<p>Yes.... I agree. Those numbers are
incredible. Unfortunately, the school
is small & in the shadows of Calf Tech
and MIT pertaining to government research
dollars</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It's not true (or not clear) that to be in the top 25% at Harvey Mudd you had to have V770+ and M800. The two scores are not perfectly correlated. Most of the 25%+ of the class with M800 are likely to have V<770, and most of the 25% of the class with V=/>770 will have M<800. Someone with V770+ and M800 is likely in the top 6-10% of the class by combined scores. (Which is plenty amazing.)</p></li>
<li><p>Is Harvey Mudd really a "liberal arts college"?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Yes, but isn't wonderful for a LAC to be compared to the best engineering schools in the country, and be able to overcome the "alleged" lack of governmental largesse by competing on the quality of education.</p>
<p>I heard that a few years back HMC was considered an engineering school. The college now feels that it embrasses more intrinstic fundamentals of a LAC than any other type of institution. </p>
<p>It makes a bit of sense to me to call it a LAC because of the approach to education there. The "liberal arts" are subjects that are studied for their own beauty and interests...so why can't the sciences be studied from that angle?</p>
<p>HMC is the top LAC for math/sciences and it benefits from being part of the Claremont Colleges. It makes sense, therefore that the median math scores of its students should be that high. There is usually a high correlation between high math scores and hig verbal scores but not the other way around.</p>
<p>( from the College board web site)
Reed College middle scores are - 660 to 760 V ( same as Carleton) and 620-710 M( identical to Oberlin & MHC)
These may be old as they seem similar to numbers several years ago
( but apparently Reed didn't make the top college list.... oh.. darn ;) )</p>
<p>I think Mudd is still a LAC, because of the affliation of the other schools and the approach and also because if you don't classify it as an LAC, what category can you put it in? It isn't a university</p>
<p>I don't understand why Reed and Barnard aren't on the list. Connecticut College certainly deserves respect, but scorewise it's maybe a tick below the schools on the list (except Trinity, and some of the women's colleges which is a little not comparable).</p>
<p>Huskem:
I think that Conn College's SAT optional policy hurts it in this regard; the scores you list are for the middle 50% 'of those who elect to submit scores'. I think the presumption is that those who do not submit SAT scores have scores well below the median. I do not know if that is true, but if it is, that is why it 'doesn't get the respect' it deserves. It is a great school, I had a close friend who just graduated.</p>
<p>SAT optional policies do not hurt the schools in this type of rankings -or the USNews rankings. Optional SAT policies are avenues for manipulation, and the schools using such policies should be listed separately, or even better, eliminated altogether from the rankings. </p>
<p>Check what happens to Middlebury when they had to cease reporting the scores as creatively as selectively. For the 2006 USNews (2004 scores), the school reported the 25% at 1380. In the list posted above, Middlebury is 620+640 or 1260. Did the applicants change? Nope, the reporting policy did. Maybe, for the 2008 edition, Middlebury might find it worthwhile to report the 75% percentile correctly.</p>
<p>I added Reed and Barnard (2005-2006 CDS) and ConnCollege (huskem's), averaged the four scores, and sorted by the average.</p>
<p>Middle 50% SAT Scores of Students
Entering The Top LACs in 2005</p>
<p>HarveyMudd V 670 760 M 760 800 avg 748
Amherst V 670 780 M 680 780 avg 728
Pomona V 690 770 M 690 760 avg 728
Swarthmore V 680 770 M 670 760 avg 720
Williams V 670 770 M 670 760 avg 718
Carleton V 660 760 M 660 740 avg 705
Bowdoin V 660 740 M 660 730 avg 698
Vassar V 680 730 M 660 720 avg 698
Wellesley V 660 750 M 650 730 avg 698
Wesleyan V 650 750 M 650 740 avg 698
ClaremontMcKenna V 630 760 M 640 750 avg 695
Grinnell V 640 750 M 640 750 avg 695
WashingtonAndLee V 660 730 M 660 720 avg 693
Haverford V 640 740 M 650 730 avg 690
Reed V 660 760 M 620 710 avg 688
Barnard V 650 740 M 640 710 avg 685
Oberlin V 650 750 M 620 710 avg 683
Davidson V 640 730 M 640 710 avg 680
Colby V 640 720 M 640 710 avg 678
Colgate V 630 710 M 650 720 avg 678
Hamilton V 630 720 M 640 720 avg 678
Macalester V 630 740 M 630 710 avg 678
Bates V 640 710 M 640 710 avg 675
Middlebury V 620 710 M 640 690 avg 665
ConnCollege V 630 700 M 620 690 avg 660
MountHolyoke V 620 710 M 610 690 avg 658
Trinity V 610 700 M 610 700 avg 655
BrynMawr V 620 720 M 590 680 avg 653
Smith V 580 710 M 570 670 avg 633</p>
<p>While certainly higher than those reported by the original poster, these ranges pale in comparison to the highly inflated ranges of:
V 690-750 and M 690-750 that the school reported last year. This is the first year that the school's common data set includes in its ranges the scores of all matriculants who took the SAT..not just those who chose to submit them for admissions purposes.</p>
<p>Midd's website states in the Student Profile that the mid-range of matriculated students is 1230-1400 (average 1315).</p>
<p>Part of selectivity is the percent of applicants admitted: the more applicants the better. It's simple. If SAT I's are optional, there will be more applicants. Many who would not bother applying to other top schools because their scores were below what would be required to be competitive might still think it worth a try at Middlebury if they were otherwise good applicants.</p>
<p>The quoted numbers speak volumes about Middlebury's care and concern for accuracy. It takes quite a bit of creativity to report a SAT score of ... 745! </p>
<p>It is obvious that Middlebury decided that upgrading its ranking in the USNews rankings was extremely important. The fact that the numbers are self reported and not audited was not lost in Vermont. My take is that the statistics reported by Middlebury for the 2007 edition are as verifiable as Enron's unaudited financial statements. </p>
<p>They simply cannot keep their own numbers straight! Shameful!</p>
<p>Xiggi, why do you think there is a discrepancy between the CDS figures and those quoted on the Midd website under Student Profile? Different years? I am perplexed. </p>
<p>Even more perplexed that Midd moved from 8th (which was generous) last year to 5th this year.</p>
<p>"The quoted numbers speak volumes about Middlebury's care and concern for accuracy. It takes quite a bit of creativity to report a SAT score of ... 745!"</p>
<p>If the 75% value landed between scores of 740 and 750, 745 might reasonably be reported. Midd might well choose accuracy (and even creativity!) over convention.</p>
<p>"as verifiable as Enron's unaudited financial statements"</p>
<p>No public company's unaudited financial statements are verifiable by outsiders.</p>
