<p>^You’re still missing the point even though you’ve now acknowledged it. You say:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That pretty much sums up the gist of Data10’s point that you and many others so vociferously disagreed with. No one was making the argument that the statistical analysis should result in “taking a sigh of relief”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There have been a few more in the past. Simply based on memory, Rice used (and perhaps still does) to publish a list of admissions by rankings and scores. Wellesley, not known for its disclosures, was also showing the percentage of admissions by SAT scores – well, if you consider Wellesley a school with low admit rates! And finally, I also remember seeing distributed stats from Brown students. </p>
<p>As expected, the odds were a LOT better for students who approached perfection. </p>
<p>“Thinking the chances were 30% rather than 15% wouldn’t make me sleep much better at night.”</p>
<p>Exactly. You still have to prepare yourself that the chances are quite high you won’t get in. So I really don’t see the point of trying to convince yourself or your kid that their chances at an elite school are 30% vs 15%. Either way, prepare for the hammer to drop and be pleasantly surprised if it doesn’t.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, a poster on the forum once shared some data with me that basically showed that for nearly every top uni and top LAC, ED rates are higher than RD rates. And yes, we know that the ED’ers include recruited athletes and blah blah blah.</p>
<p>Well, any data needs to be interpreted - including admissions percentages, SAT ranges, etc. The need to be cautious doesn’t mean we have to throw it out.</p>
<p>Part of the reason chance threads are so silly is that we don’t have access to the student’s full application and, even in considering the information we do have, often don’t have enough of it to make fine distinctions (between, for instance, the above-average suburban public, and the really top flight one, or the kid who is going to get good recs and the one whose recs will read "this is the most brilliant student I’ve encountered in thirty years). I have a feeling, however, that a guidance counselor at Horace Mann could do a reasonable job determining the chances of her own students at a range of colleges. In fact, if the extent of her admissions counseling is “well, Brandeis has an 37 % acceptance rate, so I guess your chances there are about 37 %,” she should be fired. </p>
<p>Then, of course, there are a very small group of students for whom even the best schools are probably matches rather than reaches. We’ve seen a couple of threads this year about exceptional URM students admitted to every Ivy. That isn’t because they happened to beat super heavy odds eight times; it is because a highly qualified URM student actually has pretty darn good odds at each of those schools. The effect may be even more profound for students with demonstrated, prodigy-type talent in a particular area.</p>
<p>CHD, I’m not sure what your deal is with me, but I don’t think I have vociferously disagreed with anyone on this thread. All I’ve said is use data and common sense and be a good consumer of information. This is getting silly. Have a good day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Emotional preparation seems important to you @Pizzagirl. Fine. Other people use the data for other reasons. </p>
<p>For example, let’s say a student is deciding between two schools for an ED application, the schools are very similar in terms of selectivity and that student likes each exactly the same amount. If Naviance shows that one school has a preference for very high SATs and the other school has a preference for a very high GPA, that student might want to take their personal stats into account and use the Naviance info to help with their decision.</p>
<p>The point is, I don’t think data from ANY ONE HIGH SCHOOL is conclusive enough to show that College A prefers high SAT’s and College B prefers a high GPA. Any one high school is such a minute part of the entire applicant pool and application process. It’s the equivalent of case studies and anecdotes, not real data.</p>
<p>Now, if you were able to Naviance the entire applicant pool, or a large scale representative chunk thereof, it might be a different story. </p>
<p>Ergo Parchment and what the schools themselves say (yes, yes, Parchment incomplete, blah, blah; you can still interpret the data).</p>
<p>^^I disagree. We’re not trying to figure out if the college generically prefers high GPA or grades or anything else. We’re trying to figure out the characteristics that they typically accept from the applicant’s school. Every high school is different. Colleges know this. Based on the colleges’ familiarity whit the school they may generally (big caveat here) take applicants above GPA or SAT thresholds from THAT school. If there are numerous data points on Naviance, and those data points indicate a pattern, it could be valid to make some inferences. Not ironclad determinants or anything close, but nevertheless the info could be helpful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that the numbers for ED have been pretty consistent in showing the higher admission rates. Not much has changed since Avery etal started to describe the ED “racket.” The debate has usually been about the tangible benefit to applicants who do not necessarily share the sought-after attributes. Schools have particularly adamant about the size of the advantage being very small as they pretend the applicant pool is stronger academically. Fwiw, USNews has maintained a list about the differences between ED and RD rates. College consultants such as Michele Hernandez have often described the strategic advantages of a well-chosen ED application, and done so with a combination of experience and … solid analysis of the admission data! 
</p>
<p>And as we know, there are schools where the advantage in statistical terms is considerable as they have a small contingent of candidates who are happy to use their ED joker. This is the case at several non-coed schools. </p>
<p>The EA is quite different. One only needs to compare Georgetown, Chicago, and MIT to understand how variable the approaches are. MIT tends to a have lower EA admit while Chicago has famously extended admissions to its EA pool at a rate that exceeds its available spots. </p>
<p>"We’re not trying to figure out if the college generically prefers high GPA or grades or anything else. We’re trying to figure out the characteristics that they typically accept from the applicant’s school. Every high school is different. "</p>
<p>Keyword: “Typically accept from the applicant’s school.” That presupposes that the college feels beholden in some way to that school that they will always accept at least one or at least N students. Who says that this year, they aren’t going to reject them all, because they finally got some “fresh” schools from Mississippi or Nebraska?</p>
<p>That’s the upper-middle-class arrogance piece of it that I just don’t get. </p>
<p>Look, how often do colleges do these mass mailings because they’re trying to find the diamond in the rough in Mississippi and Nebraska (or for that matter, the inner city kid who didn’t think that an elite school would be on his radar screen). We KNOW that they do these things – so to persist in believing that because they took 4 kids each year for the last 5 years from your school, so they’re absolutely going to take some kids this year, just strikes me as both silly and arrogant. </p>
<p>“That’s the upper middle-class arrogance piece of it that I just don’t get.”</p>
<p>I think that’s completely uncalled for. We’re talking about probabilities here. I suppose there’s a chance that a university will, in the space of one or two years, so completely transform its applicant pool that all previous data becomes entirely non predictive, but it isn’t a very good one. In any case, a university that accepted a lot of upper middle-class Northeasterners last year is probably also going to accept a lot of upper middle-class Northeasterners last year. They may accept five percent less, but that’s not going to throw things so out of whack that the old standards fly entirely out the window.</p>
<p>It isn’t a matter of assuming that your school is entitled to x number of spots. I’m not entitled to a seat on the subway tomorrow, but based on previous experience, I think there’s a very good chance that I’ll get one. </p>
<p>You must not be riding Metro. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They do not, MIT admissions officers have explicitly stated that as long as your scores are above 700, they don’t matter. I suspect that even at test-optional schools, admissions rates correlate with test scores.</p>
<p>People seem overestimate the accuracy of SAT scores too much. Even Collegeboard states that you can’t really differentiate between a 740 and an 800.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly! </p>
<p>I used it for calculating the probability of attendance and using those calculations to craft a strategy to maximize the outcome and minimize the work. It helped determine what was worth visiting, and what was worth dropping because the probability of attendance was too low. </p>
<p>Emotions played no part in this except that minimizing the work also minimized the stress. </p>
<p>However, emotions played a huge part in my Ds determining their preferences. </p>
<p>Here is a list of 100 schools with SAT ranges (Reading + Math) corresponding to reach, match, safety. For example, if your SATs fall between 1360 and 1410, then Vanderbilt would be a reasonable reach for you, with emphasis on the word “reasonable”. If your SATs are between 1450 and 1500, then University of Rochester might be a reasonable safety for you. If your SATs are above 1500, then you might look for more selective “safetys”. Some of the very top schools like Harvard are never true “safetys”. I also included ACT 25th and 75th percentiles, state, and admit rate for discussion. If ACTs were missing from IPEDS data then I assigned a 99 as a place holder. It doesn’t address the need for a financial safety.</p>
<p>I think this is a good starting point, a good rule of thumb.</p>
<p>1360 to 1410 to 1600 to 1600 32 35 MA 6 Harvard University
1360 to 1410 to 1600 to 1600 31 35 NJ 7 Princeton University
1440 to 1490 to 1600 to 1600 33 35 CA 11 California Institute of Technology
1360 to 1410 to 1590 to 1600 32 35 CT 7 Yale University
1390 to 1440 to 1590 to 1600 32 35 IL 9 University of Chicago
1340 to 1390 to 1570 to 1600 31 34 NY 7 Columbia University in the City of New York
1330 to 1380 to 1570 to 1600 31 34 CA 6 Stanford University
1380 to 1430 to 1570 to 1600 33 35 MA 8 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1360 to 1410 to 1570 to 1600 32 34 TN 13 Vanderbilt University
1300 to 1350 to 1560 to 1600 30 34 NH 10 Dartmouth College
1280 to 1330 to 1560 to 1600 30 34 MA 17 Williams College
1350 to 1400 to 1560 to 1600 32 35 CA 18 Harvey Mudd College
1370 to 1420 to 1550 to 1600 32 34 MO 16 Washington University in St Louis
1310 to 1360 to 1550 to 1600 30 34 NC 13 Duke University
1340 to 1390 to 1550 to 1600 31 34 IL 15 Northwestern University
1320 to 1370 to 1550 to 1600 31 34 TX 17 Rice University
1330 to 1380 to 1540 to 1590 31 34 CA 14 Pomona College
1310 to 1360 to 1540 to 1590 30 34 PA 12 University of Pennsylvania
1280 to 1330 to 1540 to 1590 29 34 RI 9 Brown University
1300 to 1350 to 1530 to 1580 30 34 MA 14 Amherst College
1300 to 1350 to 1530 to 1580 31 34 PA 14 Swarthmore College
1290 to 1340 to 1530 to 1580 30 34 PA 25 Carnegie Mellon University
1290 to 1340 to 1520 to 1570 32 34 IN 22 University of Notre Dame
1290 to 1340 to 1520 to 1570 29 33 MN 21 Carleton College
1320 to 1370 to 1520 to 1570 30 33 MA 19 Tufts University
1270 to 1320 to 1520 to 1570 30 34 NY 16 Cornell University
1310 to 1360 to 1510 to 1560 30 33 ME 15 Bowdoin College
1270 to 1320 to 1510 to 1560 30 34 MD 18 Johns Hopkins University
1260 to 1310 to 1510 to 1560 29 33 MA 29 Wellesley College
1260 to 1310 to 1500 to 1550 29 33 DC 17 Georgetown University
1270 to 1320 to 1500 to 1550 29 33 CA 12 Claremont McKenna College
1200 to 1250 to 1500 to 1550 28 32 IA 35 Grinnell College
1260 to 1310 to 1490 to 1540 30 33 PA 23 Haverford College
1170 to 1220 to 1490 to 1540 27 33 CA 18 University of California-Berkeley
1170 to 1220 to 1490 to 1540 29 33 NY 8 Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
1240 to 1290 to 1488 to 1538 27 31 NY 41 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
1220 to 1270 to 1480 to 1530 31 33 VT 17 Middlebury College
1250 to 1300 to 1480 to 1530 29 33 CT 21 Wesleyan University
1230 to 1280 to 1480 to 1530 28 32 MI 33 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
1230 to 1280 to 1480 to 1530 29 33 CA 20 University of Southern California
1250 to 1300 to 1480 to 1530 30 33 MA 32 Northeastern University
1220 to 1270 to 1480 to 1530 29 33 OH 42 Case Western Reserve University
1260 to 1310 to 1470 to 1520 30 33 NY 24 Vassar College
1250 to 1300 to 1470 to 1520 29 33 NY 27 Hamilton College
1180 to 1230 to 1470 to 1520 28 32 MA 37 Brandeis University
1160 to 1210 to 1470 to 1520 27 32 PA 40 Bryn Mawr College
1230 to 1280 to 1470 to 1520 28 33 OR 49 Reed College
1200 to 1250 to 1460 to 1510 29 33 VA 30 University of Virginia-Main Campus
1260 to 1310 to 1460 to 1510 30 33 VA 18 Washington and Lee University
1220 to 1270 to 1460 to 1510 29 32 GA 26 Emory University
1220 to 1270 to 1460 to 1510 28 32 VA 33 College of William and Mary
1220 to 1270 to 1460 to 1510 30 32 NY 26 Colgate University
1200 to 1250 to 1460 to 1510 28 32 NY 26 New York University
1210 to 1260 to 1460 to 1510 28 32 GA 55 Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus
1220 to 1270 to 1455 to 1505 28 32 OH 30 Oberlin College
1230 to 1280 to 1453 to 1503 29 32 CA 36 Scripps College
1220 to 1270 to 1450 to 1500 30 33 MA 32 Boston College
1180 to 1230 to 1450 to 1500 29 32 MN 34 Macalester College
1200 to 1250 to 1450 to 1500 29 32 NY 36 University of Rochester
1210 to 1260 to 1450 to 1500 26 31 IL 62 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1180 to 1230 to 1440 to 1490 29 33 NC 26 Davidson College
1190 to 1240 to 1440 to 1490 28 32 NY 21 Barnard College
1110 to 1160 to 1440 to 1490 25 31 CA 22 University of California-Los Angeles
1210 to 1260 to 1430 to 1480 28 32 ME 26 Colby College
1170 to 1220 to 1430 to 1480 27 32 CO 22 Colorado College
1120 to 1170 to 1430 to 1480 26 30 MN 44 University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
1170 to 1220 to 1423 to 1473 28 32 WA 57 Whitman College
1160 to 1210 to 1420 to 1470 27 32 IL 69 Wheaton College
1130 to 1180 to 1420 to 1470 26 31 MN 59 St Olaf College
1150 to 1200 to 1420 to 1470 99 99 MD 47 University of Maryland-College Park
1180 to 1230 to 1420 to 1470 28 32 FL 40 University of Miami
1180 to 1230 to 1410 to 1460 28 32 OH 38 Kenyon College
1150 to 1200 to 1410 to 1460 28 32 NC 28 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
1170 to 1220 to 1410 to 1460 28 32 PA 31 Lehigh University
1160 to 1210 to 1410 to 1460 28 31 VA 31 University of Richmond
1150 to 1200 to 1400 to 1450 27 32 PA 30 Bucknell University
1160 to 1210 to 1400 to 1450 29 31 PA 49 Villanova University
1160 to 1210 to 1400 to 1450 27 31 CA 42 Occidental College
1170 to 1220 to 1400 to 1450 28 31 NY 37 Union College
1110 to 1160 to 1400 to 1450 26 30 WI 68 University of Wisconsin-Madison
1160 to 1210 to 1400 to 1450 29 32 CO 15 United States Air Force Academy
1190 to 1240 to 1400 to 1450 29 32 LA 26 Tulane University of Louisiana
1080 to 1130 to 1400 to 1450 25 32 OK 41 University of Tulsa
1140 to 1190 to 1400 to 1450 28 32 NY 75 Polytechnic Institute of New York University
1120 to 1170 to 1390 to 1440 25 31 CA 38 University of California-San Diego
1130 to 1180 to 1390 to 1440 26 30 MA 46 Boston University
1170 to 1220 to 1390 to 1440 27 31 TX 51 Southern Methodist University
1150 to 1200 to 1390 to 1440 27 31 DC 33 George Washington University
1130 to 1180 to 1390 to 1440 27 29 NY 46 SUNY College at Geneseo
1160 to 1210 to 1390 to 1440 27 32 NJ 38 Stevens Institute of Technology
1150 to 1200 to 1390 to 1440 27 31 CO 37 Colorado School of Mines
1130 to 1180 to 1385 to 1435 27 30 NY 9 United States Military Academy
1170 to 1220 to 1385 to 1435 27 30 NY 43 SUNY at Binghamton
1130 to 1180 to 1380 to 1430 99 99 MD 7 United States Naval Academy
1150 to 1200 to 1380 to 1430 27 31 CA 51 Santa Clara University
1100 to 1150 to 1380 to 1430 27 31 OH 56 Ohio State University-Main Campus
1090 to 1140 to 1380 to 1430 25 31 TX 40 The University of Texas at Austin
1140 to 1190 to 1380 to 1430 27 30 FL 61 New College of Florida
1110 to 1160 to 1380 to 1430 25 30 IL 57 Illinois Institute of Technology
1130 to 1180 to 1370 to 1420 27 31 PA 34 Lafayette College</p>
<p>Pizzagirl-
When my S applied to colleges we looked at a lot of Naviance scattergrams and found some interesting patterns for his HS. He attended a small, slightly quirky independent school and it was clear from looking at the Naviance data that some schools “got” his school while others did not. For instance we found that one school for which he would seem qualified had not accepted a single kid with his stats or lower, out of a pool of 30 or so, while another smaller school with a 5 percent lower acceptance rate and higher stats for admitted students had accepted many, many students with his stats. He applied to the second and crossed the first off his list. It wasn’t that he felt his school was entitled to slots, but that it seemed clear that his chances at the second school were better than the first, and the eventual results bore him out. 4 kids from his class of 80 ended up at school #2, none at school #1.</p>
<p>I think Naviance is a very useful tool, but it’s just that, a tool. It can’t account for all the information available to applicants and parents. Some of the mistakes I’ve seem people make in looking at Naviance data:</p>
<ol>
<li>Forgetting that some of those green dots on the lower left side are undoubtedly for kids with special cases, in particular recruited athletes and heavy-duty legacies. Just because some kid from your school once got into Yale with a 1900/3.4 doesn’t mean those same stats give you a snowball’s chance in hell.</li>
<li>Assuming all the information is current and correct. Some GC’s are great about posting solid information, but I’ve heard of schools using students as the source of their Naviance data. GIGO applies.</li>
<li>Thinking that if you fall in the middle of the green dots at a low admit rate school the school is a match for you. Don’t forget to look at those little red X’s too. If the number of X’s for kids with your stats is at or above the number of green dots the school is a reach (keeping in mind point #1).</li>
</ol>
<p>IMHO, Naviance is particularly helpful for assessing the extremes. If you’re a recruited athlete at your stretch school, do you fall within the range of kids accepted? If you’re looking for a likely (aka safety) school, has anyone with your stats from your school been rejected?</p>
<p>
I don’t buy it. I have heard so many lies from admission officers at info sessions from different schools trying to encourage more students to apply. The statistics does not lie. It simply show much higher admission rate with higher scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Admissions people may honestly believe that they are doing one thing, but while subconsciously doing another.</p>