<p>These are small samples, so there's lots of noise. I see no obvious pattern emerging, except perhaps that Pacific state applicants seem to have a lower success rate that is significant in this sample. I could not see anything obvious in their data to explain this. For example, the average SAT/ACT scores for this group was on the high end of the range of all domestic groups, which was about 2265 +- 20. The only group below this range was the internationals, as you can see from the international data above.</p>
<p>Descartesz's effort are wonderful. It is nice that he has been willing to try and provide us all information. What has been more impressive than his efforts is that fact that his is willing to share his findings with others. </p>
<p>Anyhow, I had a raging cold/flu for days and trying to respond to post #38 was not working too well with my head (yes, I have done small posts but I was able to handle that). I apologize, if my lack of response seemed ungrateful. I'm going to attempt now.</p>
<p>I do realize that the sample is too small for real conclusions but I think that we can make some best guesses.</p>
<p>As for the ACT, at first glance that data would imply that an applicant who applies using an ACT as their highest score may not be at a disadvantage compared to those that applied using the SAT. I assume that since the average ACT vs SAT for the accepted students is comparable. Is that the case also for those deferred? What can not be seen by those numbers is the role of geography in the value of ACT. My D has been applying with her ACT as strongest. When I was asking CC member whether her first score of 33 would be adequate for Yale I got mixed responses. There were those that stated that of course the 33 was good enough as shown in the CDS. Then there were others who had made observations that, while yes overall a 33 would be good enough, it may not be good enough in an applicant's particular geographic region. So if I were to take the ACT a step further, I would calculate the average ACT and SAT of deferred to see if there was a difference and I would make a general observation whether those ACT applicant that were accepted were typically from certain regions of the country that would be different from those that were deferred.</p>
<p>Now AP scores. What had struck me from the initial data is that, at least w/ CC members, the number of AP tests taken/applicant and hence the total number of scores (and score value) that were averaged makes it hard to determine what I believe is more reality outside CC. ( I can't look at the statistics page without loosing what I am typing) What I recall the AP numbers to be is average number of tests taken approached 5 across the board and the same with the average score. In the process, that does not tell us much. With further breakdown, what we learn may not improve any but I would find something like the following interesting:</p>
<p>This way there are some distinctions between the AP scores for types of applicants. I would be curious at the higher number of scores if there is any distinction between those scores taken after an academic course vs self study (again typical of CCers) but I have not idea what you are seeing in your data that would even make this viable.</p>
<p>Too bad on rank. I do realize that those numbers and their availability in recent years. At D's school, her graduating class is the last class to be provided rank. Beginning next year, only percentiles will be calculated.</p>
<p>Numbers would have been interesting. You hear rumors about the value of rank at different schools.</p>
<hr>
<p>SAT II's - Basically what that data shows is wow the scores are exceptionally high for the admits. What I would find most interesting though is how they compare to the average scores of the deferred and rejected.</p>
<p>Yes, I know I keep giving you suggestions for more work. If you ever need help, give me a PM.</p>
<p>Lastly, on the geography. So did you find that the stats for the admitted/deferred/dejected were comparable? Also, how was the sheer volume of applicants. MB on the Pacific the stats were similar but there were twice as many applicants in the pool? And same with the higher results for the south, southwest and west. I guess I would be curious about the sizes of those various applicant pools there therefore # admitted, # deferred, and # rejected. Those numbers are probably easy since you would have had them to calculate %s.</p>
<p>s1 admitted scea
superscore sat 2340
4 AP's all 5's (6 this year)
class rank #1
SAT II M2-760, Chem 780, USH 760
Southeast location
Strong leadership ec's</p>
<p>S2- scea deferred
Single sitting sat 2250 (but 650 math and 800's on cr and w)
AP's 4- 3 5's 1 4
SAT II USH 800, Lit 800, World History 800, Chem 770
Rank- school doesn't rank we only know s1 because it is the highest gpa but s2 would be 2 or 3 based on what we know.
Strong theatre and writing ec's</p>
<p>Thank you so much for doing this- it is really interesting to see how holistic the process really is...or isn't.</p>
<p>Keep coming back to this thread just to see what more you have learned. Very interesting and many thanks for doing such great research.</p>
<p>Can you tell us the "n" for each region so we can see how that balances out? The low admittance rate for Pacific region students is astounding (and based on what Descartesz wrote, statistically significant), especially when the scores are somewhat higher. Hate to ask this but I must -- is this suggestive of admissions bias against Asian-American students? Don't know what the distribution is on CC, but of course the ethnic make-up of the US population is not evenly distributed across regions.</p>
<p>I don't have my spreadsheet with me right now, but here are the N's I remember:</p>
<p>Counts of reporters giving both region and admission results
Atlantic: 32 (includes NJ, VA)
Northeast: 35 (includes NY)
Southeast: 15
Midwest: 21
SW + W: 13 (includes TX)
Pacific: 24
Int'l: 16</p>
<p>I was not consistent in tracking ethnicity, largely because it is haphazardly mentioned by posters. I strongly resist interpreting any of these statistics in this way, especially since we are dealing with such a small, highly biased, and self-reported set of data (not to mention the inaccuracies the amateur collectors might have introduced). I am also not testing for significance, just intuiting it, so take my observation about significance as conjecture, not calculation. Please also note that not all reporters who provide location data also provide test scores, so the ranges I use are bound to misrepresent the whole group to some degree.</p>
<p>I will emphasize again that this data is a cumbersome tool to be used for gaining insight into Yale's SCEA practices. It is a better tool for gaining insight about CC's Yale posters.</p>
<p>As for Pacific admissions rates, I can't even reasonably speculate. Perhaps Californian admits are less likely to share their success on CC and Californian non-admits more likely to complain about their outcomes when compared to the rest of the country. :)</p>
<p>Other possible reasons: perhaps Yale finds that this population, due to distance, weather, and Stanford, has a lesser yield than from other regions of the country and hence are a little more cautious about admissions. Or perhaps we just have some unrepresentative data.</p>
<p>I look forward to seeing Entomom's RD results for futher information.</p>
<p>SAT II scores for admitted applicants (posted previously with minor corrections)
Total providing scores: 40
-------Math II--Lit-USH-Bio--Chem-Physics-World History
Tests----33----13--16--15---17-----8----------7
Average-783---765-786-772--774---770-------787
Median--800---770-800-800--800---775-------790</p>
<p>SAT II scores for deferred applicants
Total providing scores: 74
-------Math II--Lit-USH-Bio--Chem-Physics-World History
Tests----59----30--32--18---22-----17--------7
Average-764---731-758-757--758---789------761
Median--800---740-770-770--770---800------770</p>
<p>SAT II scores for denied applicants
Total providing scores: 24
-------Math II--Lit-USH-Bio--Chem-Physics-World History
Tests----18-----8--9----4-----4------4--------1
Average-764---707-738-745--730----750-----790
Median--780---710-740-745--785----745-----790</p>
<p>Observation: Very narrow grounds for differentiation here. Admissions decisions probably based on some other facets.</p>
<p>Follow-up: SCEA deferred pledged posters after RD.</p>
<p>One week after RD results, I have followed up with the 58 SCEA deferred pledgers from last December. In general they have not been as explicit about their RD results as they were their SCEA results (nor had they pledged to do so–their promise pertained only to the SCEA round, which they fulfilled) but interesting results can still be obtained.</p>
<p>Of the 58:
3 reported admission during RD (congratulations to rb3, southeasttitan, and thisguyiscool)
1 reported being assigned to the waitlist
11 explicitly declared their rejection
33 are still actively posting (March or later) but have not been explicit about their Yale outcomes
10 have not been active since January or earlier</p>
<p>Inferring the undeclared outcomes of the last two groups to be rejections, this means</p>
<p>5.2% were accepted (5.4% for all RD applicants)
1.7% were waitlisted (3.0% for all RD applicants)
93.1% were rejected (91.6% for all RD applicants)</p>
<p>These statistics are surprisingly in line with those reported by Yale for the whole RD pool. This is evidence that the SCEA deferred pool of candidates receive neither favor nor disfavor when they are re-visited in the RD round.</p>
<p>With respect to the original set of all 128 SCEA CC pledgers, these results were eventually attained:</p>
<p>27% accepted
1% waitlisted
73% rejected (assuming 16 pledgers who failed to report at all were rejected, too)</p>
<p>I will not be following up with the more general group of all deferred SCEA posters (pledgers and non-pledgers) that I tracked earlier. My experience following the original pledge group has shown me that definitively declared results several months later cannot be found reliably.</p>
<p>I also tracked the schools to which these deferred pledgers reported successful admission. Of the 45 still-active pledgers (1 waitlisted, 11 rejected, 33 presumably so), 40 did explicitly report one or more successful admissions elsewhere (5 have not been explicit about any admission). In the list that follows I have chosen only one school reported by each of these 40 pledgers, although many reported multiple other admissions and I am sure not all posters mentioned all admissions. This is meant to give a sampling of the schools where these 40 Yale-deferred pledgers can choose to attend.</p>
<p>Brown 2
CalTech 1
Carleton 1
Columbia 2
Cornell 1
Dartmouth 2
Duke 2
Emory 1
Harvard 5
Haverford 1
JHU 1
Northwestern 1
Princeton 3
Rice 2
UC-Berkeley 1
UCLA 1
U Chicago 1
U of MI 1
U of VA 1
U Penn 3
Vanderbilt 2
Williams 2
WUSTL 3</p>
<p>All 40 pledgers have very attractive future schooling options. My point is: a student deferred during the Yale SCEA round in December is almost certain to have fine schools to choose from in April if s/he casts the net a little wider. Deferment, then, is not really a negative but rather an auspicious sign of excellent future prospects.</p>
<p>Sorry guys S1 was accepted SCEA and S2 was accepted RD- and with several other great options as well. I couldn’t post on the RD because being “old” I knew I’d never work the “don’t forget to delete the space” issue. But hope this helps.</p>
<p>Reposting to include consideration of 2by2’s S2:</p>
<p>Of the 58:
4 reported admission during RD (congrats to 2by2’s S2, also)
1 reported being assigned to the waitlist
11 explicitly declared their rejection
33 are still actively posting (March or later) but have not been explicit about their Yale outcomes
9 have not been active since January or earlier</p>
<p>Inferring the undeclared outcomes of the last two groups to be rejections, this means</p>
<p>6.9% were accepted (5.4% for all RD applicants)
1.7% were waitlisted (3.0% for all RD applicants)
91.4% were rejected (91.6% for all RD applicants)</p>
<p>But I believe my this still falls in line with my original observation regarding how SCEA deferreds fair in the RD pool.</p>
<p>Overall stats remain within rounding error.</p>