Both MIT and Princeton publish something that I find nearly as useful as Common Data Set info on test ranges – the distribution of their admitted students by SAT and ACT distribution. (Here’s MIT’s: http://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/stats and here’s Princeton’s: https://admission.princeton.edu/how-apply/admission-statistics ) MIT breaks down their scores by individual category; Princeton doesn’t, but also shows admissions by GPA.
I think it’s useful because beyond the 25-75 range and GPA scores, it helps show just how… difficult it can be to get into those schools even if a student has a score between that range. At MIT, even if you had an EBRW score of 780 (at the 75th percentile of the EBRW admitted student range), you’re still in the range of applicant scores where MIT only accepted 13% of students. For Princeton, someone at the median of the SAT scores (roughly 740 for Math, 720 for EBRW) is in the 1380-1490 range of SAT scores where only 5.0% of applicants are accepted.
Although there’s always the possibility that somebody looks at the the 1100-1250 range for Princeton in which 1.2% of applicants are accepted and says in their best Jim Carrey voice, “so you’re telling me there’s a chance,” those statistics are pretty stark.
Most applicants know that schools like MIT and Princeton have their choice of many different students, and the test scores and GPAs are mostly just the initial bar to cross, but I’m wondering if there are other, less selective schools (to whatever degree) that publish similar distributions. I have searched online but haven’t found anything. I understand why schools might not want to publish such a list, lest potential applicants get discouraged, thereby driving down the potential admit pool (probably bad for both legitimate class-building and cynical USNWR ranking reasons). But I still think it’d be helpful.
Thanks @ucbalumnus & @merc81 ! I think the Hamilton ranges are particularly helpful as it’s a fairly selective institution, but not Ivy-level, and even there, barely half of the top-scoring SAT band were accepted.
I’m totally speculating, but it wouldn’t be surprising if Hamilton perceived itself as being a safety choice for some Ivies and rejected some students it thought might be using it that way. Given that the enrollment of admitted students for that top band isn’t even 20%, while the 1400-1499 band is more than double that, that’s not an entirely unreasonable supposition.
It will be interesting (in a nerdy way) to compare these rankings with CDS when it’s published.
This is the most difficult thing to get less informed parents to understand. That the GPA and SAT just mean that they are competitive and that they still need something else about the student that makes someone on the ADCom willing to fight for this kid over others: a great essay, an out of class achievement or something. Just being “A good kid” is, unfortunately, not enough in this blizzard of applicants.
In general, yield tends to be lower among high-stat students, since they are more likely to have attractive alternative choices – either more selective colleges (that most people tend to think of as more desirable) or better merit scholarship offers.
@BorgityBorg, interesting that you say “but not Ivy-level” as when you compare the CDS of Cornell and Hamilton (much different sizes, but only 2 hours apart) you’ll find that they aren’t too different for the majority of the students.
Our DD’s, who both attend Hamilton, have said that they know other Freshman students who were Deferred/Denied at Bowdoin or Williams chose Hamilton in RD, although they also know at least one that chose Hamilton over Williams and another Hamilton over Middlebury. Our DD’s both chose Hamilton over Carleton as neither wanted a plane-ride college experience.
@ucbalumnus makes a good point regarding merit scholarships as both of our DD’s got $23-30k merit scholarships at Oberlin - not easy to walk away from and I am sure many don’t/can’t. The same can be said for merit scholarships at many state flagships.
@Chembiodad Oh, I would consider Hamilton in the same ballpark of the LACs you mention in terms of quality. I’d be happy if my D19 applied to and got in there! Plenty of people choose Hamilton over other schools for perfectly valid reasons. No shade on Hamilton as a school implied or intended.
But while the Cornell and Hamilton range scores are similar, the acceptances are not – 26% for Hamilton, 14% for Cornell per that same CDS. I think it’s useful to see that even for schools whose acceptances are not “Ivy-level” or “HYPMS” or whatever term you want to use for schools whose acceptance rates are sub-15%, really high test scores and/or GPAs are nowhere near a sure thing even if the student is at that 75% percentile. That’s common knowledge around CC, of course – but the tables on these pages illustrate it in a way that words don’t necessarily.
Cornell’s CDS reflects the scores of the 7 colleges, including the Land Grant colleges. i,e., Agriculture and Life Sciences and Industrial Relations. And, although not a Land Grant College, Hotel Administration.
A fair comparison would be the mid 50% scores of those enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences, which are significantly higher than the CDS scores.
Here’s the last comparative data from Cornell (2011), except for Hotel Administration and Agriculture & Life Science most others are within the median range.
Some of the difference in the number of applicants and commensurate admission rate is a result of the self selection that happens at a lesser known “Little Ivy” LAC as compared to a name brand Ivy - funny that the Ivy League is really just an athletic conference and that many of the schools included were in the 2nd 10 or 3rd 10 fifty years ago.
The scores are not comparable to the current class. Six years of admission cycles is a lifetime.
The scores of currently enrolled students are significantly higher than they were 6-7 years ago at virtually every top school. It’s interesting that Cornell discontinued publishing the data after 2011
The statistics for any school can be fractionated by its constituent cohorts (student-athletes, art majors, engineering students, etc.). However – excepting a disciplined analysis of a multiplicity of factors – respective Common Data Sets would seem to be the most valid bases for comparisons.
In any case, as @monydad has indicated, the scores for Cornell/CAS nearly exactly match those for the University overall.
Yes, that’s true, although less so at schools like Cornell as the 2010-2011 CDS as compared to the 2016-2016 CDS reflects. Given there is still a finite number of 99 percentile test takers and a finite number of seats at the top schools while still having an ever increasing # of applicants, so all of the highly selective boats are rising.
For Fall 2011, the aggregate university admission rate was 18%. The admissions rate for CAS was 15.5%.
I have the US News for 2011, which presumably has data from the year before.
In that year it shows Cornell aggregate SAT range 1290-1500 , 19% admissions rate.
By extrapolation from Fall 2011 data that would put Cornell CAS at about1405,admissions rate under 15%.
That same US News has Hamilton at 1310- 1470 (=1390), 30% admissions rate.
My conclusion is Cornell CAS was a little more selective than Hamilton that year. You can conclude whatever you want though.
@monydad, that’s correct if one defines “selective” as a lower acceptance rate as compared to the median score of those admitted. Assuming same, I agree that Cornell will continue to be viewed as more selective given it will likely continue to have more National and definitely will have more International name recognition/number of applicants going forward. As a result, there is no reason to believe that it won’t have a lower acceptance rate with a similar admitted student profile.
re #14, the only college at Cornell that is similar to stand-alone liberal arts colleges, in terms of majors and programs of studies, is its college of arts & sciences. The other colleges are not “constituent cohorts” they are separate colleges under the same university. With separate admissions pools,admissions curricula, majors.
Liberal arts colleges typically do not have : architecture, hotel administration, fashion design, various agricultural majors, etc.
An applicant shold compare admissions odds and cohorts vs. the college he/she is actually applying to. If applying to liberal arts colleges, then probably applying to CAS. Not hotel. Not architecture.
By serendipity in recent years I looked at the CAS stats are similar(though just a tad higher than) to the aggregate. Though a bit more selective.
However this need not be the case.
Similarly an applicant to the engineering school, or the ag school, should look at the admissions stats for the school that they are actually applying to. Not the aggregate. Lest they be misled as to their actual admissions chances, and the character of their actual cohort. CDS is only a good representation when it happens, by coincidence, to be similar to the nature of the individual college. Otherwise, it misleads.
I don’t know why they stopped publishing the individual college data. Obviously this makes the stronger colleges there look weaker than they are, admissions-wise, and the weaker colleges look stronger than they are. It misleads everyone. They should be giving the most accurate information available.
Maybe they just gave up since US News and CDS was just aggregating everything anyway,
When I applied to colleges the data of all colleges with separate admission processes at multi-college universities were broken out separately in the college guides. I think this became less common when US News came in, and started just publishing consolidated numbers only. Bad choice, because it obscures the real relevant information.
@BorgityBorg If you peruse the Hamilton ED threads here over the past 3 years you’ll find ED1 and ED2 applicants with 34+ ACT’s and high gpas that did not get into Hamilton. Since they were ED applications yield was not a consideration. I think they take fit and personality more seriously than many other schools, and I think those 2 qualities are much more important to the character of a small school than at a large one such as Cornell.