<p>I'm curious.</p>
<p>Northwestern = US News #14, 30% acceptance rate
Brown = US News #15, 14% acceptance rate
Pomona = US News #7 LAC, 18% acceptance rate</p>
<p>NU then Brown then Pomona, IMO.</p>
<p>NU's higher acceptance rate % could be due to less, but higher quality, applicants.</p>
<p>Well.... does selectivity have to do with the final (and IMHO spurious) USN&WR ranking? You have the numbers yourself... based on accept rate, it's Brown, Pomona and NWU. Part of the USN&WR final rankings are based somewhat on rate but in their calculations, selectivity is only one segment of overall rank.</p>
<p>Selectivity deals with students accepted per applications. Right now, Brown gets tons but their spots are limited.</p>
<p>Yeah mj93, that was a very random comment...</p>
<p>and northwesterns acceptance rate is going down</p>
<p>Br
Nu
Po</p>
<p>I think there needs to be some kind of concrete definition of "more selective". A lower acceptance rate doesn't, to me, equal a more selective school. In fact, I'd say that all of these schools are nearly equally selective.</p>
<p>selectivity would roughly be</p>
<p>brown
northwestern
pomona</p>
<p>brown enjoys a large applicant pool and a very high ranking on "revealed preferences" lists.</p>
<p>it depends on when you apply, northwestern RD is going to be more selective than brown ED, etc.</p>
<p>pomona would be harder if you live in california i would imagine, they have a high in-state percentage so i would assume they get a lot of california applicants.</p>
<p>I dunno about the above... I'd say Brown=Pomona, then NW.</p>
<p>^^ yeah because you live in socal</p>
<p>You're all whacked. Pomona is absolutely more selective than Northwestern.</p>
<p>Pomona's acceptance rate is low because it has 1,500 students.</p>
<p>They way I see it,</p>
<p>Brown, Northwestern, Pomona</p>
<p>elsijfdl: considering that basically no one in my town has even heard of Pomona or the Claremont colleges, that point is moot. (Try not to make ad hominem arguments so transparent.)</p>
<p>Just by pure selectivity, look at the SAT scores:</p>
<p>Pomona: 2170
Brown: 2150
Northwestern: 2120</p>
<p>Of course, selectivity is based on more than just SAT scores, but Pomona is very, very selective. You can even look at the stats profiles for it -- it's pretty much the same.</p>
<p>I was asking WHICH SCHOOL IS HARDER TO GET INTO.</p>
<p>Looks like most people agree that Northwestern is easier to get into than Brown... </p>
<p>Pomona's SAT score does show to some extent that their selectivity is higher than either Brown or Northwestern...</p>
<p>Then there are a lot of posts that put Pomona at the end. </p>
<p>I guess the mixed results do show that whatever their selectivities are, the 3 schools are roughly equally hard to get into.</p>
<p>Any more opinions?</p>
<p>"Just by pure selectivity, look at the SAT scores:</p>
<p>Pomona: 2170
Brown: 2150
Northwestern: 2120</p>
<p>Of course, selectivity is based on more than just SAT scores, but Pomona is very, very selective."</p>
<p>-I like how you're saying that scores = "pure selectivity" but then say that "selectivity is based on more than just SAT scores". Why don't you add some depth to what you're saying. On what is selectivity based? You're saying that Pomona is selective, but honestly, who said it isn't? Why do you believe Pomona and Brown to be more selective than Northwestern? And for that matter, more selective for whom? Surely selectivity can't be the same for EVERYONE.</p>
<p>I still contend that all these schools are about equally as selective (for overlapping programs). I see no real reason not to believe that.</p>
<p>Okay, imagine this senario:</p>
<p>100 random students of random ethnicities, backgrounds, academics, etc. all apply to Northwestern, Brown, and Pomona. Which school is most likely to accept the greatest # of these students, which school is most likely to accept the least.</p>
<p><a href="Try%20not%20to%20make%20ad%20hominem%20arguments%20so%20transparent.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>how was that ad hominem, do you even know what ad hominem is? i was referencing my previous post in which i said "pomona would likely be more selective if you were from california"</p>
<p>now for an ACTUAL bit of ad homenem, your posts are not a source of credible information, all you do is go around these forums and praise california schools</p>
<p>elsijfdl just owned you.</p>
<p>"how was that ad hominem, do you even know what ad hominem is?"</p>
<p>Yes, I'm well aware, thanks. Here's how it goes under 'ad hominem': I say that Pomona is more selective. You say, "yeah because you live in socal." That seems like an attempt to disqualify my assertion (in this case, because of a supposedly distorted view due to locality). Here's a breakdown of what an official 'ad hominem' argument is:</p>
<p>"i was referencing my previous post in which i said "pomona would likely be more selective if you were from california"</p>
<p>You didn't reference anything; referencing would mean "see post #8." You may have alluded to it, but you didn't point it out; thus your "^^ yeah because you live in socal" was ambiguous and construed as an ad hominem argument ("you only say that because you're in so Cal, so your ideas on this are skewed and null" something like, "you say that because you're a priest" in the link I gave).</p>
<p>"your posts are not a source of credible information, all you do is go around these forums and praise california schools"</p>
<p>That would be a stronger ad hominem attack.</p>
<p>"100 random students of random ethnicities, backgrounds, academics, etc. all apply to Northwestern, Brown, and Pomona. Which school is most likely to accept the greatest # of these students, which school is most likely to accept the least."</p>
<p>-This question is very complicated. Depending on MANY variables (expected yield, class size, ED, merit aid, etc), different answers could be reached... Like I said, there needs to be a definition of 'more selective' if that question is to be answered. </p>
<p>I believe we NEED to know the stats of the applicants to find out which school is more selective, and even then, all schools don't have the same measurement for gaining admission, so even that could be misleading. </p>
<p>A school can reject 90% of its applicants, but if only 10% was actually academically fit to be in the school, then that admissions rate doesn't mean too much. If say Brown rejects 85% of the people who apply, it doesn't mean it's more selective than say Northwestern because Northwestern rejects 70%. It very well could be that Northwestern got more qualified applicants and as a result accepted more people. There are just too many variables and too many ways to classify 'more selective' to get one definitive answer.</p>