SAT ranges vs. acceptance rates

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Which is more important in determining reach/match/safety? I know that schools admitting less than 20% are not safeties for ANYONE; the same goes for 30% admitted, I think. But what about the nebulous area between 30% and 50%? Can a school be a safety if it accepts less than half of its applicants?</p>

<p>Consider a few (okay, maybe more than a few) examples. Take my own lopsided stats--800 CR and W, 710 M--and assume decent but not outstanding ECs/essays, clear demonstrated interest. (This is not a chances thread, because my own situation is a deal more complex, but I ignore hooks/tips in favor of statistical curiosity.)</p>

<p>Pitzer: 22% AR, 580 - 690 CR, 580 - 680 M
Comments: Admits for a very small class. 40% AR just five years ago. Obviously cannot be anyone's safety, but underwhelming stats don't make the case for "everyone's reach" either. SAT-optional.</p>

<p>Scripps: 31% AR, 640 - 730 CR, 620 - 710 M, 650 - 730 W
Comments: AR may be skewed by need to balance overenrollment the previous year. Also admits for a very small class. I meet the 75th percentile in math, my lowest section score, and far exceed the other two. But 31% accepted?! ~11% drop in one year.</p>

<p>Bryn Mawr: 49% AR, 620 - 730 CR, 580 - 680 M, 620 - 710 W
Comments: Applicant pool is obviously limited by gender. Self-selection? Recently instituted "test-flexible" policy. Statistically appears to be a safety for me, but the Seven Sisters are usually considered "not safeties" in general.</p>

<p>Grinnell: 43% AR, 610 - 740 CR, 620 - 710 M
Comments: W appears to not be considered, as CB is showing -. Another school commonly cited for self-selection. I meet the math 75th percentile, but calling this a safety is arrogant.</p>

<p>Whitman: 46% AR, 630 - 730 CR, 610 - 700 M, 620 - 710 W
Comments: Self-selection--but is it less or more difficult to gain admission to than Grinnell?</p>

<p>Rochester: 43% AR, 600 - 700 CR, 620 - 730 M, 590 - 700 W
Comments: The only non-LAC examined here (hi, personal bias), and also the only one that tilts toward math/science in reputation. I'm not quite at the 75th percentile in math, but far exceed it in the humanities areas where Rochester may be recruiting.</p>

<p>Denison: 38% AR, 580 - 690 CR, 570 - 680 M
Comments: Somewhat of a statistical anomaly? CCers seem to have no problem considering Denison a safety for top-stat applicants. W not considered. SAT-optional.</p>

2

<p>After Grinnell gave a full ride to a person I never considered much more than state school material, I started seriously questioning just how self selective it really is.</p>

3

<p>I think SAT scores are more useful for determining reach, match, safety. Admit rates are affected by too many irrelevant variables.</p>

4

<p>Ray192: Was the full ride need-based or merit-based? Grinnell clearly states that its highest merit scholarship is 15k.</p>

5

<p>Not sure. But that girl did not seem like the type that warranted a full ride based on need. She was a single child and her family was well off enough to own several fast food franchises.</p>

6

<p>Grinnell’s acceptance rate went down to 28%, while Whitman’s is 43% this year. Big difference there.</p>

<p>

Perhaps the restaurants were held by an uncle or grandparent, and FAFSA didn’t get the whole picture. Or is it possible that it was an outside scholarship? Just speculating.</p>

7

<p>Wow, CB is seriously out of date wrt Grinnell. CB still shows AR at 43% as of today, while Grinnell claims ARs of 36% last year and 28% this year. It is worth noting that the target class was also smaller this year.
<a href=“http://www.grinnell.edu/tv/gno/05_08_2009_4/[/url]”>http://www.grinnell.edu/tv/gno/05_08_2009_4/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>That puts it more in line with its academic level, although Midwestern peer Carleton has slightly higher AR with slightly higher SAT ranges.</p>

<p>I can find no information on Whitman’s website about the 2009 acceptance rate, so I will continue to use CB’s until I discover another (more reliable) source.</p>

8

<p>Keilexandra, I would probably term most of those as low matches rather than safeties. At the same time, I would say that if you apply to a number of low matches that you have a good chance of getting into at least a few of them.</p>

9

<p>Erin’s Dad - That is indeed how I have categorized them, for myself (it may be conservative once you account for tips, but I tend toward conservative in matters of risk). However–where and how exactly do you draw the line between low match and safety? There are obvious safeties, of course, but often those are dissatisfying intellectually, especially for a humanities major dependent on class discussion.</p>

10

<p>[Class</a> Profile](<a href=“http://www.whitman.edu/content/admission/learn-more/profile]Class”>http://www.whitman.edu/content/admission/learn-more/profile)

</p>

<p>1485/3434 = 43.2%</p>

11

<p>Thanks lockn!</p>

12

<p>CB isn’t the most accurate. They recently changed Grinnell to 43% and last year they claimed 50% which the college said 36%</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>She might have played the FAFSA game but I’m just surprised she got into the school to begin with. She’s horrible in math/science, I’ve edited her papers beforehand and found them to uninspiring, and she didn’t seem to care in social science classes. She never did anything extracurricular wise either. Her test scores were nothing special. She might have rocked the essay, but looking the essays she gave me it seems unlikely. She’s a nice girl but I did not see how a selective school could admit her. She wasn’t even a minority.</p>