<p>There is another thread running "Who gets in and why?" which led me to dig a little and estimate the absolute numbers of lower quality students on the campuses of top national universities. I don't know what the circumstances were that led to their admission (athletic, musical, other unique non-academic ability, legacy, developmental, etc.), and every college has some weak students who were admitted for a variety of reasons, but I thought that these numbers might help one understand how large the statistically weaker student populations are at various colleges.</p>
<p>I measured this by looking at the number of students at a college who scored at the lower end of commonly used metrics. Here is how the USNWR Top 30 colleges rank as measured by the number of students on each campus falling into the following categories:
1. number of freshman who scored below 600 on the SAT Critical Reading;
2. number of freshman who scored below 600 on the SAT Math; and
3. number of freshman that did not rank in the Top 10% of their high school class.</p>
<pre><code> BY # OF FRESHMEN WHO SCORED BELOW 600 ON SAT CRITICAL READING
</code></pre>
<p>1 Cal Tech 13 students
2 Wash U StL 37<br>
3 Yale 40<br>
4 Princeton 48<br>
5 MIT 52<br>
6 Tufts 62<br>
7 Harvard 67<br>
8 Rice 69<br>
9 Dartmouth 71<br>
10 Columbia 92<br>
11 Duke 95<br>
12 U Chicago 108
13 Brown 120
14 Stanford 128
15 J Hopkins 134
16 U Penn 146
17 Wake Forest 162
18 Northwestern 163
19 Vanderbilt 175
20 Georgetown 206
21 Emory 216
22 Notre Dame 251
23 Carnegie Mellon 269
24 USC 460
25 Cornell 542
26 U Virginia 770
27 U North Carolina 1156<br>
28 UC Berkeley 1670<br>
29 U Michigan 1917<br>
30 UCLA 2162 </p>
<pre><code> BY # OF FRESHMAN WHO SCORED BELOW 600 ON THE SAT MATH
</code></pre>
<p>1 Cal Tech 0 students
2 MIT 0<br>
3 Wash U StL 18<br>
4 Princeton 24<br>
5 Yale 27<br>
6 Harvard 34<br>
7 Carnegie Mellon 43<br>
8 Tufts 50<br>
9 Rice 53<br>
10 Dartmouth 61<br>
11 Stanford 64<br>
12 Columbia 66<br>
13 U Penn 73<br>
14 Brown 75<br>
15 Duke 79<br>
16 J Hopkins 90<br>
17 U Chicago 96<br>
18 Vanderbilt 112
19 Emory 116
20 Northwestern 122
21 Notre Dame 125
22 Wake Forest 130
23 Georgetown 171
24 USC 335
25 Cornell 339
26 U Virginia 550
27 U North Carolina 813
28 U Michigan 894
29 UC Berkeley 1133<br>
30 UCLA 1462 </p>
<pre><code> BY # OF FRESHMAN WHO WERE NOT TOP 10%
</code></pre>
<p>1 Cal Tech 26 students
2 MIT 31<br>
3 UC Berkeley 60<br>
4 Yale 67<br>
5 Princeton 71<br>
6 Harvard 84<br>
7 Wash U StL 92<br>
8 Rice 99<br>
9 Dartmouth 102
10 Brown 135
11 U Penn 146
12 Stanford 177
13 UCLA 191
14 Duke 206
15 Tufts 212
16 Columbia 224
17 J Hopkins 224
18 U Chicago 240
19 Emory 249
20 Georgetown 274
21 Notre Dame 313
22 Vanderbilt 335
23 Northwestern 347
24 Carnegie Mellon 354
25 Wake Forest 401
26 U Virginia 440
27 Cornell 542
28 USC 586
29 U Michigan 639
30 U North Carolina 1027</p>
<p>Top ten percent is not a valid metric, since many of these students come from extremely competitive schools, private or public, where the top half would easily fit into the top five percent of an "average" school. Especially in the best private schools, the macro screening has already been done for the elite colleges.</p>
<p>This data would be more informative if it were also presented as percentages of the freshman classes, and not just as absolute numbers. (Easy for me to say, since I'm not the one putting it together.)</p>
<p>One thing that struck me about these lists, hawkette, is that the colleges at the top are generally NOT those that anyone would consider along the lines of athletic powerhouses, while at the bottom, you see more of the athletic superstars. Maybe that has to do with certain concessions made by admissions at certain colleges --- a tradeoff to accept lower academic records if they came with superior athletic skills.</p>
<p>I agree that top 10% issues are barely useful. First off, depending on the school, the number of kids coming from schools that report class rank can be below 50%. So, there's no way to count those from that pool who are below the top 10%. Second, a top 10% kid from East Beelzebub High in Dirt 'R US, Arizona might not be able to make the top 70% at a competitive high school. This would be like measuring the relative strength of college football teams by how many kids on the team were three-year starters for their high schools.</p>
<p>I think we have to remember that statistically weaker students are not necessarily weaker students. I can only speak for myself here, but I was a candidate who had mediocre test scores and a non-stellar GPA. (My school did not rank, but if it did, I would be surprised if I was in the top 10%). However, I had citation after citation in my application of unusual achievements in math, writing, reading, and science-- in other words, the same topics that standardized tests cover.</p>
<p>I wasn't a statistically strong applicant because I never became passionate about upping my grades or my scores. I would have much rather invested time into doing a math proof or writing a short story for publication. I wonder how many of the other students who are not statistically strong fall into a similar category to me.</p>
<p>^^ the common data sets have all that info. Not sure how hawkette got the info on Harvard, though (Harvard doesn't release CDS to my knowledge).</p>
<p>Top 10% is not a very good variable, especially if its a very competitive high school. I go to a very competitive private school (anyone heard of Choate?) and I am may not even be in the top quarter (somewhere around top 25-30%) however I have decent shot at Georgetown. Similarly I have a friend with in a similar scenario who has Yale as a good match for him. Many of these schools try not to overlook the complete picture such as athletic ability, academic promise, extracurriculars, personal traits, etc.</p>
<p>As for SAT scores--yes I will admit I am a bit surprised. However, if potential is evident and there is good reason behind the bad scores, then the student will not be at loss. Also, it seems the importance of Standardize Testing is starting to decline more and more.</p>
<p>The fact is, the top 10% is a statistical measure; that there are disparities is irrelevant. I would argue that SAT scores often indicate very little on an individual basis, but are more relevant as a *statistical<a href="or%20overall">/I</a> measure. And we all know the flaws of the SAT.</p>
<p>Still, these results are very interesting. It shows that students should not give up on the basis of statistics if they really feel that a school is right for them.</p>
<p>After several regents got their dander up about the number of "substandard" students admitted to Berkeley, Berkeley released some anonymous profiles of these students who scores were so low. </p>
<p>Some of their stories were really moving, generally indicating hard work, tenacity, and triumph over very difficult circumstances (health, family, financial, you name it). </p>
<p>It was not hard to see why an admissions committee might feel that these students, regardless of test scores, deserved a shot at the flagship in their state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact is, the top 10% is a statistical measure; that there are disparities is irrelevant. I would argue that SAT scores often indicate very little on an individual basis, but are more relevant as a statistical (or overall) measure. And we all know the flaws of the SAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By that standard, ANY number, regardless of how poorly those numbers were gathered, is "relevant" (the opposite of "irrelevant"). So, if I go out and survey five people on my street on politics and then portray their responses as a national trend, the fact that the methodology is ridulously awful would be "irrelevant" to you, right? The numbers would still hold?</p>
<p>The SAT data are relevant because of the aggregate nature of those data, the fact that n equals all test takers, and the fact that this test is standard, so all test takers are taking the same test (at least in their cohorts) and all test takers are working off validated questions. We also know that there is a relationship between class rank and SAT scores (see collegeboard.com) but, as always, not an R squared of 1. </p>
<p>Class rank data come from a population of high school students where n=just over 50% (NACAC numbers, which are not all that reliable since their number come from voluntary respondents, only), and n is not even close to being a random sample. Of that non-random sample, the formulaic means of calculating class rank, whether CR is calculated using weighted or non-weighted grades, the quality of competition for class rank, the degree of differentiation among students it's possible to measure given various degrees of grade inflation, etc. vary WIDELY. Heck, I personally talked to the supervisor of counseling at one school in the Midwest where a 4.0 is considered valedictorian, so that 12.5% of the school finished number 1!!!! Presumably, that would put 12.5% in the top 10%, and anyone with a 3.99 GPA would finish outside the top 10%.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Did you happen to put it in a spreadsheet so it would be easy to repost with percentages?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please note that this table is based on the calculation (subtraction) on a SAT over 600 & 700 distribution table I saved on my computer. Please feel free to correct this table if you find any errors.</p>
<p>Percentage of freshmen with under 600 and 700 SAT scores
University 700 C 700 M 600 C 600M
Yale 22% 22% 3% 2 %
Cal Tech 23% 4% 6% 0%
Princeton 27% 26% 4% 2%
Harvard 27% 26% 4% 2%
MIT 32% 8% 5% 0%
Columbia 33% 40% 7% 5%
Dartmouth 35% 30% 7% 6%
Brown 36% 34% 8% 5%
Duke 37% 32% 6% 5%
Amherst 39% 38% 7% 8%
U Chicago 39% 43% 9% 8%
Wash U St 40% 36% 2% 1%
Stanford 41% 33% 8% 4%
Rice 43% 37% 9% 7%
Tufts 44% 41% 5% 4%
U Penn 46% 31% 6% 3%
Northwestern 47% 37% 8% 6%
Georgetown 47% 49% 12% 10%
Notre Dame 53% 43% 12% 6%
Vanderbilt 59% 48% 11% 7%
J Hopkins 60% 40% 12% 8%
Cornell 62% 41% 16% 10%
USC 64% 50% 11% 8%
Carnegie Mellon 67% 29% 19% 3%
Emory 68% 55% 13% 7%
UC Berkeley 69% 54% 28% 19%
U Virginia 69% 60% 21% 15%
Wake Forest 71% 62% 15% 12%
U North Carolina 78% 71% 27% 19%
UCLA 79% 61% 34% 19%
U Michigan 79% 57% 30% 14%</p>
<p>^ Thanks for posting that! For what it's worth, at least some of that data appears to be 2 years old now (for the class of 2009). These percentages have no doubt changed a bit--more for some schools than for others.</p>