<p>You folks have been clamoring for Middlebury to report the scores of all matriculating students for years now. They've done that the past 2 years, and for the first time this year, these scores are reported in U.S. News. I'm sorry that you were hoping that Middlebury would fall in the rankings because of this, but the opposite happened, mainly for other reasons (faculty resources, financial resources, alumni giving all rose dramatically). Why all the hate for Midd?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Vossron, thank you for comments. However, before offering a rebuttal for the mere sake of offering one, you might try to do engage in a bit of fact finding, and understanding what is being discussed. I hope you realize that the 25% and 75% are PERCENTILES expressing the MEDIAN score, not the average score. In so many words, since students can only earn scores expressed in units of ten, a score of 745 is absolutely, entirely impossible. Do not take my word for it, check your copy of the USNews and try locating another SAT Median score expressed with a digit unit. The fact that you might not understand this is understable, the fact that Middlebury and, obviously USNEws, used such scores is a total different matter. </p>
<p>As far as the statement about unaudited numbers, I am certain that you fully understood what was meant. And by the way, aren't there thousands of comoanies that report their income with unaudited financials, and are yet subject to the scrutiny of others, starting with the IRS? Aren't smaller businessess not expected to be honest and truthful?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You folks have been clamoring for Middlebury to report the scores of all matriculating students for years now. They've done that the past 2 years, and for the first time this year, these scores are reported in U.S. News. I'm sorry that you were hoping that Middlebury would fall in the rankings because of this, but the opposite happened, mainly for other reasons (faculty resources, financial resources, alumni giving all rose dramatically). Why all the hate for Midd?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Arcardia, there is no hate for Middlebury, but a strong questioning of Middlebury apparent disdain for consistent and ... truthful reporting of their statistics. To the outsider, it is quite evident that Midd did not enjoy its elevator ride in the past years, and wanted to maxixmize its rankings. You are correct that "people" would be clamoring for Middlebury to report their scores in a matter more consistent to the other schools. It is blatanlly obvious that this was justifiable in the case of Middlebury: the changes caused the reported 25% score to plumet by 120 points. Was this prompted by a renewed sense of integrity or justice, or was this prompted by a close analysis of the methodology used by USNEws that actually reward a LOWER score by compensating with a lower expected graduation rate? Based on Middlebury's prior reliance on smoke and mirrors, I do not put any value in their decision to join the group of schools that are not deliberately misleading the public. </p>
<p>As far as the changes that caused Middlebury to jump to the 5th position, I strongly believe that the improvements are as verifiable and truthful as the numbers Midd has reported for years, and that says it all. Did the faculty resources, financial resources, alumni giving really rise dramatically, or were the numbers reported differently and ... creatively a la Midd?</p>
<p>"Was this prompted by a renewed sense of integrity or justice..."</p>
<p>No, it was prompted by a new director of admissions, who came to Middlebury from Harvard. </p>
<p>xiggi--do you mind if i ask you what your alma mater is? I'm sure I could figure it out by sorting through your old posts, but i thought I'd ask first.</p>
<p>Arcadia, although I very rarely discuss the school I attend, you could indeed find it in my posts: it is Claremont McKenna. </p>
<p>As far as the reporting changes, would they not be directed by the office of Institutional Research, and persons such as Becky Brodigan or Jane Kimble?</p>
<p>
[quote]
not sure where those middlebury numbers came from
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The numbers I posted came from
The U.S. Dept. of Education's web site
<a href="http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/%5B/url%5D">http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/</a></p>
<p>Interesting.... 3 different sources of
numbers & 3 different set of numbers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The above stats remind me of a song entitled
"Momma, Don't Let Your Son Grow Up to be a Cowboy"
in that an anology could be made with a title such as
"Momma, Don't Let Your Son Grow Up to get a 1300 SAT."</p>
<p>The average of the middle 50% SAT Scores of Students
Entering The Top LACs in 2005 is 1292 - 1464, or a
composite SAT score of 1378.</p>
<p>A 1300 SAT score just may not lasso in
a top branded school.</p>
<p>Admissions numbers for the CDS are compiled by the office of admissions and sent to institutional research. Clagett has ultimate responsibility for these numbers.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>A 1300 SAT score just may not lasso in a top branded school.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>So true--it looks like it'll take at least a 1400 to keep you competitive in the pool without a special hook.</p>
<p>Some schools are looking less at SAT scores and more at the whole package-
I dont know what % of SAT scores were reported at MHC for example, but at MHC they are optional, and while my daughters averaged scores, were closer to Smiths average of 633 ( not counting her SAT writing score), her schools average median( @ Reed) was 50 pts higher.</p>
<p>Since they were need aware, not need blind & since she needed ( & recieved) a generous aid package to attend, I assume that they they are considering other criteria besides SATs when they determine admittance.</p>
<p>EK--her hook was that she was your D!</p>
<p>lol appreciate the compliment- but we didn't find CC till after she was in college- so my notoriety probably wasn't her hook ;)</p>
<p>xiggi: "you might try to do engage in a bit of fact finding"</p>
<p>Good idea. I have asked Ms. Brodigan and Kimble for the origin of 745; no reply yet.</p>
<p>"I hope you realize that the 25% and 75% are PERCENTILES"</p>
<p>Yes, I think we all know what a percentile is; that's why I wrote "value" instead. A quick Google search shows many reports of "average" SAT values ending in non-zero digits. I'm just guessing that Midd did something like this to come up with 745; I hope they'll say how they did it (some schools' IR directors have been known to respond to questions, even mine).</p>
<p>"aren't there thousands of comoanies that report their income with unaudited financials, and are yet subject to the scrutiny of others, starting with the IRS?"</p>
<p>For public companies like Enron (indeed a good example), unaudited quarterly financials are typically not scrutinized by outsiders, not even by the IRS; the yearly audited numbers are indeed closely watched.</p>
<p>"Aren't smaller businessess not expected to be honest and truthful?"</p>
<p>I really don't know what people expect these days. As a naive optimist, I do expect colleges to be so. For now, I'll give Midd the benefit of the doubt, and not assume that 745 is dishonest; if it had been reported as 740 or 750, we wouldn't be using up bandwidth over it!</p>
<p>If a class had 801 students, and #200 had a 750 score, and #201 had a 740 score, I could see reporting the 75th percentile as 745, without feeling that it was a lie.</p>
<p>Public companies get a lot of scrutiny of their unaudited financials, and can absolutely face liability for intentional or negligent misstatements. Most significant public companies are followed by a regular coterie of analysts and interested investors, and if anyone senses that the accounting has problems two things start happening immediately: (1) an increase in short sales of the company's stock (essentially betting against the company), and (2) a firestorm of public complaint (usually stoked by the short sellers AFTER they have put their shorts in place). Sometimes, but not often, the order is reversed.</p>
<p>Private companies, too, face liability for non-innocent misstatements of their unaudited financials by parties (lenders, business partners, investors) who reasonably relied on them.</p>
<p>It sounds like in the past Middlebury has not been as transparent as one would hope in the way they report their figures. But really, who cares? If USNWR wants to audit them, it should (it should fact-check everyone's numbers independently), but I don't think anyone is being meaningfully defrauded if Middlebury reports only the SATs actually submitted to them vs. the SATs of all students who took the test.</p>
<p>JHS is absolutely correct; I was still thinking of xiggi's original term "verifiable." They are indeed scrutinized! My apologies. That's what I get for going off-topic!</p>
<p>"If a class had 801 students, and #200 had a 750 score, and #201 had a 740 score, I could see reporting the 75th percentile as 745, without feeling that it was a lie."</p>
<p>The issue is NOT the margin of error; it is how Middlebury appears the be the only school that is NOT following the rules. The 75th percentile has to be a unit of ten, and not the average between numbers. Other schools do not seem to misunderstand how to report the numbers consistently.</p>
<p>Again, it shows the lack of care and concern for accuracy, as well as USNews lack of any reasonable questioning of a number that is BLATANTLY incorrect in its expression. Further, for what it is worth, I happen to believe that the reported 745 is entirely imaginary. </p>
<p>I understand that schools routinely report average SAT scores, and that the numbers of the average SAT is not necessarily the same as the average of the 25%-75% percentile.</p>
<p>PS Vossron, my reference to the IRS was different: a lot of companies file their taxes based on unaudited statements.</p>
<p>heres another strange occurance in the stastical material reported by the top 5 lacs. Both Amherst's class of 2009 collegeboard profile and common data set report only 80% of the school's freshman being in the top 10% of their high school classes. USNews disagrees: 87%.</p>
<p>Look like the statistical tall tales of Vermont that Xiggi so despises are now being told in western mass.</p>
<p>It is interesting where one draws the line for top LAC's. For example, two respected, but lessor known LAC's come in right behind Smith (V 580-710 M 570-670 AVG 633):</p>
<p>Beloit College V 580-700, M 560-660 AVG 625, and
Knox College V 580-700, M 540-660 AVG 620</p>
<p>I would bet there are many in this range, meaning that there seems to be an abundance of fine schools where a 1300 SAT would probably work out just fine.</p>
<p>Well that's an interesting catch about the reporting of the % in top 10% of HS class for Amherst. Amherst's Report to Secondary Schools, on the Amhersts website, reports it as 80% of the freshman class in top 10%. (89% of those admitted were in top 10%; 80% for those who actually enroll as freshman.) No idea where US New came up with 87%. </p>
<p>Adding fuel to the poison-pen intonation
of this thread and the U S News & World
Report findings, answer me this. What
reasons are there for USN&WR to list certain
schools ahead of others, even though they
have the same overall score? Schools tied
for 7th are listed in an alphabetical order, as
well as the 10th place schools, the 14th place
schools, the 17th placed schools and the
overall 24th selection. Why is Vassar listed
ahead of Claremont McKenna for the 12th spot
and Colby is listed ahead of Bryn Mawr in
the 20th listing? Typographical error? Why did
they make the same mistake in the Top 25 Universities
listing?</p>