Looking at selectivity from the bottom up

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Oftentimes CC focuses on the top students at a college and tries to compare student body strength based on this. How about looking at this from another angle, ie, from the bottom up? </p>

<p>To do this, I collected data on the % of students scoring below 600 on the SAT Critical Reading and the SAT Math, and below 30 on the ACT Composite. Beyond revealing the depth of overall student body strength, one additional benefit of this approach is that USNWR does NOT rank based on this metric and thus charges of institutional gameplaying would not apply. </p>

<p>Using Peterson's (which already has data for the Fall, 2008 entering class), I researched data on over 100 highly ranked colleges (USNWR Top 70 National Universities and USWNR Top 35 LACs). Here is how they compared:</p>

<p>% of students scoring below 30 on the ACT , School</p>

<p>0% , Harvey Mudd
1% , Caltech
8% , Wash U</p>

<p>11% , Princeton
16% , MIT
17% , Notre Dame
18% , Vanderbilt</p>

<p>20% , Pomona
22% , Wesleyan
23% , Stanford
25% , U Penn
25% , Emory
27% , Columbia
27% , Dartmouth
27% , Northwestern
28% , Duke
28% , Amherst
28% , Vassar
29% , Rice</p>

<p>31% , Cornell
31% , Johns Hopkins
31% , Williams
31% , Bowdoin
32% , U Chicago
32% , Carleton
33% , Carnegie Mellon
34% , Brown
34% , Swarthmore
37% , USC
37% , Grinnell
38% , Boston Coll
38% , Colgate
39% , Brandeis
39% , Davidson
39% , Macalester</p>

<p>41% , Wellesley
42% , W&M
42% , W&L
44% , Barnard
45% , Scripps
46% , Tulane
46% , Kenyon
47% , Oberlin
48% , Colby </p>

<p>50% , Colorado College
52% , Case Western
53% , U Virginia
55% , NYU
56% , U Michigan
56% , Bryn Mawr
57% , U Rochester
58% , Wake Forest
58% , U Miami
58% , Bucknell</p>

<p>60% , Mt. Holyoke
61% , UCLA
61% , US Military Acad
62% , U North Carolina
62% , Georgia Tech
64% , U Illinois
65% , U Wisconsin
67% , Pepperdine
67% , U Richmond</p>

<p>70% , U Florida
71% , UCSD
71% , Smith
72% , U Pittsburgh
72% , SMU
73% , U Texas
73% , Clemson
74% , Boston University
74% , Trinity (CT)
75% , George Washington
75% , Ohio State
77% , Rensselaer
79% , U Washington
79% , U Minnesota</p>

<p>80% , U Georgia
80% , Texas A&M
80% , Purdue
80% , Lafayette
81% , Fordham
81% , Miami U (OH)
82% , UC Santa Barbara
87% , UC Davis
87% , U Conn
87% , U Iowa</p>

<p>na , Yale
na , UC Berkeley
na , Georgetown
na , Tufts
na , Lehigh
na , UC Irvine
na , Penn State
na , Syracuse
na , U Maryland
na , Rutgers
na , Harvard
na , Yeshiva
na , Middlebury
na , Haverford
na , Claremont McK
na , Hamilton
na , US Naval Acad
na , Bates
na , Holy Cross</p>

<p>% of students scoring below 600 on the SAT Critical Reading , School</p>

<p>1% , Caltech
2% , Princeton
2% , Yale
2% , Wash U
3% , W&L
4% , Swarthmore
4% , Harvey Mudd
5% , Northwestern
5% , Pomona
5% , Vassar
6% , Columbia
6% , Tufts
6% , Amherst
7% , U Penn
7% , Emory
7% , Williams
7% , Bowdoin
8% , Stanford
8% , Duke
8% , Notre Dame
8% , Carleton
8% , Claremont McK
8% , Hamilton
9% , U Chicago
9% , Dartmouth
9% , Vanderbilt
9% , Wellesley</p>

<p>10% , MIT
10% , Brown
10% , Tulane
10% , Haverford
10% , Colby
10% , Barnard
10% , Scripps
11% , Georgetown
11% , Brandeis
11% , Oberlin
12% , Johns Hopkins
12% , Rice
12% , Davidson
12% , Kenyon
13% , Wesleyan
13% , Macalester
14% , Cornell
14% , Bates
15% , USC
15% , NYU
15% , Colorado College
16% , Carnegie Mellon
16% , W&M
16% , Middlebury
16% , Colgate
17% , Bryn Mawr
17% , Mt. Holyoke
18% , Wake Forest
19% , Boston Coll</p>

<p>20% , Grinnell
22% , U Virginia
23% , Rensselaer
24% , Bucknell
25% , U North Carolina
25% , Smith
26% , Georgia Tech
26% , Lehigh
27% , Case Western
27% , George Washington
27% , Trinity (CT)
28% , UC Berkeley
28% , U Michigan
28% , U Rochester
28% , U Richmond
28% , Holy Cross
29% , U Miami</p>

<p>33% , UCLA
33% , Boston University
34% , U Maryland
34% , US Military Acad
34% , Lafayette
35% , U Florida
37% , U Pittsburgh
37% , US Naval Acad
38% , Fordham</p>

<p>41% , Pepperdine
42% , U Wisconsin
42% , U Illinois
42% , U Georgia
42% , SMU
44% , UCSD
45% , U Texas
45% , U Minnesota
49% , UC Santa Barbara
49% , Ohio State
49% , Clemson</p>

<p>52% , U Washington
54% , U Iowa
55% , U Conn
56% , Miami U (OH)
57% , Rutgers
57% , Texas A&M
58% , Penn State
59% , UC Davis</p>

<p>60% , UC Irvine
62% , Syracuse</p>

<p>70% , Purdue</p>

<p>na , Harvard
na , Yeshiva</p>

<p>% of students scoring below 600 on the SAT Math , School</p>

<p>0% , Caltech
0% , Harvey Mudd
1% , MIT
1% , Wash U
2% , Princeton
2% , Yale
3% , W&L
4% , Columbia
4% , Northwestern
4% , Notre Dame
4% , Rensselaer
4% , Pomona
5% , Stanford
5% , U Penn
5% , Emory
5% , Vanderbilt
5% , Tufts
5% , Georgia Tech
5% , Vassar
6% , Duke
7% , Dartmouth
7% , Cornell
7% , Brown
7% , Hamilton
8% , Johns Hopkins
8% , Carnegie Mellon
8% , Colby
9% , Georgetown
9% , USC
9% , Brandeis
9% , Amherst
9% , Williams
9% , Swarthmore
9% , Carleton
9% , Claremont McK</p>

<p>10% , Bowdoin
10% , Davidson
10% , Wesleyan
11% , U Chicago
11% , Bucknell
12% , Lehigh
12% , Middlebury
12% , Haverford
13% , Wake Forest
13% , Boston Coll
13% , Wellesley
13% , Colgate
13% , Bates
13% , Macalester
14% , U Michigan
15% , NYU
15% , U Rochester
15% , U Illinois
16% , Rice
16% , Case Western
16% , Grinnell
16% , Oberlin
17% , UC Berkeley
17% , U Virginia
17% , W&M
17% , U Wisconsin
17% , Kenyon
18% , U North Carolina
18% , Barnard
18% , Scripps
19% , Colorado College</p>

<p>20% , U Miami
20% , Lafayette
21% , US Military Acad
22% , UCSD
22% , George Washington
23% , US Naval Acad
23% , Holy Cross
24% , UCLA
24% , U Maryland
24% , Trinity (CT)
25% , Boston University
26% , Tulane
26% , U Richmond
27% , U Florida
27% , Mt. Holyoke
28% , U Pittsburgh
29% , Clemson
29% , SMU</p>

<p>30% , Ohio State
30% , U Minnesota
32% , Bryn Mawr
33% , U Texas
37% , UC Irvine
37% , Pepperdine
38% , Penn State
38% , U Georgia
39% , U Conn
39% , U Iowa</p>

<p>40% , U Washington
40% , Rutgers
40% , Texas A&M
41% , Smith
42% , Fordham
42% , Miami U (OH)
43% , UC Davis
44% , UC Santa Barbara
46% , Syracuse</p>

<p>50% , Purdue</p>

<p>na , Harvard
na , Yeshiva</p>

2

<p>The ACT stats seem really fishy to me. 0% harvey mudd? and 41% , Wellesley, 42% , W&M, 42% , W&L, 44% , Barnard, 45% , Scripps, 47% , Oberlin, 48% Colby all seem really high</p>

3

<p>I double-checked a couple of these on Petersons. Unless their data is wrong, I think that these numbers are accurate. Part of the issue could be that some of these colleges have relatively few students submitting ACT scores and thus their distribution may be a bit different than the larger mass of scores for their SAT scores. This is probably the case with the LACs that you mention.</p>

4

<p>Hawkette,</p>

<p>Thanks for the effort. I do buy into both the approach and significance. To what extent, I’m not immediately sure of but I think that classes generally move only as fast as their weakest students. It’s not just the ‘clarifying questions’ it is also how well students grasp the material so that truly interesting and rewarding discussions about the material may take place.</p>

5

<p>ct,
Thanks for your comment. With the recent news about efforts at Clemson to raise their USNWR rankings, many have used this as an opportunity to bash the rankings and the data that they draw from. I think that this is wrong as consumers and other college stakeholders need ways to compare and contrast colleges and the data isn’t so far off as to discredit the whole thing. </p>

<p>I am a big believer that the quality of one’s student peers is a critical element of the undergraduate experience (along with class size, quality of instruction and institutional resources/willingness to spend for undergrads). As a result, I thought that the selectivity data as measured by a certain % of the student body scoring above or below a certain modest threshold could be an effective and uncontroversial way to compare student bodies. Also, given that such a measurement escapes the taint that some have tried to attach to USWNR ranking variables, its usefulness is even greater. </p>

<p>I did one additional measurement. I added the numbers for students scoring under 600 on the Critical Reading segment and for students scoring under 600 on the Math segment. IMO, the groupings that result are probably the best representation of selectivity at these 100+ colleges. Perhaps one could argue for an individual college to move up one group or be pushed down one group, but rarely more than that. For those who like tier measurements, I don’t think that these aren’t too far off in judging the quality of the various student bodies. </p>

<p>% of students who scored below 600 on the CR section AND % of students who scored below 600 on Math , School</p>

<p>1% , Caltech
3% , Wash U
4% , Princeton
4% , Yale
4% , Harvey Mudd
6% , W&L
9% , Northwestern
9% , Pomona</p>

<p>10% , Columbia
10% , Vassar
11% , MIT
11% , Tufts
12% , U Penn
12% , Emory
12% , Notre Dame
13% , Stanford
13% , Swarthmore
14% , Duke
14% , Vanderbilt
15% , Amherst
15% , Hamilton
16% , Dartmouth
16% , Williams
17% , Brown
17% , Bowdoin
17% , Carleton
17% , Claremont McK
18% , Colby </p>

<p>20% , U Chicago
20% , Johns Hopkins
20% , Georgetown
20% , Brandeis
21% , Cornell
22% , Wellesley
22% , Davidson
22% , Haverford
23% , Wesleyan
24% , Carnegie Mellon
24% , USC
26% , Macalester
27% , Rensselaer
27% , Oberlin
27% , Bates
28% , Rice
28% , Middlebury
28% , Barnard
28% , Scripps
29% , Colgate
29% , Kenyon
30% , NYU</p>

<p>31% , Wake Forest
31% , Georgia Tech
32% , Boston Coll
33% , W&M
34% , Colorado College
35% , Bucknell
36% , Tulane
36% , Grinnell
38% , Lehigh
39% , U Virginia</p>

<p>42% , U Michigan
43% , U North Carolina
43% , U Rochester
43% , Case Western
44% , Mt. Holyoke
45% , UC Berkeley
49% , U Miami
49% , George Washington
49% , Bryn Mawr</p>

<p>51% , Trinity (CT)
51% , Holy Cross
54% , U Richmond
54% , Lafayette
55% , US Military Acad
57% , UCLA
57% , U Illinois
58% , U Maryland
58% , Boston University
59% , U Wisconsin</p>

<p>60% , US Naval Acad
62% , U Florida
65% , U Pittsburgh
66% , UCSD
66% , Smith</p>

<p>71% , SMU
75% , U Minnesota
78% , U Texas
78% , Pepperdine
78% , Clemson
79% , Ohio State</p>

<p>80% , U Georgia
80% , Fordham</p>

<p>92% , U Washington
93% , UC Santa Barbara
93% , U Iowa
94% , U Conn
96% , Penn State
97% , UC Irvine
97% , Rutgers
97% , Texas A&M
98% , Miami U (OH)</p>

<p>102% , UC Davis
108% , Syracuse
120% , Purdue</p>

<p>na , Harvard
na , Yeshiva</p>

6

<br>

<br>

<p>I like this rating. However, it is worth remembering that the only purpose of this metric is to measure the “quality” of the student body as a whole. I am not convinced that this really matters at most schools, since any group of 500 or more will generally break up into smaller groups of similar people.</p>

7

<p>Am I stupid or looking at something the wrong way: How can any school be above 100% for students who scored below 600 on both math and verbal???</p>

8

<p>Why do you keep doing this? The strength of a school is determined by so much more than its selectivity, and selectivity is determined by a lot besides just test scores. No, I don’t buy that the quality of one’s student body is effectively measured by some arbitrary cut-off point in the ACT and that you can effectively compare student bodies by comparing how well their students did on the ACT – especially since the ACT only correlates to first-year grades, not anything beyond that. Once you get into your sophomore year, what you scored on a college entrance exam ceases to matter.</p>

<p>By this measure you’re saying that the students at Stanford are qualitatively better than the students at Cornell, Williams, Bowdoin, Brown, Swarthmore…which I just don’t think is a judgment you can make based SOLELY on the factor of ACT scores.</p>

<p>Also, in your last post…how over 100% of the students score below a threshold?</p>

<p>In sum, you can’t judge the quality of the student body at a college based on one selectivity factor that becomes basically meaningless after the freshman year. A much, much better judgment of student body quality is looking at the kinds of things that students – in freshman year and beyond – are doing at the school. Are they engaged in research? Are they getting top internships? Are they getting good jobs in food fields after graduation? Those are much more important than a single score on a test you take one day in high school.</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>No, you’re not stupid at all, it’s just the sum of the percentages of both verbal and math on the SAT. So, it’s not that 57 percent of UCLA students scored below 600 on both verbal and math, it’s just that 33 percent scored below 600 on verbal and 24 percent scored below on math equaling 57. Thus, without actual test results for each person AND what they did on both tests, nothing specific can be concluded. At one extreme, it is possible that within the 36 percent with the low verbal scores (as a group) accounted for ALL of the low math scores. In that extreme, UCLA’s percentage of students that scored below 600 on BOTH tests would be 24 percent. At the other extreme it is possible that NONE of the 36 percent of verbal low scorers accounted for ANY of the low 24 percent of math scores where the percent of students that scored less than 600 on BOTH tests would be 0. Obviously the truth is somewhere between the two extremes. Hawkette applied neither. He simply added the percentages. And as long as the same methodology has been applied to all schools, it really doesn’t matter. That is as long as one does not make anything more out of the number than what it is.</p>

10

<p>One clear problem with this metric is that some of the schools are D1 and have to deal with attracting top college athletes that are also fairly smart (but not at the academic caliber to receive a 30+ on the ACT or 600+ on SAT). Schools like Caltech, Harvey Mudd, and others don’t have that problem. Schools like Stanford, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Cal, Duke, and even MIT, Princeton, and other ivies do have that problem.</p>

<p>This problem is not as pronounced in the 25-75 percent range, as there are not 25+ percent plus athletes at most D1 schools (I think)</p>

11

<p>when combining probability/percentages like AND you’re supposed to multiply not add. Adding is for Either below one OR the other</p>

12

<p>Wow, Hawkette’s existence is pretty sad.</p>

13

<p>Can somebody explain to me why a school with thousands of courses is not going to be challenging if there are students at the school with ACT scores below 30?</p>

<p>If I’m a math major, why do I care if other students score below 30 on the math portion of the ACT? They are not going to be in my math classes. Maybe they bring something else to the table besides math scores. Maybe they are even smarter than me in other areas. I might be able to learn from them. :eek:.</p>

14

<p>“Wow, Hawkette’s existence is pretty sad.”</p>

<p>It really is.</p>

<p>I don’t know what’s worse…her and her posts… or people like me who respond to her nonsense. :)</p>

<p>Luckily, I’m watching the Stanley Cup Finals while I type. :slight_smile: It’s amazing those two teams are in the finals. Those cities, Pittsburgh and Detroit, are not the most economically thriving cities in the league. You would think that would hold the teams back. I’m amazed anybody is at the game. Percentage wise, the average citizen who lives in Detroit is really in trouble. I think the average citizen in Detroit couldn’t afford to go to the game. Therefore, nobody could. ;)</p>

15

<p>She’s trying to be helpful.</p>

<p>Attack the SAT’s failure to properly gauge human intelligence (and the failure of anyone who believes that it actually does it well), not Hawkette.</p>

16

<p>No she’s not. ;)</p>

17

<p>

The issue is more than the inadequacy of the SATs as an assessment. Hawkette’s whole premise that the “intelligence” (as measured by the SATs) of a school’s entire population matters greatly is, in my opinion, fraught with doubt. It may make sense in the case of very small liberal arts colleges, but it is quite unlikely that a potential applicant to a school with over 1000 students will come into regular, personal contact with every single student at their university.</p>

<p>I’ve already said that I like this alternate viewpoint, simply because it is an interesting attribute to measure. However, that does not make it a valid tool for use in college selection.</p>

18

<p>Hey, i’m watching the game too! Not a huge hockey fan, but I figured since it’s a game seven, i might as well. BTW I’m rooting for Pittsburgh. When I was a hockey fan in the day, I was taught to root against Detroit. </p>

<p>And I don’t find it surprising that the stadium is fall. Detroit is a major city, with probably some suburbs around it. And there are probably people who flew in to see the game.</p>

19

<p>It’s a pretty good game. The speed is incredible.</p>

<p>I thought Michigan and Detroit were under water. They probably gave the tickets away. :)</p>

<p>It’s like financial aid, without the loans. :)</p>

20

<p>Yeah, it is. And when I do watch hockey, I find it entertaining. Just a lot of action in a short amount of time.</p>