on practice squads, others may see a little action on special teams or as substitutes. Only a few will end up playing every Sunday, even fewer will be highly paid stars, and even the best of them will have relatively short careers. But every athlete's dream is to get a shot at showing what you can do at the pro level. These numbers say to me that if you're a football player dreaming of playing in the NFL and Michigan offers you a scholarship, there's actually not a bad chance you'll get to the NFL, with or without a degree.</p>
<p>Still, that means at least half, probably more, of the Michigan football scholarship holders won't get there. And whether they get a shot at the NFL or not, many will end up out on the streets before too long without a job in football, without a college degree, and in many cases without marketable skills.</p>
<p>Michigan actually does a better job than most top Div IA football schools in graduating its student-athletes, but the racial disparity is troubling. According to the NCAA, 67% of Michigan football players graduate, but that breaks down to 91% of the white players and only 46% of the black players. So obviously something more than just the workload of football is going on here. The graduation rate for white football players at Michigan is actually slightly higher than the rate for all Michigan students, while the black rate is just half that. Lower admission standards for black athletes, poorer preparation for college at the predominantly black high schools where many of the black athletes are recruited? Probably. You can also make the argument that for non-academically inclined, economically disadvantaged but athletically gifted youth, a Michigan football scholarship is still a good deal insofar as it represents a nearly 50-50 chance of a shot at an NFL paycheck, and independently a nearly 50-50 chance at a college degree, all of which beats hanging out on the streets in Detroit. Still, the graduation rate for black football players is unacceptably low. I'm just not sure what can be done about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...till, the graduation rate for black football players is unacceptably low. I'm just not sure what can be done about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If it is in the State of Michigan's interest to have young black males graduate from the University of Michigan (and I would argue that it is), then a good place to start would be to recruit young black males for their academic potential instead of their 40 yard dash times and then ask them to focus on school instead of professional football with a little bit of classwork on the side.</p>
<p>Bclinton,
I think that’s a pretty easy problem to solve. Recruit a better student-athlete with more emphasis on student. U Michigan might lose a few more games, but the academic and graduation results would likely improve. </p>
<p>Similar to what collegehelp did, but limiting the comparisons to the USNWR Top 30 national universities and the USNWR Top 20 LACs, I did a gender analysis for all students of a sex vs the URM students of a sex. Here are the results:</p>
<p>6-Year Grad Rate for URM Females vs 6-Year Grad for All Females , College</p>
<p>4% , Vanderbilt
1% , Emory
0% , Yale
-1% , USC
-1% , Wake Forest
-1% , Columbia
-1% , U Penn
-2% , Notre Dame
-2% , Duke
-2% , Brown
-2% , Wash U
-3% , Rice
-3% , Cornell
-3% , Georgetown
-3% , Stanford
-3% , Harvard
-5% , Johns Hopkins
-5% , Northwestern
-5% , Princeton
-8% , MIT
-9% , Dartmouth
-9% , U Chicago
-11% , Tufts
-15% , Carnegie Mellon
na , Caltech</p>
<p>6-Year Grad Rate for URM Females vs 6-Year Grad for All Females , College</p>
<p>-3% , U North Carolina
-3% , U Virginia
-7% , UCLA
-10% , UC Berkeley
-10% , U Michigan</p>
<p>6-Year Grad Rate for URM Females vs 6-Year Grad for All Females , College</p>
<p>8% , Haverford
5% , Colgate
4% , Wellesley
4% , Smith
2% , Hamilton
2% , Vassar
2% , Pomona-Pitzer
1% , Swarthmore
1% , Wesleyan
1% , Carleton
0% , Amherst
-1% , Williams
-1% , Davidson
-6% , Claremont McK-Harvey Mudd
-9% , Middlebury
-17% , Grinnell
-20% , W&L
na , Bowdoin</p>
<p>And for the men, notice the terrific gap for Johns Hopkins</p>
<p>6-Year Grad Rate for URM Males vs 6-Year Grad Rate for All Males , College</p>
<p>13% , Johns Hopkins
3% , Vanderbilt
0% , U Chicago
-1% , Yale
-2% , Emory
-3% , Brown
-3% , Dartmouth
-4% , Wake Forest
-4% , Wash U
-6% , Princeton
-7% , USC
-7% , U Penn
-7% , Stanford
-7% , Harvard
-7% , MIT
-7% , Tufts
-11% , Duke
-11% , Cornell
-11% , Northwestern
-12% , Carnegie Mellon
-13% , Columbia
-13% , Rice
-14% , Notre Dame
-14% , Georgetown
na , Caltech</p>
<p>6-Year Grad Rate for URM Males vs 6-Year Grad Rate for All Males , College</p>
<p>-12% , U Virginia
-13% , UCLA
-13% , U Michigan
-17% , UC Berkeley
-18% , U North Carolina</p>
<p>6-Year Grad Rate for URM Males vs 6-Year Grad Rate for All Males , College</p>
<p>6% , Grinnell
1% , Hamilton
0% , Wellesley
0% , Smith
0% , Middlebury
0% , W&L
-3% , Haverford
-5% , Amherst
-6% , Swarthmore
-8% , Vassar
-8% , Pomona-Pitzer
-8% , Williams
-9% , Wesleyan
-12% , Claremont McK-Harvey Mudd
-14% , Davidson
-15% , Colgate
-29% , Carleton
na , Bowdoin</p>
<p>Hawkette, I try not to read too much into SAT/ACT scores. As I have always maintained, I do not believe they are always an accurate reflection of inteligence or academic potential. But if you are going to compare universities based on ACT/SAT results, be sure to consider the following. </p>
<p>1) Unless universities calculate and report SATs identically, there is no basis for comparison. There is no control over how universities report SAT scores and as such, it is not possible to compare universities that have different reporting styles.</p>
<p>2) It is impossible to convert ACT scores into SAT scores. There is no scientifically proven method of doing so. They are totally different tests and any attempt to convert scores would be tantamount to a shot in the dark.</p>
<p>3) Universities like Cornell and Michigan, have a different student make-up than universities like Brown or Chicago. Brown and Chicago are 100% Arts and Science or Engineering. Cornell and Michigan have separate colleges such as Agriculture, Architecture, Dental Hygene, Hotel Management, Kinesiology, Nursing etc... Students enrolled into those colleges are measured by an entirely different set of criteria and should not be compared to students majoring in Engineering or a traditional academic discipline. </p>
<p>At any rate, my point in post #19 above was not an attempt to compare Michigan's student body to that of Brown, Chicago or Cornell. That would be impossible. My point was that a student scoring less than a 27 on the ACT is not necessarily weak. 20%-30% of the students at those private universities submit ACT scores. That is a significant proportion. Of those, a significant number of them score less than a 28 on the ACT. Clearly, those schools that you acknowledge to be very selective admit a significant number of students with sub 28 ACT scores.</p>