<p>What data is it that you’re using? I noticed that at places like Georgetown, their range is 1300-1490, yet when you combine the two individual M & CR figures you get something like 1270-1380. </p>
<p>Haha, can you tell I’m a Hoya?</p>
<p>simpson98-
Good catch. This is an old thread. The SAT CR data I just posted was from 2008 whereas the other SAT data is all 2007. The SATs at Georgetown went down a little in 2008. There is some slight fluctuation at all schools.</p>
<p>I have always thought that selectivity based on SATs is the most important factor in determining “fit”. After you determine possible reach, match, safety schools based on SATs, then weed out schools that don’t meet your other criteria. But, I suppose it depends on how strongly you feel about other criteria. For example, if you are determined to stay in-state that would narrow the field considerably.</p>
<p>If a certain factor is a “deal-breaker”, then consider that factor first.</p>
<p>But selectivity is always an important factor.</p>
<p>And, SATs are the best indicator of selectivity. Admit rates and yield depend on things unrelated to selectivity, such as “self-selection”, competition among schools in a certain geographic region, and so on.</p>
<p>SATs are a good indication of your liklihood to graduate.</p>
<p>…when considered alongside high school performance, yes,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What about in parts of the country where few people take the SAT’s? Or would you amend this statement to be “standardized tests, whether SAT or ACT”? After all, in the midwest, it’s a very self-selected pool who take SAT’s.</p>
<p>Yes, I meant “standardized tests”. Go to the most selective school you can from among the schools that fit your needs.</p>
<p>bump…</p>
<p>Based on SAT?
Harvard Yale Princeton</p>
<p>since this thread is being revived, I’m going to repeat my concern here. I think when you’re making these lists based on SAT scores, the schools that are SAT optional should be put in parenthesis. It’s not fair to compare schools that have to average in each student’s scores with schools that can use only the favorable scores students choose to submit, i.e. Bowdoin, Wake Forest, Bates, Bard, Mt. Holyoke, Connecticut College, Colby, etc… Until SAT optional schools have to average in all admitted student scores, whether used or not for admittance, they really skew this particular landscape.</p>
<p>I agree that the SAT optional schools should be eliminated from these lists. It is rather inconvenient to do so. I think schools become SAT optional because they are having admissions problems.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. These lists benefit SAT optional schools. At these schools, for the most part, only the top applicants submit their SAT, which overrates the SAT average of the student body because the scores of the lower scoring applicants are generally omitted (i.e. not submitted).</p>
<p>well that’s exactly our point. It’s not a fair comparison. There’s a push right now to get those schools to average in all their students’ SAT data, whether it was used or not in admissions. Until then, I agree with collegehelp.</p>
<p>We agree. :)</p>
<p>What about “SAT not even taken” schools. For example columbia’s college of General Studies does not use SATs in selection, Columbia’s reported stats do not include them, yet they receive Columbia degrees and take the same courses taught by the same faculty, with free cross-enrollment.</p>
<p>Or the SAT selectively included schools. For example I read elsewhere on CC that some universities (Duke? Johns Hopkins?) are selectively omitting scores for some of their colleges( Nursing?) from their reported aggregates. Columbia used to exclude Fu from their reported data until Fu got much more selective itself. Who knows all the other places where stuff like this is going on.</p>
<p>Personally I think it is ■■■■■■■■ to report aggregated data for any mutlicollege university where the component colleges have separate admissions and applicant pools. but if you insist on reporting aggregates for one university, then all the colleges of other universities should also be reported lumped together, without selective exclusions.</p>
<p>Either the date is relevant or it isn’t. It may be hard to divide particular programs out of universities, but when an entire institution has gone SAT optional, it’s pretty cut and dry. In those cases, the reported SAT data is not relevant to lists comparing colleges solely by SAT scores.</p>
<p>when colleges of a university are omitted from their reporting, to me that is little different from the case of SAT optional schools. In both cases the SAT profile of the student body that is there is being incompletely and selectively represented.</p>
<p>certain programs at universities are known for being easier or harder to get into. My kid got into liberal studies at Cal, but wouldn’t have had a prayer in engineering. But I’m still ok with assessing SAT averages for Cal. If a college is willing to overlook SAT scores for all students no matter what their major, it’s a different story. It says something about reported scores for the entire institution.</p>
<p>“But I’m still ok with assessing SAT averages for Cal.”
Maybe you are, but I’ve read posts of a cal engineer who thinks they should be broken out. I agree with him, Otherwise odds of getting in each and every school at Cal are being distorted by looking at aggregates that are inapplicable to the one particular cal college that someone may be applying to. The reported data, using aggregates, is misleading to any applicant who applies to only a particular one of its colleges. YMMV.</p>
<p>“I agree that the SAT optional schools should be eliminated from these lists. It is rather inconvenient to do so. I think schools become SAT optional because they are having admissions problems.”
I remember a study that showed that students that did not submit SAT scores at one of the optional schools graduated with higher GPA compared to those that submitted SAT scores.</p>