Maybe Smith should follow Colgate’s new policy.

Colleges and Universities A-Z Smith College
41

<p>of course current students care about rankings! we're paying a ton of money for our education, we want a good return on it, and while we realize that we're gaining a bunch of amazing skills and experiences from our education, we also need to eat after we graduate. if employers and grad schools are going to judge alums based on college rankings (and I'm sure they will to a certain extent, at least until we build up a work history), then it would be good to have the highest ranking possible.</p>

<p>of course, most smithies don't want the college to sacrifice what they perceive to be the good things about smith just for higher rankings, and that's where it gets sticky. would it be better to close another dining hall and reroute the money to merit aid? i think so, but most of my friends don't. would it be better to focus on attracting students with high SAT scores even if it sacrificed diversity? some students have said yes, but i disagree. some professors have suggested capping classes at 19 to improve our "percentage of classes under 20 students" rating, but others have worried about the number of students who might get shut out of popular classes. </p>

<p>There are a million little things that can change the rankings and while it might be nice to one day say "I graduated from a top-10" college, I think really what most students want is for us to just stop declining.</p>

42

<p>{{{{I interpret the numbers on Midd's website to be for their enrolled class of 2009. That page is clearly labeled as the class profile for the group of students who enrolled in the fall of 2005.}}}</p>

<p>That was exactly how I interpreted it until I saw the <em>all</em> proclamation, which is why I called Midd and asked for an explanation. It was the admission officer who told me the US News numbers were correct and the webpage published numbers of every applicant</p>

<p>{{{Based on their USNEWS numbers, only 50% of the class chooses to have the SATIs considered }}</p>

<p>I wasn’t aware of the fact only 50% submitted SATs.
Was that published in the USnews ranking? I don't have a copy handy, as I read it in an airport mag store instead of buying it :)
According to the Collegeboard 78% submitted scores. The stats published this past Aug are for the class of 08 when SATs were required. Making SATs optional only started this year for the class of 09, and those stats will show up in the rankings next Aug.</p>

<p>{{but only count the top ones "considered for admissions" in the US News report}}</p>

<p>I still don’t understand where you got that idea? Are you saying only the SATs of students who were offered admission were included in the stats and not those that actually matriculated? If that is your proposition, how you did learn that fact? I’m not questioning your integrity; I’m simply curious how you find out this stuff.
A good friend of mine is a sr. admission officer at a top LAC and he didn’t know Midd was doing as you suggest.</p>

<p>In Midds defense, the admission officer said he really wished the rankings didn’t exist because they don’t tell the true story regarding any college. He had a point, but I’d love to see how he felt should Midd become # 4 or 5 again--lol</p>

<p>I named my daughter after a former Dean of Women. She would be furious with what is going on with all this cr**, if she were alive today.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
I wasn’t aware of the fact only 50% submitted SATs. Was that published in the USnews ranking?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yep. Here's the exact line cut 'n pasted from the USNEWS rankings:</p>

<p>"First-year students submitting SAT scores: 50%"</p>

<p>Note the word "submitting". That is the word Middlebury is playing games with. In their careful parsing, receiving SATs for a student from the College Board is not the same as a student "submitting" (or designating) them for consideration in admissions.</p>

<p>Here is Middlebury's precise language on "submitting" test scores with an application:</p>

<p>"Candidates must submit standardized tests in at least three areas of study. The requirement may be met by submitting either the ACT; or the SAT I administered on or after March 12, 2005; or three exams in different areas of study which may be selected, mixed and matched from either the SAT IIs, APs or International Baccalaureate exams."</p>

<p>
[quote]
I still don’t understand where you got that idea? Are you saying only the SATs of students who were offered admission were included in the stats and not those that actually matriculated?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm saying that the stats in USNEWS and the different stats in the Class Profile on the website are both for freshmen students who actually matriculated. </p>

<p>The lower stats from the Class Profile include all of the SATs scores Middlebury actually has on file for those students. The higher USNEWS stats are from the half of the matriculating class that chose to officially "submit" their SATs for consideration rather than their AP scores, IB scores, or whatever.</p>

<p>Not to mince words, but the numbers submitted to USNEWS are bogus on their face. The 25th percentile Middlebury supplies to USNEWS (1380) is the highest for a liberal arts college in the country. </p>

<p>The same as Harvey Mudd.
10 points higher than Pomona
20 points higher than Amherst
30 points higher than Swarthmore
50 points higher than Williams</p>

<p>And for good measure:</p>

<p>10 points higher than Princeton
10 points higher than Stanford
20 points higher than Dartmouth
50 points higher than Columbia, Duke, Penn, and Rice</p>

<p>I simply do not believe Middlebury's USNEWS numbers. They are not credible. All of the these other schools report SAT scores for essentially all of their matriculating students (95% or more).</p>

<p>BTW, SAT-optional Bowdoin reported a range of 1290 - 1460, based on 74% of their freshman submitting SAT scores. I don't believe that Bowdoin's 25% percentile is 90 points lower than Midd's. At the top end, Midd claims that 64% of their students had a math SAT above 700 compared to 46% at Bowdoin and virtually the same as Swarthmore's 66%. I don't buy it.</p>

44

<p>{{would it be better to close another dining hall and reroute the money to merit aid?}}</p>

<p>If you could buy your way to the top every college would be doing it. There's a reason the top LACs don't offer merit aid. One, they don't need to. Second, buying students actually hurts the ranking.</p>

<p>{{There are a million little things that can change the rankings}} </p>

<p>Ask every alumna to give a dollar. USNews doesn’t look at how much each alum gives, only what percent. If the alum giving percentage increased drastically it would help with the ranking.</p>

<p>{{some professors have suggested capping classes at 19 to improve our "percentage of classes under 20 }}</p>

<p>It's nice to see someone admit even the professors are concerned about the rankings.</p>

45

<p>{{I simply do not believe Middlebury's USNEWS numbers. They are not credible.}}</p>

<p>With the info you supplied, I agree. I wish USNews would get a bit more serious about how they report the stats. In the back of my mind I had a feeling you were correct. I've lurked for a long time and read many of your posts. You're not prone to mistakes. :) Sorry I couldn't get a grasp on this earlier. I read sophisticated business plans of start-up companies looking to raise private equity, but I get confused over the frggin inept reporting and the statistically dishonest figures of a magazine.</p>

46

<p>Oh, I make my share of mistakes! But, there is a degree of common sense in these admissions numbers. They have to pass the sniff test.</p>

<p>I think there is probably quite a bit of gamesmanship in reporting SAT scores to USNEWS, with selective non-reporting for small groups of "non-representative" students. For the most part, I think the schools at the top of the rankings are pretty honest.</p>

<p>I don't blame USNEWS. The Common Datat Set is very clear that ALL available SAT scores for ALL matriculating first year students should be included.</p>

47

<p>{{I think the schools at the top of the rankings are pretty honest.}}</p>

<p>Then the honest colleges should call Midd on their manipulations and level the playing field. Why should another student such as your daughter not apply to Midd b/c of misinformation? Everything worked out fine for her with her acceptance to Swath, but what about the next poor kid?</p>

48

<p>The irony is that the real loser in publishing inflated SAT numbers is the school itself. I don't know how other parents look at it, but I viewed lower selectivity as a POSITIVE when the goal is to get acceptance letters! Think how many great applicants with SATs in the 1400 range take a look at Middlebury's published numbers and figure they don't have a shot.</p>

<p>To me, the best admissions values are schools that have superb academics and attainable selectivity. How many great applicants would Smith lose if they jimmied their SAT numbers to publish a 1380 - 1500 median?</p>

<p>I think the entire system works best when there is a high degree of self-selection in the applicant pools -- students selecting colleges that they can actually get into and that are specific good fits. Accurate data is key to self-selection.</p>

49

<p>{{I think the entire system works best when there is a high degree of self-selection in the applicant pools }}</p>

<p>Commendable sentiment, but hope springs eternal. As long as applying is gratis and the commom app remains in use, students will continue to use the shotgun approach--ala Cheney. Take a shot at vast numbers of colleges, regardless that many may be an extreme reach, and you’re bound to hit one that will accept you.</p>

<p>{{How many great applicants would Smith lose if they jimmied their SAT numbers to publish a 1380 - 1500 median?}}}</p>

<p>The opposite effect might occur. Due to the perceived selectivity more students may apply. It certaintly would be an interesting experiment. Never mind they would be screwing numerous minority or low income students who couldn’t afford the SAT prep test. Or students that speak English as a second language, etc.</p>

<p>btw- why are you here? Glad to have you but you're a Swath guy :) Is it my charm or to irritate mini?</p>

50

<p>I have an in-law who was an alumni interviewer for many years, so Smith is in the family.</p>

<p>Also, I like most of what Mini and TheDad have to say about the college.</p>

51

<p>Most? Most?</p>

<p>Let me guess...except for the PC tinge?</p>

52

<p>I didn't have anything specific in mind! But, I couldn't let Mini know that I agree with everything and risk losing a sparring partner!</p>

53

<p>Well, foo.</p>

54

<p>{{I have an in-law who was an alumni interviewer }}}</p>

<p>I didn't realize Smith had male interviewers. Alumni refers to two or more males. Or did you mean alumna interviewer? I couldn’t resist. :)
Have no fear, it will but a short time that I screw up on something and I expect a fair retaliation.
I think I’m still ticked I didn’t instantly comprehend the Midd numbers game as you did and I felt foolish.</p>