And to be clear, the US News issue is that schools that choose to gather some data on scores but collect on less than 75% of the entering class are assessed the penalty. A school could choose not to collect scores for non-submitters but if more than 25% chose not to submit the school would be would be penalized.
Schools that choose not to collect score data at all are not ranked by US News.
I said, or if I didn’t say it this way I should have, that Bates reports on all available data. Not all kids take standardized test and I would imagine there are some kids who simply refuse to submit scores later. Substantially more than 9% of the class consists of non-submitters.
@Sue22, except USNWR wouldn’t be able to tell what 75% is if schools are dual test (SAT and ACT) reporting as Cornell does.
And if more than 9% of Bates students are non-submitters, than there is dual test reporting there as well.
Seems like a mess. Now I understand why Reed bailed on USNWR rankings…
Re: Bates, they state, “The submission of standardized testing (the SAT I, SAT II, and the ACT) is optional for admission. Independent of the admissions process and solely for the purpose of the College’s research, students who have taken the standardized tests must submit the official results of these tests.”
That doesn’t explain the gap unless some students (intls?) didn’t take them or have alternate testing.
But how did this thread turn to this argument comparing colleges?
ps. the CDS is what it is, not gospel.
If you look back at Bates’ Common Data Sets you can see when Bates changed their data collection and reporting policy. In the 2014-15 CDS Bates reported on a combined 67%. That 67% had a 50% range of 640/720, 640/710, 640/730 and 29/32. The next year the combined total was 91% and the scores dropped to 590/713, 600/703, 610/710 and 28/32 reflecting the lower scores of non-reporters.
@lookingforward, agree the Bates CDS language (and I assume all other colleges that report CDS data) says nothing to be able to confirm the percentage of applicants accepted by SAT (or ACT).
OP, I think the answer is we don’t know…
Some kids choose for philosophical reasons not to submit testing. Some recognize from the get-go that their testing doesn’t reflect their ability and choose not to do standardized testing knowing they’ll apply to all test-optional schools. One of my kids fell into that category. After looking at his PSAT scores we knew he’d never get his SATs to where they needed to be to apply to the schools that would be a match for his ability. High grades and IQ, lousy standardized test scores. He did take one early ACT without study as a trial balloon early in his Junior year so he ended up submitting that after he was admitted. I guess we pulled down the average there!
Schools collect that kind of data internally but I think it’s pretty rare for them to release it. You do see some of the single digit admit schools releasing select data such as “We only accept one in five of all applicants with a 36 ACT” to discourage people from assuming high test score are sufficient to get them admitted.
It would not be surprising if those reporting 100% counted an applicant submitting both SAT and ACT in whichever test-submitter category his/her highest score is in, but not the other, while those reporting > 100% counted such an applicant in both test-submitter categories.
There are more inconsistency issues in the CDS questions/answers that have significant practical effects. For example, in the financial aid section, number of students with need fully met and percentage of need met can easily be manipulated by colleges by changing the definition of “need”. So students and parents relying on promises to “meet full need” may be unpleasantly surprised by net price calculator results or actual financial aid offers.
My point (the quote) was Bates does collect scores from admits who have taken the test, regardless whether they submiited for admissions. How they then use that externally, I don’t know. We’ve been arguing this for several years, at least. Some say some colleges do then use all the data they’ve collected for the CDS. I don’t think Bates is getting scores with app packages for 91% (though I’ not going to check that.)
This convo has turned from OP’s curiosity to some mighty attempt to parse data. I’m not sure I get the point.
I agree, @ucbalumnus. Because the data is reported by the schools, not collected by an impartial party there is also the possibility for innocent differences in the data reported simply due to different interpretations of the directions or internal methods of data collection. The data in post #64 is a case in point. In both years we can reasonably assume the college was reporting honest and accurate data, but because of the way the data was collected (no post-admission results one year, post admissions results the next) the results are substantially different, erroneously making it appear as if the school had experienced a drop in applicant quality.
In this case, as in much of Life, the better answer is, “I don’t know.”
@chembiodad - you posted initially about the prestige factor between Vassar and Hamilton, which is what I responded to. Not sure how Carleton got thrown in there, but agree while it s a powerhouse of a school, name recognition on the east coast is not on par with its excellence.
As for its vibe, I think many here are familiar with your D’s journey as you posted so prolifically about them last spring, and even a few posters back then said Carleton may be the best choice for your science minded D. But as I recall from your posts, they ruled it out due to distance and didn’t even visit. Hard to ‘feel the vibe’ without setting foot on campus.
@wiateria100, not certain why you feel compellled to “recall”, but as they have family in Michigan and Wisconsin they had visited, but not necessarily completed tours, all of the Midwest schools they were accepted to over the years. In the case of Carleton, they also spent time with their local AO and it just wasn’t the right vibe. The best choices are the ones THEY feel most comfortable attending - it’s not a CC group decision.
Circling back to the OP’s question - the CDS language says nothing to be able to confirm the percentage of applicants accepted by SAT (or ACT). so, I think the answer is we don’t know except for those that post distribution data aside from the CDS, including Brown and Hamilton.
@Chembiodad I wasn’t ‘compelled’ to recall, I just recalled, because after all you are a very active poster here and have a very, very distinct voice, which makes it easy to recall. Absolutely agree – fit is most important, and it is a personal decision, but you also can’t deny you posted many times last spring looking for advice on how to choose. It’s not a CC group decision, but you did ask lots of time for input. So happy your D’s are thriving and happy.
Agree, happy is most important and for them it meant the best school that was within driving distance - they love to travel and have done so internationally on their own, but as they are very close to their family proximity to home given its a four year commitment matters. Yes, I did ask for insight, but frankly the finger waving responses from some were over the top.
Oh how I wish more LACs posted acceptance rates by standardized test score ranges. S19’s list is heavy with match LACs where his SAT and GPA are in the top 25% and accept between 20-30% of applicants. And I’m afraid that his safeties may wait list him because, even though he’s showing interest, they think he may go elsewhere. That’s not the case. He thinks they are both good fits as well. For a son like ours, it just means a lot of apps.
Our Naviance makes me feel a little better, but so few kids apply to LACs from our Midwestern high school that I don’t know if the data will hold true for the class of 2019. We meet with our GC in March and I’m hoping she can give us a better gauge as to the student profiles of the kids who got into these schools from our high school. Hoping they aren’t all athletes. Most of them have really good stats, but they could easily be good students and athletes to boot.
@Chembiodad I thank you for all of your posts on Hamilton. I think it could also be a good place for S19. On the flip side of your story, though, Carleton is easier for us to get to versus Hamilton. I need to start looking into how he would get back and forth from some of the NE schools on his list!
@homerdog, I think if a prospective student demonstrates a lot of interest, especially an interview if offered, then being waitlisted at safer schools is less likely - our DD’s had the opposite outcome in that they were both accepted at every safer school and were also offered significant merit scholarships at Kenyon and Oberlin.
Hamilton has a decent amount of students from the Chicago area - DD’s both have friends form that region, so the school provides a shuttle bus during breaks to the Syracuse Airport which is only 45 minutes away, and then there are direct flights to Chicago.
^But, wouldn’t posting acceptance rates by standardized test score range imply that it was the result of some sort of policy in place? Not sure why a college that espoused a holistic approach to admissions would want to encourage that impression and I’m especially confused why a LAC that is supposedly “test-flexible” would want to create that impression.
@circuitrider Yes, yes. I agree. It’s just a selfish thing that I’d like some idea of whether S19 has a better chance than the 25% acceptance rates. I get what you are saying though.