<p>go to page 9 of 24. I had no idea Williams had a legit "formula" going on for evaluations.</p>
<p>It's really kind of cool / interesting to see the statistics they have on the matriculation data </p>
<p>as well. Just seemed like a cool thing to share! </p>
<p>About two weeks away... yikes! Good luck to all!</p>
<p>Thank you for that link - it was really interesting!</p>
<p>That was really interesting, but now I’m just freaking out even more…haha.</p>
<p>Also - for some of those different groups (i.e. Academic 1, 2, 3, etc…), do you think that they’re holistic? As in, if you meet 3/4 of the criteria for one of the groups, but don’t meet one (SAT…haha), would you be dropped down a notch?</p>
<p>asjhkajshdkasjdhak I can’t take this anymore…only a week or two to go…</p>
<p>I saw from another website that they only take Academic 1s and 2s into consideration… And very little Academic 3s… </p>
<p>It’s kinda harsh, wouldn’t you say?! haha</p>
<p>They can be harsh, they’re Williams…</p>
<p>The one I found odd was the “score” for “applied for financial aid and denied.” It wasn’t clear what the “score” meant (good or bad or just an indicator), but if need blind, why score this at all? Or did I read that wrong?</p>
<p>I got an early write but only had a 3.7 UW GPA at an large, average school and a 1440 – was ranked 1 on my seven-semester transcript but only 13 on my six-semester transcript, which I’m pretty sure they got. My point: not being an Academic 1 (or even 2? I’m not sure which category I’m in) doesn’t seem to be a death sentence.</p>
<p>Ahh thanks courteau, makes me feel a bit better :)</p>
<p>Please keep in mind that this study is not about admissions decisions per se. It is about understanding which student’s matriculation decisions. The study necessarily has to discuss admissions decisions because the strength of the candidate in academic and non-academic ways is a major factor in predicting the likelihood of matriculation. Williams and other similar institutions need to understand their admissions decision upon yield. If they admit too many, they end up over enrolled, not good. If they admit too few, they have to draw heavily from the wait list and the overall quality of the incoming class may be diminished. Hence the statement, “it would be especially beneficial for selective colleges to have a rigorous way of predicting which admitted students will matriculate and which will not.”</p>
<p>As I read the study, he are the key points regarding admissions:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is quite clear that Williams refuses to engage in “Tufts Syndrome” to increase their yield numbers. They will not deny admission to a student just because there is a high likelihood that the student will matriculate elsewhere. This is a good thing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the context of this paper “significant” means statistically significant. These twin reasons can present something of a paradox. For example, legacy status makes a student more attractive to admissions officers, yet legacies are more likely to matriculate. Does an early write letter increase the chances that a legacy will choose Williams? If not, legacies may be far less likely to get an early write.</p>
<p>If a student gets does not get an early write letter he or she:
<p>I continue to believe that the best indicator of “will I get in” is the SAT score, for the sole reason that it is the most standardized criterion. It may not be what the admissions committee uses to make their decisions, but as a yardstick for determining chances, it tells us the most. I’m not just talking about Williams here but all schools. Consider</p>
<p>SAT ranges for academic ratings at Williams
1: 1520-1600
2: 1450-1520 (75th percentile = 1510)
3: 1390-1450 (50th percentile = 1410)
4: 1310-1390 (25th percentile = 1310)
5: 1260-1320
6: 1210-1280
7: 1140-1220
…</p>
<p>Note: the SAT ranges are for applicants and the percentiles are for enrolled, not admitted students. For all but a handful of colleges, the SAT percentiles for admitted students (usually not published) are higher than for enrolled students.</p>
<p>AR 1’s have SAT’s at or above the 75th percentile. AR 2’s are easily above the midpoint. AR 3’s are at or around the midpoint.</p>
<p>“Around 60% of the admitted students in the data set had academic ratings of one or
two.”</p>
<p>Basically if an applicant is closer to the 50th percentile than the 75th percentile he or she faces an uphill climb admissions wise at selective institutions. Obviously, many students are admitted with lesser credentials, but far more are not. For an applicant whose academics are not extraordinary something else about them needs to be extraordinary: sports, acting, music, leadership, service, etc. When it comes to chances it’s hard to be realistic without seeming to be harsh.</p>
<p>stan, which colleges? Somehow I can’t see this happening, where the SAT percentials are higher for enrolled students than admitted students.</p>
<p>“ote: the SAT ranges are for applicants and the percentiles are for enrolled, not admitted students. For all but a handful of colleges, the SAT percentiles for admitted students (usually not published) are higher than for enrolled students.”</p>
<p>Data for Colgate and Dartmouth. As I said numbers for admitted students are hard to find. I’d be glad to know of other institutions that make this data public.</p>
<p>Colgate - middle 50%
1320-1490 admitted <a href=“http://offices.colgate.edu/admission/faq/admfactsheet.pdf[/url]”>http://offices.colgate.edu/admission/faq/admfactsheet.pdf</a>
1270-1440 enrolled <a href=“http://www.colgate.edu/portaldata/////imagegallerywww/4156/ImageGallery/Common%20Data%20Set%202009-10.pdf[/url]”>http://www.colgate.edu/portaldata/////imagegallerywww/4156/ImageGallery/Common%20Data%20Set%202009-10.pdf</a> (see page 9)</p>
<p>Dartmouth - median SAT score
1490 admitted
1460 enrolled
<a href=“This Page Has Moved”>This Page Has Moved; (page 3)</p>
<p>Based upon these two schools, my guess is that Williams middle 50% for admitted students is about 1340-1540.</p>