I am just curious to know which of the schools are most selective. Please rank them from most selective to least selective, based on personal experiences or college guides. I have been confused by some responses under “what are my chances”, and I would like to get a better idea of which are considered safeties, matches, and reaches. Thanks so much!
Amherst
Wesleyan
Swarthmore
Bowdoin
Carleton
Haverford
Middlebury
Macalester
Mount Holyoke
Smith
Oberlin
Vassar
Skidmore
Bard
Reed
Wellesley
<p>The answer is that, while you can count the number of folks accepted and rejected, you can't actually come up with a true "selectivity" index. The women's colleges, for example, are only dealing with half the population (and in the case of Smith, 10% are older women, average age 36). Some of the colleges which de-emphasize SATs (like Bowdoin and Mount Holyoke and Bard) have a wider range of SAT selectivity - they will have some high 1500s, like Swarthmore, and some barely crossing 1000. </p>
<p>You also have to cross tabulate selectivity with yield. Amherst rejects a much higher proportion of applicants than, say, Smith, but yield is very similar. </p>
<p>Instead of playing "reach, match, safety", a much more important game is "fit, almost fit, fits some, doesn't fit at all.</p>
<p>Oops! I should have thought of that! For someone with high SAT scores (above 1450), good grades (around 3.9 UW), challenging courses, interesting, but not extraordinary ECs, good recs and essays, and a pretty good interview, what would be the ranking of selectivity? My sister and her friends are seniors, but I will not be applying for a couple of years. These are schools that at least some are interested in. Thanks!</p>
<p>As Mini said, it is more important that you are a good fit for the schools you have on your list, as well as be aware of their selectivity. Just my humble opinion. Hope this is of use. :)</p>
<p>Here is how USNEWS ranks the selectivity of liberal arts colleges. Their ranking is comprised of SAT scores (50%), percentage of students in top 10% of high school class (40%), and acceptance rate (10%).</p>
<p>I think their selectivity ranks are a pretty decent rough guide (just ranking the median SAT scores would probably as accurate), but obviously "fit" will have a lot to do with it.</p>
<p>The women's colleges are a good "admissions value" due to the smaller applicant pool -- easier to get into than they should be given their academic excellence. Likewise, schools outside of the highly desireable Northeast tend to be better admissions values -- again because the demand is somewhat lower.</p>
<p>BTW, Williams is #3, tied with Pomona and Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>Thanks for the replies! Remmiak, I listed only listed schools that my sister and her friends are applying to or considering. Otherwise, I would have included Williams.</p>
<p>I agree with Interesteddad - the USN&WR selectivity rankings are pretty useful. I would not be shocked if a student is accepted by the #6 school and and then waitlisted by #8, but I might be surpirsed if the student was accepted by the #6 school and then rejected by #12. Legacy status, athletics, essays, ECs etc can make a difference at individual schools however.</p>
<p>I think Swarthmore is also a place where you have to fit the school. A girl who graduated from my school got into Yale, Princeton, and I think Williams and Amherst (maybe only one of those two) and several other pretty strong schools, but was waitlisted at Swarthmore. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I do feel strongly that it's the kind of school where you have to match their personality.</p>
<p>First of all, I'm no expert. I spent a weekend there in September and my mentor at UCLA used to teach there, so I'd like to think I have <em>some</em> idea what kind of student they want. The students I met there really loved to learn. Some people think that most high achieving students love to learn, but I'd disagree. If given the choice between a work day and another lesson, which would they choose? Students who really love to learn would usually go for the next lesson. Swat students are known for being the type of students who, if the teacher briefly mentions a book in passing in a lecture, will go out and read that book and maybe bring it up in class the next week (according to my mentor at UCLA). They just all had a lot of passion for what they did and enjoyed studying and working together. They were all pretty friendly, which kinda surprised me actually. I think the #1 thing Swat looks for are students who hav excelled (especially in an academic setting) and who just have a real passion for what they do. Here's a story that just seemed typical Swarthmore to me:
When at Swat, I asked this one guy what the best part of Swarthmore is.
"You know how they say that it's really tough?" he asked.
I nodded.
"Well," he smiled "it's true."
Hopefully that answers your question.</p>