<p>Did the OP mention whether their kid is considering grad school or not? Because regardless of whether a provincial local boss would know an LAC from across the country, grad schools definitely do know the difference! </p>
<p>My personal opinion, having a kid who attends one of the “lower 3” schools :), and living in the region of the “upper 3” is that Carleton trumps them all in quality of students and education. Mac has some great appeal, too (location, terrific for kids with international studies interest). Sorry, Grinnell lovers, but we found it quite “meh” when we visited (and we WANTED to love Grinnell, nice merit aid on the table), and one of D’s acquaintances who went there last year is transferring out. Our school sends several kids to all 3 every year, so I have a good feeling for what kinds of kids attend each from the region.</p>
<p>I think Dickinson has an edge of the “lower 3” schools, it is a sort of hustling, on the rise LAC. But can’t tell which of the “lower 3” OP’s kid has acceptance to.</p>
<p>By the way… I think it is ridiculous not to name the schools. The OP has never posted before – so there is nothing bad he/she has ever said about their kid that could be traced back to them It is pretty silly to think that anyone has the time or inclination to figure out who your kid is, or would even care given the benign nature of this discussion. There are thousands and thousands of kids making similar choices all over the country today. All the schools know that their acceptances can quickly dissolve when a better waitlist offer comes along, and most just dip into their own waitlist when it happens. It isn’t that big a deal to them, it is just business. So just tell (esp. if you want solid advice).</p>
<p>To any students who think they are considering grad or professional school, I always recommend checking out the schools they are interested in to see how many got accepted and exactly where they got accepted (not acceptance rates as those can be worked, but exact numbers - then remember the size of the pool you are dealing with yourself). Are there students who regularly go where you’d like to go? If so, that’s a good choice. Do they get there once in a while? What kind of stats did they need/have? Can they do it in theory, but no one has actually ever done it? Red flag. Have there been some who tried but didn’t make it? Huge red flag.</p>
<p>It’s important that the data is recent and that the schools accepted to are similar or exact to those the student would like to get accepted to. If a school doesn’t want to share the info, beware.</p>
<p>I actually give the same info for those who feel they know which job/company they are aiming for. Yes, they may change their mind and that’s ok, but one has to start somewhere.</p>
<p>Yk, justdafacts, if I picked a top 10 research university and one in the 50 range, everyone would pretty much agree that overall, they were in different bands, and while that didn’t make the lower band awful or anything, you’d all recognize that they were different shades of gray. I don’t know why people aren’t doing the same with a top 10 LAC and a 50 range LAC.</p>
<p>OP, what is the nature of the dilemma? Are you leaning toward the original school while your son is leaning toward the wait list school? And, if so, what are your respective reasons? Or if it’s more complicated than that, how so?</p>
While I do think that a difference of 2-3 points on the ACT is significant (although not hugely significant), others have shown above that the difference in scores between students at these two groups of schools is probably greater than that.</p>
<p>Hunt Thanks for the ACT info. It was helpful. Averaging Grinnell 28-32 range, the students fall in the 94.8 percentile and averaging the Dickinson range 27-30 the students fall in the 91.5 percentile. That’s pretty significant and as you point out its probably more than that. PG I was trying to understand your thinking. In your post 161, I think you agree that the ACT difference is an important factor. In subsequent posts, you point out greater breath of student body, national reputation and most recently higher ranking as other reasons. So you don’t see the two “bands” as equal. I was just trying to understand why this wasn’t “ splitting hairs” .</p>
<p>I feel like I woke up in Oz because I don’t think that is statistically significant at all. I doubt one would see a difference in performance, and my S got a 34 on the ACT.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t think it was significant comparing one individual to another. Comparing populations of several hundred, I do. Small enough that the OP’s child should still go to whichever school he likes best, but real.</p>
<p>Congrats to all of your son’s acceptances… Just remember this is a really nice problem and not a bad problem. Honestly, at this point, your son should be picking the college that makes him the happiest and where he FITs best at. My son picked his school based on that criteria and it was an easy decision for him. It was also the best decision he ever made. He is happier than he was in high school and now I’m happy too! Sigh! His grades are the highest ever too. They say happy kids succeed and that is really true. By the way, there really isn’t much difference in the rankings so just throw the rankings away and decide where you’d like to live the next four years. It is like buying a house… pick the house you love! Good luck! :)</p>
<p>Myth mom, what peole have been uncovering is that the difference in SAT and ACT ranges is possibly even greater than reported because the “lower band” schools are all score optional; there is also a much lower proportion of 700+ kids at those schools, too.</p>
<p>How important these score differences are is up to each applicant of course.</p>
<p>Setting aside the score optional element, I think there will be a difference (again, not huge) between a school where the average student is in the top 10% of scorers and one where the average student is in the top 5% of scorers.</p>
<p>I have experience that would disagree that this small statistical variation translate into a difference in academic rigor. My D attended Barnard, but about 1/3 of her classes were at Columbia, which is fairly typical for a Barnard student. I don’t have the same statistical breakdowns of SAT scores between the two, but Columbia’s are definitely higher. (Barnard tends to select for other factors. It’s admit rate is now 21% so if it wanted high scorers are its top criteria it would have them.)</p>
<p>She and many of her friends found no different between the rigor of the courses at the two institutions. And in fact, her GPA at her Columbia classes turned out higher than her GPA for her Barnard classes, even those within the same field. That is probably a fluke in her case, and I am not saying that that fact alone proves my point, but since 1900 the two schools have been affiliated and there have been students crossing Broadway to take classes. I should mention that many Columbia students take classes at Barnard.</p>
<p>My S’s school, Williams, has average SAT score higher than Barnard and I could see no difference in the demands of their education. Williams administration was a little less hand holding so the school was more “difficult” in that way. (And my S did scorer higher on the SAT than my D, probably to the degree predicted in your model, but he emerged with a lower GPA from college and did not go abroad or have many of the enriching experiences that pizzagirl thinks important. Actually, I prize them too.</p>
<p>Obviously, one person’s anecdotal evidence does not an argument make, so I am not saying “case closed”, but rather explaining why I remain so skeptical about the conviction that these differences in ACT scores would produce a noticeably different academic experience or possibilities. My one caveat would be in math because neither of my kids are math people (though one of them did break 700 on his SAT), so I can’t judge the difference in math education. It may be that the math classes of higher scorers are consistently better, even with such a small deviation. However, Humanities skills are not highly correlated to standardized tests so I would be even more skeptical in that area. I have known many fine writers literary critics who were not high scorers on standardized tests and many who were who could not really interpret literature.</p>
<p>BTW: Both my kids did score above 2100 on the SAT. I am reporting this just for their sake because I don’t think they’d want their weaknesses exposed without that caveat, and my S’s 34 ACT score puts him in the top band at all institutions it seems.</p>
<p>Greater differences would, I’m sure. The difference between the 50% and the 90% would produce a very different student body with a great difference in capabilities.</p>
<p>Well, I’m sure it is, in many ways. My point was that the lower scores of the students don’t seem to reduce the rigor of the classes, even classes in which a preponderance of the students are Barnard students. The argument on scores would suggest that it should.</p>
<p>If the women couldn’t do Columbia work they would drag down the classes, but no one in her class on the history of the Supreme Court (in which they went to the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments) even knew she was a Barnard student unless she told them, which being proud of her school, she, of course, did. The judge who taught the course wrote her a glowing recommendation (which we only know as reported by some of the grad school reps.)</p>
<p>And Columbia students don’t avoid Barnard classes for their lack of rigor or preparation.</p>
<p>The only caveat Barnard places is the Creative Writing/English Dept. students are limited in the number of courses they can take at Columbia for their major because they think the Barnard Dept. so much better. My daughter as a double major American Studies/History had no such limits. And her human rights’ classes were all at Columbia.</p>
<p>Does anyone have a link showing a positive correlation with SAT/ACT and future success (in college or otherwise) with such a small difference?</p>
<p>The only two reports I’ve ever heard of show a correlation between math score and engineering majors and ACT scores and MCAT. I’ve seen many reports that show no correlation (hence, many schools going score optional).</p>
<p>Granted, my experience at school would tell me a school with a 23 average isn’t going to educationally provide the same academic experience as a school with a 30 average (if one is in an academic major anyway), but I’m one who sees no real difference in the scores provided UNLESS, perhaps, one is headed toward engineering (unlikely given the schools).</p>
<p>I’m thinking many people are putting their faith in perceived prestige.</p>
No, some of us aren’t thinking about “future success” in financial terms at all. We’re thinking about going to school with highly accomplished peers. For kids who have had experience in high school in, say, a competitive magnet vs. “regular” classes, this can be a big factor.</p>
<p>The National Survey of Student Engagement scores are based on very detailed interviews of students at participating schools. Examples of scoring criteria:</p>
<p>Level of Academic Challenge
Number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings
Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more, between 5 and 19 pages, and fewer than 5 pages</p>
It is pretty silly to think that anyone has the time or inclination to figure out who your kid is, or would even care given the benign nature of this discussion. There are thousands and thousands of kids making similar choices all over the country today. All the schools know that their acceptances can quickly dissolve when a better waitlist offer comes along, and most just dip into their own waitlist when it happens. It isn’t that big a deal to them, it is just business. So just tell (esp. if you want solid advice).</p>