<p>kyledavid,</p>
<p>Weren't you the guy who said SAT scores don't mean anything in measuring the strength of students in the thread about objective rankings. I remember someone mentioning Brandeis' SAT scores being higher than Berkeley's, and you made it clear that numbers don't mean anything in measuring thing such as quality and selectivity, so are you sure you want to use the SAT argument here?</p>
<p>:|</p>
<p>btw, to put my two cents in, the reason Brown is seen more selective is due to its Ivy status. Northwestern, on the other had, has a regional bias that kind of works against it. But the two schools are pretty much on the same level in terms of selectivity.</p>
<p>gd016:</p>
<p>"are you sure you want to use the SAT argument here?"</p>
<p>Yes, I'm sure. Let's review:</p>
<p>Can you point out in that thread where I said SAT scores aren't a measure of selectivity? No, you can't, because I never said it. I said:</p>
<p>
[quote]
If this is your conclusion after your SAT 'findings,' then you are assuming that 1) SAT scores = quality of institution, 2) the universities weight SAT importance the same, and 3) they report SAT scores the same. None of these three are true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
"And objective figures show they are roughly equal."</p>
<p>"Objective figures" being SAT scores, right? Real good metric.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is all I've said on the SAT. The OP in that thread was implying that the institutions themselves are equal because the SAT score ranges of enrolled freshmen were similar. I disagreed.</p>
<p>I find that SAT scores are one measure of selectivity, though there are obviously other ways of measuring it. I referred to them here as a quick way of showing that it isn't far off to say that Pomona is in Brown's league of selectivity. I could also refer to the stats profiles, but I really don't have the desire to go hunting through all of them. Besides, this thread is asking for your own perception of their selectivity relative to one another. It is my perception that Pomona is about as selective as Brown. Of course, I very well could be wrong.</p>
<p>Northwestern does not superscore their SAT's. This makes it difficult to compare SAT scores.</p>
<p>Alrighty, international (Singapore) perspective.</p>
<p>From my high school, widely considered to be a "feeder" to US colleges/unis, based on its acceptance rate to US places (I'll provide the link when my alma mater's university admission page is done with reconstruction) - it's Northwestern easier than Brown. (because Brown is an ivy - Singaporeans: prestige seekers). But to say Northwestern is more selective than Pomona is er, pretty much not accurate. But I suppose each time an LAC is compared with National Unis the LACs always get the short end of the straw. All I can say is that Pomona's stats and admissions and class profiles speak for themselves.</p>
<p>Pomona is a very selective school because of small size. It's not as widely known as Brown/Northwestern and there aren't as many applicants. But they only need 400 freshmen to fill their class and therefore they have the luxury to be very choosy. It's a bit like Cal Tech vs MIT.</p>
<p>1) Brown
2) Pomona
3) Northwestern</p>
<p>
[quote]
Pomona is a very selective school because of small size. It's not as widely known as Brown/Northwestern and there aren't as many applicants. But they only need 400 freshmen to fill their class and therefore they have the luxury to be very choosy. It's a bit like Cal Tech vs MIT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This doesn't make sense. A school like MIT, for example, will have many more students applying, but limited spots in the freshman class, so they'll have to be choosy. Pomona is just a smaller version: fewer applicants, but also fewer spots in the freshman class. It's all ratios.</p>
<p>1) Pomona, Brown
3) Northwestern</p>
<p>Pomona and Brown review the applicants more in-depth, and Pomona in particular places the greatest emphasis on the non-numbers part of the application (e.g. essays, letters of rec.,interviews). This is why they are so difficult to get into. You have to give 110% effort to the whole application, not just the grades and SATs. Although NW does look at essays, etc., numbers are the most significant thing they look at.</p>
<p>"A school like MIT, for example, will have many more students applying, but limited spots in the freshman class, so they'll have to be choosy. Pomona is just a smaller version: fewer applicants, but also fewer spots in the freshman class. It's all ratios."</p>
<p>-THIS doesn't make sense. You're saying that smaller school = fewer applicants, which is, often not the case. In fact, in 2005 Pomona got 13 applicants per freshman class spot, Brown got 11.8, and Northwestern got 8.3. If you look at it this way, Pomona actually received the most possible choices in that year- and- by extension- could be seen as the ‘most selective’. Depending on what definition you use of selectivity you can get different answers. </p>
<p>Think about it. If Caltech needs 200 freshmen to fill a class and MIT needs 1000, it’s FAR easier for Caltech to claim to be ‘more selective’ when it has fewer students, especially since the two schools are looking for similar students. If the schools were the same size they would almost certainly have the same student body. </p>
<p>“it's Northwestern easier than Brown. (because Brown is an ivy - Singaporeans: prestige seekers). But to say Northwestern is more selective than Pomona is er, pretty much not accurate.”</p>
<p>-Based on what? What makes Pomona more selective in your mind? What makes Brown the most selective?</p>
<p>“Pomona and Brown review the applicants more in-depth, and Pomona in particular places the greatest emphasis on the non-numbers part of the application (e.g. essays, letters of rec.,interviews). This is why they are so difficult to get into. You have to give 110% effort to the whole application, not just the grades and SATs. Although NW does look at essays, etc., numbers are the most significant thing they look at.”</p>
<p>***?!?! How in the WORLD do you know this to be true? Are you an admissions officer at all of these schools? Do you sit in on their deliberations? Who exactly are you to say that Pomona and Brown “review the applicants more in-depth”? And why does that lead you to the (absurd) conclusion that “this is why they are so difficult to get into”? Are you suggesting that any yahoo with good test scores can get into Northwestern, but only ‘real’ students can get into Pomona or Brown?</p>
<p>Do you even know anything about Northwestern? Do you know that it has several undergraduate programs that have a large focus on commitment to the particular field, and tend to place a lesser emphasis on pure numbers?</p>
<p>First off, congratulations on getting into Northwestern. Secondly, I know this by talking to admissions officers at those schools (at one point I was considering all three). NW said they do read the application all the way through, but the greatest emphasis is the SAT and GPA. Pomona is known for placing a greater amount of time on each individual than nearly any other school in the country (they take almost twice as long to read each application). I'm not sure where you got the 'real' students thing from, because I simply said NW evaluates candidates differently than Brown and Pomona. Different doesn't mean worse. And, just shut up about the "do you know anything about Northwestern" idea. I have two close family members who are professors there, so I guess you could say that I know a little bit about the school.</p>
<p>“because I simply said NW evaluates candidates differently than Brown and Pomona. Different doesn't mean worse.”</p>
<ul>
<li>Here is what you said: </li>
</ul>
<p>“Pomona and Brown review the applicants more in-depth”</p>
<p>“This is why they are so difficult to get into. You have to give 110% effort to the whole application, not just the grades and SATs. Although NW does look at essays, etc., numbers are the most significant thing they look at.”</p>
<p>-So, by extension, Northwestern looks 'less' in-depth into the applications. This statement inherently doesn’t make sense for you to reach the conclusion that it’s the reason why those schools are selective. It’s like saying that Brown and Pomona are selective because (you believe) they take longer to select their students- or at the very least- have a different process of doing so than Northwestern. There’s something quite convoluted about that kind of argument. Further, if one uses your own argument about selectivity it would have to be said that Northwestern is LESS selective because it doesn’t look as ‘in-depth’ into the applications.</p>
<p>“Secondly, I know this by talking to admissions officers at those schools (at one point I was considering all three). NW said they do read the application all the way through, but the greatest emphasis is the SAT and GPA. Pomona is known for placing a greater amount of time on each individual than nearly any other school in the country (they take almost twice as long to read each application).”</p>
<p>-I still have a hard time believing this. Northwestern (in addition to most elite colleges) tends to place a great deal of weight on nonnumeric portions of its applications (depending on the program for which the person is applying) (it’s a very easy way for the school to narrow down its acceptances) and I’ve seen in my dealings with the admissions office that it looks very heavily into people’s essays, ECs, etc- especially for certain programs. All that stuff about the adcoms reading through the application but really only caring about the numbers is just not true. </p>
<p>“I'm not sure where you got the 'real' students thing from”</p>
<p>Well, you said:</p>
<p>“You have to give 110% effort to the whole application, not just the grades and SATs”</p>
<p>-If anything it says that Northwestern applications are somehow inherently easier than those of the other two schools- and that a student actually has to put effort into filling out the Brown and Pomona applications.</p>
<p>“I have two close family members who are professors there, so I guess you could say that I know a little bit about the school.”</p>
<ul>
<li>A little bit? Maybe. More than I? Doubtful.</li>
</ul>
<p>Although Pomona may spend double the amount of time on each application, I'm pretty sure that Northwestern places emphasis on the non-numerical parts more than the stats.</p>
<p>"You're saying that smaller school = fewer applicants"</p>
<p>No, I'm not saying that. I'm refuting the claim that since a school is small, it can be "choosier." It doesn't matter how small the school is, they have a certain # spots, and whatever # applicants. It just so happens that Pomona is smaller than, say, MIT and also has fewer applicants. It may appear that just by the raw number of students, it is "more selective." But I'm not going on the # students; I'm going on quantifiable data. (Hypothetical: Pomona would appear even more selective if it had as many applicants as MIT, because it'd still be enrolling about 400.) The point is that it's all ratios, though in some cases there are limited numbers admitted while also having many applicants (Harvard being a perfect example).</p>
<p>It's not until last year that NU started to accept common application. NU had its own main essay and four short statements. I'd think NU admission puts as much, if not more, emphasis on essay as Pomona/Brown do. Also, test scores definitely matter less for the music, education, and communication schools and to less extent, the journalism school (math section) at Northwestern. Brown/Pomona don't have those <em>schools</em>. You may say Brown/Pomona has music department but that's nothing like the performance based one at NU's music school and that's just equivalent to musicology/musical study in NU's school of arts/sciences. Considering this, Brown/Pomona are probably the ones that look at test scores more actually.</p>
<p>I think it's safe to rank the order of selectivity based on admit rate: Brown > Pomona > Northwestern. But the student body in these three schools are of roughly the same equal caliber.</p>
<p>I NEVER SAID NW DOESN'T PLACE ANY EMPHASIS ON NON-NUMERICAL PARTS. I simply said they put more into the grades and SATs. It is the same with nearly every big school. Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, etc. all evaluate applicants first on grades, then on essays and ECs. Will they reject you if you aren't well-qualified? sure. But they want to know that you are qualified numerically first and foremost. Yes, numbers DO matter at Brown and Pomona, but they spend time cramming over essays as well. No need to get mad just because I ranked Pomona and Brown above your school. NW still has a great reputation, and selectivity doesn't change that. But when Brown and Pomona admit 12% LESS than Northwestern, something tells me that they are a little harder to get into, and hard for a reason. And, until you know me, don't judge my knowledge please.</p>
<p>vc08,</p>
<p>Your post wasn't directed to me, was it? Anyway, see my post above; NU admissiohn isn't like Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan! It's smaller than UPenn/Cornell.</p>
<p>haha, no, I guess your post just showed up first. I agree with you about the caliber of the students. It would be like comparing those at an Ivy League to Berkeley. The IL accepts a much lower percentage, but they quality of the student body is probably equal. I know NU is smaller than UCB, UM, etc., but it is larger than Pomona, so I was trying to compare it to something.</p>
<p>"I simply said they put more into the grades and SATs."</p>
<p>That's blatantly untrue. Simply because it's a large school doesn't mean that it places more emphasis on numbers. Consider this: Northwestern has about ~16,000 students.</p>
<p>Harvard has about ~17,000 students (though Wikipedia reports a higher number).</p>
<p>Would you say Harvard is more "numbers-oriented"?</p>
<p>"It is the same with nearly every big school. Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, etc. all evaluate applicants first on grades, then on essays and ECs."</p>
<p>I agree with this. But I'll clarify that at Berkeley, for example, GPA is most important, with essays being extremely important too, and then ECs. SAT, not very much. (I think it's somewhat the same at UCLA, and to a lesser extent Michigan.)</p>
<p>"It would be like comparing those at an Ivy League to Berkeley."</p>
<p>Er, what's so ridiculous about that?</p>