<p>t1388 -</p>
<p>thanks - that is actually very interesting see the patterns!</p>
<p>I see something very different when I look at these stats. First of all, I dislike seeing a post of information that is old, because they become less relevant to those people who would benefit from it most...the potential candidate for admission. Second, pure numbers never really tell those candidates the whole story. Who are these kids who are admitted with lower than expected scores? Are they atheletes on an important, income producing, powerhouse team? Are they members of an under represented group? What are the mitigating factors that help to explain the numbers, assuming that they are accurate? Some schools listed do not support, for an example, a powerhouse DI team that is extremely important to the life of the school.
So, after I eliminate these above groups in my head, I have to determine what your everyday students, without any hook (for lack of a better term) might need for admission. What I see are scores that would be much higher in order to balance out the admission requirement. If there are many students getting into a school with a 1400 mid 50, who are well below that average, then your everyday student obviously would need a much stronger score than would appear on the surface. Understanding that, given the above numbers and percentages, is very important for those kids who are in applying mode. All applicants are not held to the same standards.</p>
<p>There's also the problem of lack of data regarding the relationship between the data - that is, how many students are top 10% GPA but sub 600 SAT, and vice versa. That schools like MIT and Cal Tech skew toward high math test scores is unsurprising; that public Universities skew towards high GPA and less towards test scores is also consistent with stated policies. </p>
<p>As the parent of kids who tested in the top 1% and have and had HS GPA's hovering around the border between the first and second deciles at their high school I'm aware that the relationship between class rank and test scores can be quite variable.</p>
<p>Thank you, t1388.
One thing that caught my eye is how far off the pace of HYP Stanford is, at least by SAT measure. I'd like to know how admissions is different at Stanford.
I have heard that they treat applicants whose parents have graduate degrees from Stanford as legacies, which is not common among peers.
I'm not arguing that SATs ought to a the most important admissions factor at all. I just want to be educated as to what Stanford does or doesn't do that is different from what HYP are up to.</p>
<p>stanford has big-time division I athletics. My guess: URM football and basketball players.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you know that that would be a sample too small for our purposes; the class rank, though, is a very large sample. (It's obvious I'm talking about statistical measures with adequate sampling sizes.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The SAT data are relevant because of the aggregate nature of those data
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And the class rank data is not?</p>
<p>
[quote]
the fact that n equals all test takers
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're working on an assumption that has yet to be proven. In fact, I think there's more evidence that there are disparities in the SAT, too -- perhaps in a different form from the rank data, but disparities nonetheless. For example, certain students will be more advantaged and can buy SAT prep courses.</p>
<p>And I believe there's statistical data that shows that GPA is a much better indicator of one's sucess in college than are SATs.</p>
<p>Plus, if you don't like this rank data, why not look at the breakdowns of GPA? Or would you say that too is useless data?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, of course, there's going to be wide variance -- just as in the SAT.</p>
<p>Right, EMM1. Stanford, not being a member of the ivy league, does not have to follow ivy regs concerning athletes. Those rules and regs are indigenous only to the ivies.</p>
<p>t1388,
How did you get your data for schools that do not release CDS data, for example, WUSTL?</p>
<p>never mind, I found it.</p>
<p>"If there are many students getting into a school with a 1400 mid 50, who are well below that average, then your everyday student obviously would need a much stronger score than would appear on the surface. Understanding that, given the above numbers and percentages, is very important for those kids who are in applying mode. All applicants are not held to the same standards."</p>
<p>Well put, Grabriellaah. </p>
<p>At some point, applicants have to decide if they want to apply to a reach school ... or whether it is just not worth the effort. Discussion boards aren't especially good at accurately predicting admissions at competitive schools: they are good at providing information (even if slightly out of date).</p>
<p>That some good info.......thanks!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Information that's available in one place to compile quickly is usually outdated, but it's still very useful. Anyone need more evidence that high SAT scores in math are practically mandatory to apply to MIT or CIT or to some extent CM? </p>
<p>Anyone else fascinated that Harvard and Princeton's numbers in the percentage table are identical and that Yale is tougher irt to SAT scores of the three? </p>
<p>Overall, the data makes it clear that 100 points makes a huge difference. Maybe a prep class is worth the time and money after all, especially for those students who don't get this sort of preparation built into their private or prep school curriculum. </p>
<p>Lolabelle: Obviously, Tufts problem in the usnwr ranking is not quality of the student body, it's that Student Selectivity only counts for 15 percent overall while PA is 25 percent of the score. Why usnwr's PA survey does not acknowledge Tufts' high quality of education is not something I can answer. It would be interesting to see the score if these two ranking components were changed to 20 percent of weight apiece.</p>
<p>Bigred: If USNWR changed up its formula, as it has done in the past, the top schools would change up their methods. Tufts only recently (within the past 4 years) considerably ramped up its SAT requirement. They did this based on the fact that they were getting enormous numbers of applications from wonderful students who wanted to go to school in the Boston area, but who did not make it into Harvard. Tufts, much like NYU in NY, gained from the tremendous popularity and draw of the Boston area. And, of course, Tufts is a wonderful school.</p>
<p>Also, similarities between ivies is not surprising, considering that the regs for admitting athletes must comport with the same specific rules. Numbers of urms are another story and can change the percentages among schools.</p>
<p>As stated earlier, I originally created this thread as a result of what I read in the Parents Forum in the “Who gets in and why?” thread. It’s an interesting question, particularly for those situations where it results in lower statistically strong students gaining admission. Frankly, I expected there to be larger (weaker) numbers (ie, sub-600 scores) at the private Division I scholarship schools as they are often accused of sacrificing academics for athletic excellence. But that is not what I saw in the numbers (absolute or in percentage terms) as compared to their top private non-scholarship peers. </p>
<p>Here is the data for the weakest students who scored below 600 on CR and/or Math for most prominent academic schools with strong sports vs another group of schools with similar academics, but less emphasis on sports:</p>
<p>Colleges with broad complement of nationally competitive Div I sports teams
Stanford (CR-128 students, 8%, M-64 students, 4%)
Duke (CR-95 students, 8%, M-79 students, 4%)
Northwestern (CR-163 students, 8%, M-122 students, 6%)
Vanderbilt (CR-175 students, 11%, M-112 students, 7%)
Notre Dame (CR-251 students, 12%, M-125 students, 6%)</p>
<p>Now compare them to a few schools that don’t generally provide athletic scholarships:</p>
<p>Dartmouth (CR-71 students, 7%, M-61 students, 6%)
Columbia (CR-92 students, 7%, M-66 tudents, 5%)
Brown (CR-120 students, 8%, M-75 students, 5%)
Johns Hopkins (CR-134 students, 8%, M-90 students, 4%)
Cornell (CR-542 students, 16%, M-339 students, 10%)
Emory (CR-216 students, 13%, M-116 students, 7%)
U Chicago (CR-108 students, 9%, M-96 students, 8%)</p>
<p>As I read these numbers, I don’t see appreciably more weaker students at the Division I scholarship schools than at the non-scholarship colleges. So the athletic component is either not that big a factor at these schools or there is a similar level and quality of athletic admits, scholarship or non-scholarship school at these colleges. </p>
<p>Clearly the larger size of the public universities hampers their numbers in such a comparison of both percentages and absolute numbers (likewise for large privates like Cornell and USC), but it was a little surprising to see the large absolute numbers with sub-600 scores, eg, around 2000 students with sub-600 CR scores in the freshman classes at U Michigan and UCLA. Still, as OneMom points out earlier, such numbers might be an inspiration to some students who feel that these schools are a good fit for them. Sure, the road is a lot tougher without competitive scores, but it is not impossible as these weaker students who gained admissions have proved.</p>
<p>Would like to see data on more LACs - here's Pomona:</p>
<p>SAT verbal over 600: 95% (5% under 600)(from Yahoo Education)
= 19 students (would be ranked #2 on OP's list)</p>
<p>SAT math over 600: 96% (4% under 600)
= 15 students (would be ranked #3)</p>
<p>Top 10%: 87% (13% under)
= 50 students (would be ranked #3)</p>
<p>Obviously, percentiles would be better than total numbers here since there are only 386 students per class at Pomona, so using t1388's percentile ranking (post #19) makes more sense:</p>
<p>Under 700CR, under 700M, under 600CR, under 600M</p>
<p>Pomona: 28%, 31%, 5%, 4% (would be ranked #5 or #6)</p>
<p>The difference is that the players in the major sports don't have to be as good in the Ivies and at the top LACs. Thus, the potential pool of athletic recruits is much larger, so the academic standards can be more stringent.</p>
<p>Hawkette: While you are right that Hopkins does not provide scholarships for most of its recruits, it has a powerhouse DI Lacrosse team. Don't assume that it does not provide scholarships for those kids. I would assume, however, that the same rules that apply to, for example Duke, in terms of SAT allowances, also apply to the Lacrosse team at Hopkins. I am sure that Hopkins' offer of scholarship for these players must be commensurate with Duke's players, as I know that they do court the same players.</p>
<p>BUT...The colleges that do not give financial support to recruits (second category, including Hopkins, except for the Lacrosse team), DO make allowances on SAT scores for those kids. Admission to the school is considered their "gift." My son walked on to a varsity team at Hopkins, as did several other athletically talented boys. The difference between the SAT scores for the "walk-ons" ...ie. they got onto the team after they had been admitted to the school on the basis on their academics... is quite large.Talented recruits certainly are admitted with scores around 1300. The "walk-ons" had somewhere between the mid 1400s to the lower 1500s.
This is only for one team...This is true across the board for all teams. So there is a significant number of athletes at your second category of schools with considerably lower stats. That is their "hook" for admisssion. Money is not their objective...Admission is.</p>
<p>Even though other sports at Hopkins, besides Lacrosse, are DIII, there are lots of athletes on the Hopkins campus, and they all take playing their sport very seriously. In fact, it is not unusual to hear about the All-American team members, and those young men who have been recruited by major league baseball teams. If I am not mistaken, 2 boys were recruited by the majors, just this past year. In sum, recruited athletes (male and female) get into these top schools with lower SAT scores, with a larger allowance for the DI teams...At Hopkins, that is Lacrosse.</p>
<p>Ivy schools have their own rules, that, just as the top DIII schools, including the elite LACs, do not give scholarship money for athletes. They do, however, have significant SAT allowances. A boy at my children's school was accepted to Princeton to play football, after re-taking the SAT to get it up to a necessary 1300 level. He did not receive a scholarship, BUT he did gain admission to Princeton, which will alter his future for the better. Admission was his scholarship. </p>
<p>It is really difficult to analyze numbers without understanding the entire picture. I hope this sheds some light on the process, and how it affects SAT scores expected for admission.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was reading this, and I was saying to myself "Wow, that's just like myself..." Then I see it's you, unalove! That made me happy to see such an intelligent person possess the same view on this issue.</p>
<p>But yeah, I went to the most competitive high school in my state (which required an application to get admitted), and I was the top student in my (actually interesting) English classes, despite the fact that I had about the lowest critical reading score out of all of my classmates. Same for math... one of my teacher recommendations was my multivariable calculus teacher who had his PhD from NYU, and he once told me that he's never seen a high school student with greater skill or passion in mathematics. By the way, my scores were 560 CR, 670 M, 660 W. To call me a 'weaker student' is just ignorant... I'm just apathetic toward silly standardized tests.</p>
<p>I'm sorry but SAT scores are very important when measuring intelligence.
The higher your SAT score, the smarter you are. The higher your SAT score, the better educated you are. The higher the SAT scores are for the average students at a school, the better the school. So you should go to the school with the highest average SAT scores. You can rank schools according to SAT scores and the higher the ranking, the better the school. </p>
<p>If you go to a school with higher average SAT scores than other schools, you can be sure you are smarter and are getting a better education than those poor schlumps at the other schools. Even, if you personally did not get high SAT scores, but got into a school with top SAT scores because you are one of the best tiddly wink players in the world, you are now smarter and will be better educated than all those kids that go to schools with lower average SAT scores.</p>
<p>All through your life, people will ask you what your SAT score was. They will also ask what college you went to and what was the average SAT score at that college. If your SAT score is 20 points lower than another person, bow down and shine that other person's shoes because you are only worthy of picking up that other person's spit off the pavement with your tongue. Future employers, will not even look at you unless your SAT score equals the age of the company times 4 score and 8 1/2 days ago. </p>
<p>And high schoolers, here is a little secret. That first day of classes, you will be called into a doctor's office and your SAT scores will be tattoed on your butt for all eternity. Wear clean underwear.</p>
<p>EMM1,
The difference in student quality (relative numbers/percentages of statistically weaker students) did not seem noticeable between the two groups of colleges-scholarship vs non-scholarship. While the numbers are not detailed enough to be conclusive, it does appear that the recruited, scholarship athletes at the Division I colleges don’t have a large statistical impact on the student body. A lot of people take shots at the schools that offer scholarships and those student-athletes who get in before a higher scoring non-athlete. Maybe those shots should be aimed more at other classes of preferred admits. For this group of colleges at least, it looks like the athletes really are students just as much as they are at the non-scholarship colleges, including the Ivy colleges. </p>
<p>Gabriellah,
I chose the word “generally” in my last post specifically because of the Hopkins lacrosse program which is Division I and awards scholarships. To my knowledge, there are no other sports scholarships at Hopkins and none at any of the other referenced colleges either. By comparison, the Division I sports colleges offer large numbers of scholarships across a wide variety of men’s and women’s sports, but it looks like their quality of recruited athlete may not differ greatly from the rest of the student body.</p>
<p>Phuriku,
I think you make an excellent point and your and unalove’s stories are great inspiration for those who don’t have great “stats” but compellingly personal stories with less measurable positives. It would be interesting to see how admissions committees from school to school evaluate candidates like you and how much room they have to work in to accept the less traditional applicants.</p>