<p>It is not speculative if it is supported by data. One merely needs to look at the number of kids scoring 2300+ on the SAT in 2004 (or was it out of 1600 then? I know it changed around then) and the number who score that now to see that YES, it did, in fact, go up.</p>
<p>I did thoroughly read your post, and I don’t see where you actually support any of your contentions.
- What evidence do you provide of it being significantly easier to score higher on the SAT today?
- How is it easier to get accepted today, when the acceptance rate is clearly lower?</p>
<p>
The whole point that I made is that you can’t just look at enrolled student pools, since those are already up against the upper bound. What should be looked at is the stats of applicants, which unfortunately aren’t readily available.</p>
<p>You are correct that we are both engaged in speculation, since obviously the same person won’t be applying both years. But, I offer you a summary of our speculations.
- You speculate that increased quantity of applications is due to an influx of underqualified applicants, such that qualified students are still accepted with the same regularity.
- I speculate that increased quantity of applications is due to an increased quantity of qualified applicants, such that rejections are more routinely (and subjectively) given to qualified applicants.
Which do you think is more reasonable? I don’t see why hordes of unqualified applicants would apply (indeed, admissions officers frequently reference the hordes of qualified applicants) to these schools. Indeed, we routinely see 2350 valedictorians with significant ECs getting rejected, when only a decade or two ago they would have been shoo-ins.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Great! Go ahead and try to compile data for the kids scoring above 2300? </p>
<p>For starters, I am not sure where you plan to find such numbers with a reasonable degree of accuracy. In addition, if TCB used to report numbers for above 700 and above 750, now it only breaks it down from 700 to 800. Accordingly, how do you plan to come up with data for 2300+ scorers, short of of speculating wildly. </p>
<p>And, even if you could come up with a relative accurate set of numbers that support an increase in high scoring students, it will only address a very small part of the qualifications of applicants.</p>
<p>Every year, College Board releases a list of exactly how many kids scored each grade on the SAT. So it’s quite easy, really. Just Google 2010’s list (the latest completed one, since 2011’s won’t be out for at least another month) and Google 2004’s list.</p>
<p>Again, YOU go ahead and do it!</p>
<p>I don’t need to, because I already know of it and know the facts it backs up. Since you made an entire argument you so ademately insisted was correct, without actually researching things like this well known list, perhaps you should take a look at it. I already know what it says.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not my argument. You wrote that all one needs to do is to “One merely needs to look at the number of kids scoring 2300+ on the SAT in 2004 (or was it out of 1600 then?” </p>
<p>Are you sure you have seen that well known list for … 2004?</p>
<p>Kameron, this was my post: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read your post. Simply reposting it does nothing for your argument.</p>
<p>
You say there is ample evidence yet provide no such evidence. How can you possibly pretend that they stand a better chance when, according to your own data, the acceptance rate has decreased?</p>
<p>
Please show me something which proves obtaining a 1600 is easier today than in 2000.</p>
<p>Since this seems to be your excuse for argumentation, I’ll offer my post again. If you actually want to have a reasonably debate, please respond to my contentions.
</p>
<p>I copied my earlier post because my point was clear. But here we go again:</p>
<ol>
<li>A student would stand a BETTER chance in 2010 than in 2000. Why? There are more spots open at Princeton: </li>
</ol>
<p>Ten years ago, there were 1677 admitted students, in 2010 that number was 2301. We are measuring the chance of the SAME hypothetical student for the available spots in the different years. This is different from measuring the admission percentages of the entire pool for those same spots. This is not a randomized lottery. </p>
<ol>
<li>Obtaining a 2360 score has become easier</li>
</ol>
<p>Aren’t people making the point that there are more students who scored higher in 2000 than in 2010? :)</p>
<p>My argument was that there are a lot more “tools” available to increase a score in 2011 than there were in 2000. Some of those “tools” are available here at no cost. The explosion of web “tools” has allowed more than one student to experience released questions. Legally in most places. Illegaly in others.</p>
<p>On the issue of SAT scores, I have shown the trivial changes in the enrolled pool. </p>
<p>I am not sure where the “significant” you quoted came from.</p>
<p>
But there’s significantly more competition for those spots. In what way do you address that point?</p>
<p>
Okay, well I think that’s a good point. I certainly have appreciated these online tools (including yours… thanks!) and the equalizing effect they have.</p>
<p>Still, that doesn’t address the fact that there is significantly more competition for a slightly inceased number of seats. Obviously, it has become more difficult to gain admission as you’re dealing with a larger number of qualified competitors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will try to address it this way. </p>
<p>Remember that my point was not about an entire class but about the same single student in two different years, as I followed your example. The first point to consider is that the number of applicants does not change the qualifications of the student. In this case, this student was identified as having a 2360 SAT score. </p>
<p>Using the (imperfect) datapoint provided by the College Board, let’s measure how large the pool of 2360+ student is. So we will use the 2011 College Bound report. </p>
<p><a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-W-2011.pdf[/url]”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-W-2011.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Assuming that the number is around 2,000 (after adding a number of superscored 2360) we can proceed to evaluate the impact of this number on a pool of 10,000 versus 20,000 applicants. In this case, assuming that every high scoring student in the national pool applies to Princeton, the percentage would still be the top 10 or 20 percent of the entire class. </p>
<p>Now, let us assume that the same 2,000 are admitted at a fifty percent rate. This means that 1,000 would be admitted. The same 1,000 would be admitted if the applicant pool was 10,000 or 20,000 as we have established that they represent the top scorer in the entire nation. There are NO better students (SAT speaking that is.) It really is not important if the rest of the applicant pool is 8,000 or 18,000 strong. </p>
<p>The last element is to see how this group of 1,000 fares in an enrolled class of 1700 versus 2300. The odds of being part of a larger enrolled class are simply better. </p>
<p>PS Obviously, the admission percentage of 50 percent for a 2360 scorer is speculative. Very little information is available for students in that range. However, some recent information about Yale students (Class of 2015) indicates that students who score above 700 on the Math and Verbal sections are admitted at a 11 to 12 percent rate. The rate for students who score between 600 and 699 is about 4.8 percent. For below 600, the rate is between 1.2 and 1.5 percent.</p>
<p>However, the size of the rest of the pool <em>does</em> have an effect, because clearly admissions officers look at them when evaluating. They don’t simply look at the top set of SAT scorers and take half of them, regardless of the rest of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>So, let’s take a different approach and consider that Princeton will choose to build its class out of the top 25% of applicants, however that group is composed/determined.</p>
<p>If there are 10,000 applicants, that group is 2,500 students. Let’s also assume that all of our SAT high scorers are in that cohort, along with a number of other high-quality applicants. Since there were 1677 spots open in 2000, if I am in the top quartile of applicants (due to SAT or other characteristics), I have a 67% chance of acceptance.</p>
<p>Now, let’s say we now have 20,000 applicants. Still taking the top quartile, that group would be 5,000 students (including 2,000 top SAT scorers). To find the modern acceptance pool of 2301 students, we could only take 46% of the upper quartile—thus, a significant decrease in difficulty of admission for even top students (as defined by SAT and other metrics).</p>
<p>The simple truth is that more applicants means more competition and more competition means greater difficulty of admission. There’s not really any way around that.</p>
<p>If you score 2300 - 2400, you have a 21.5% chance of being admitted to Princeton, 2.6 times better than the average admit rate.</p>
<p>[Princeton</a> University | Admission Statistics](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/]Princeton”>http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/)</p>
<p>Quote:
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied 7,476 13430
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied 6,812 12817</p>
<p>Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted 854 1172
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted 823 1139
Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) men who enrolled 614 662
Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) women who enrolled 571 650</p>
<p>Number of wait-listed students admitted 0 - 164
SAT I Verbal 680 770 - 690 790
SAT I Math 700 793 - 710 790</p>
<p>Alright, here’s my analysis of this:
We obviously have more applicants. But why?
Well you see that the number of admitted students has gone up as well (not quite the same rate, though). And yet number enrolled has stayed stagnant. This means more people are TURNING DOWN Princeton (this was Princeton stats, right?). This tells me that people are just applying to more schools because they can turn Princeton down. Explanation? Online applications has made this easier.
On the other hand, scores HAVE gone up. Don’t try to say that 680-770 and 700-790 turning, in ten years, to 690-790 and 710-790 is trivial. A ten point increase on each section , when the scores are that high, in a pool of over 600 students, is very significant. When you have a sample size that big, any increase is noteworthy.
And number of wait-listed students? That’s telling me two things. First, applicants have gotten good enough that even waitlisted ones meet qualifications. But on the other hand, waitlisted acceptances means more people who were accepted normally have declined enrollment, because they’re going to other schools.</p>
<p>In the end, both arguments are right, you can interpret this however you want. Applicants are getting better but they’re also applying to more schools. Both factors are decreasing acceptance rates. Get over yourselves :P</p>
<p>@texaspg
What if the student has a super low GPA and a stellar SAT score??? For a school like Princeton, a 2300-2400 is on the applications of about 75% of applicants! Simply getting a stellar SAT like that does make you more noticeable…but I cannot fathom how your chances then shoot up to 21.5%! Wow!
NOTE: I’m not disagreeing with your post; I am merely suprised at this fact. :D</p>
<p>According to the table posted by Xiggi in 53, there are 7,219 in the pool between 2300 to 2400 altogether. So Princeton receiving over 21k applications (75%) with those scores is moot. At the same time, I also suspect the number applying is probably less than 3000 since they have an overall admit rate of only 8.5% compared 21.5% for this range and the average has to come down drastically for this to occur.</p>
<p>The point is that 78.5% of kids with a score between 2300 and 2400 are being turned down in order to admit kids who score below that, in some cases as low as 1700-1890.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are confusing causation and correlation. Getting between a 2300-2400 doesn’t mean you have a better chance because of that. It just means that 1/5 of the admitted students have that score. The more likely explanation is that kids with those scores usually have good grades and ECs, etc to go along with them.</p>
<p>
You should see the scores of some of their recruited athletes. It kind of sickens me.</p>
<p>I remember when a 1600 was an auto-Ivy material while I was growing up. The new SAT is less of a “logic/IQ” test and moreso a test of “HS Skill”…this simply means that you can study like a fool for it…thus an increase in overall scores in the recent years.
The former SAT was like an IQ/Skills test…you only got a perfect or near perfect score if you were a genius, pretty objective for a college admittance office. I got my SAT I score from a 2050 to a 2350 in just about 2 months time. Granted I am a smart person(not being arrogant, but I have felt this way since I was young), I was able to quickly learn about the test questions and beat them. But I feel like anyone can do well on them if they try hard enough. Makes things pretty subjective to an admission office if they can’t tell if a 2300 is a try hard or a genius.
Also, GPA inflation in RAMPANT. My school offers Acc. Music and Art classes. These classes are weighted(boosting class rank) and they are easy A’s. Also, there are a ton of people in my AP classes this year, people who couldn’t tell me the name of the VP of the United States. GPA is boosted to account for these individuals who would otherwise fail(they get like 1s and 2s on the AP test). This happens everywhere, especially in the northeast where everyone (including average and below average students), are expected to take AP and Acc. classes that are meant for the top students to showcase their abilities.</p>
<p>
Not really. They might be “more” likely, but with acceptance rates still sub-20% at top colleges (even for ED), more likely that they’ll be deferred. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of applicants have “matching” credentials. At my school, everyone who applied early to top schools was deferred, despite very impressive credentials (2100+ SAT scores, with grades/ECs to match).</p>