<p>I have no idea what you are talking about, with respect to either of your last two posts.
I think my points have been made clearly enough. I don’t care why Cornell does or doesn’t do certain things, if you think those things are bad make adjustments. My only point is I would like applicants to accurately assess their admissions chances, and for that purpose IMO selectivity assessment is best made by college at multicollege universities which have separate admissions by college.</p>
<p>Taking the midpoints of the 25/75 scores gives a good approximation of the average if it’s not provided. At least close enough that any difference is trivial.</p>
Right…larger universities should have SAT averages closer to the national average as student population increases - unless there is something attracting “stronger students” via other factors. I modeled SAT scores and UG student population to see which schools are overperforming and underperforming in terms of enrolling high scoring SATers compared to their peers. Berkeley, Michigan, and Cornell did well:</p>
<p>^ All schools on the list are the “peers”. I plotted average SAT score versus undergrad population for those schools…then used linear regression to obtain a predicted average SAT score based on UG population.</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad - Thanks! Personally I think it is a pretty liberal definition of peer, comparing Harvard to Worcester (or any number of others on the list, like Georgia, Tulane, Miami, Wake Forest, and on and on), and I also think this WAY overstates the effect of UG population on the scores. But hey, it is just for fun, right?</p>
<p>I just used data from those because hawkette had posted it and it was mostly out of convenience…I believe hawkette said it was the Top 75 USNWR national universities.</p>
<p>
Sure, all this stuff is just for fun…but I believe my analysis validates some of my hypotheses:</p>
<ol>
<li>Larger student population will approach the national mean on the SAT.</li>
<li>Schools that do well on this list are attracting the higher scoring SAT student…either by offering prestigious academic programs, financial support, or a combination of factors.</li>
<li>Flagship campuses tend to do well because they cannabalize strong students from other schools (i.e UCs) </li>
<li>Dominant flagship state campuses (such as Penn State, Florida, and Illinois) do well…great academics at a cheaper in-state price</li>
<li>Schools that place more emphasis on SAT (i.e. WUSTL) do well compared to schools that have a more holistic evaluation (i.e. Stanford)</li>
</ol>
<p>15-20 is on the high end–most are within 10 points which I consider trivial out of 1600. So does the College Board. As most schools don’t report averages it’s an easy way to approximate it when looking at a number of schools. You don’t always even know if they are leaving out athletes and other special admit scores or if the superscore so I don’t worry about a few points either way.</p>
<p>nyccard – up until you called Cornell “aka SUNY Ithaca” I had given you the benefit of the doubt about your impartiality. I was willing to overlook your name calling of monydad, but now I see a pattern.</p>
<p>I don’t understand your antipathy toward Cornell. Care to elaborate?</p>