Good to know @williams2021 thank you. Why do only half of students ever take one, do you think? Are they not a popular option or hard to get into or what?
@OHMomof2 I meant to say that every year, only about 600 out of the roughly ~1350(excluding freshmen and study abroad students) eligible students take them. Since each year almost half of the students take tutorial, the percentage of students ever taking one is probably higher. Tutorials are usually level 200 or 300 for their difficulty/prerequisites so that can be a turn off for some people.
Williams web site says just over half take one tutorial, ever. Ergo, a bit less than half never take one at all. Iām wondering why that is. @williams2021
It is interesting to me that while most people would agree that high school class rigor and GPA are better predictors of college success than are SAT/ACT test scores, when some schools emphasis the former over the latter** it is effectively held against the school by those producing rankings. In effect, the rankings are dismissing the ability of ADCOMs to discern which candidates are actually stronger, and instead distilling the quality of candidates down to an average test score.
Likewise, most everyone agrees that admissions rates are (1) highly dependent of external factors (e.g., geography: the Claremont schools are virtually the only top LACs on the West Coast), (2) easily manipulated (e.g., through marketing, removing application essays and waiving application fees), and (3) of very limited value in any case. Despite this, admission rates seem to be one of the first metrics used to rate schools (perhaps because it is so easily listed and compared).
Ultimately, as @2mrmagoo said, it is all about fit.
That said, I like lists as much as the next person, so below is mine. Not a prestige ranking, but rather based entirely on personal perspective and minimally on metrics. The starred (*) schools are ones Iāve personally visited/toured. Take the whole thing with a grain of salt; take those I havenāt visited with a whole bag of salt.
**often explicitly ā some colleges specify that test scores are, for example, āvery importantā where at others they are just āconsideredā; see, e.g., http://www.eduers.com/University/North_Carolina/Davidson_College.html
- Davidson*
- Barnard* (not really a LAC though)
- Colgate*
- Swarthmore*
- Harvey Mudd (doesn't really fit in this list either)
- Carleton
- Kenyon*
- Haverford*
- Williams*
- CMC (yes, higher than Pomona)
- Wellesley*
- Grinnell*
- Middlebury
- Pomona
- Oberlin*
- Bowdoin
- Amherst*
- Washington & Lee*
- Bryn Mawr
- St. John's College
- Wesleyan*
- Vassar*
- Smith
- Bucknell*
- Furman*
- Colorado College
- Lafayette*
- Colby
- Sewanee
- Macalester
- Scripps
- Reed
- Mount Holyoke
- Hamilton*
- Connecticut College*
- Pitzer
- Berea
- Bates
- Richmond
- F&M*
- Trinity
- Dickinson
- Rhodes
- Hillsdale
- Whitman
- Wooster
- St. Lawrence
- St. Olaf
- Skidmore
- Denison
@OHMomof2 The biggest challenge is over-enrollment. Here is an article detailing the demand: http://williamsrecord.com/2013/02/20/over-enrollment-in-tutorials-rises/
One thing to note when using test scores is that the enrolled student profile is not necessarily indicative of what the reality might be like. Hereās a case study with two colleges- Amherst (admit rate 14%) and Hamilton (admit rate 26%).
https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/669797
https://www.hamilton.edu/admission/apply/standardized-testing-distribution-of-scores
41% of those applying with SAT scores to Hamilton had a 700-800 on CR, compared to 60% at Amherst. 46% of them got in at Hamilton, compared to 21% at Amherst. So while Hamilton has 1.85x the overall admit rate of Amherst, high scorers have a 2.2x higher chance of getting in. ACT 34-36: 31% of Amherst applicants with ACT scores, of whom 23% were admitted; 16.2% of Hamilton applicants, of whom 66% were admitted. The difference here- 2.9x.
The yield is important to consider-
Amherst 700-800 CR: 32.4%
Amherst 34-36 ACT: 32.3%
Hamilton 700-800 CR: 25.3%
Hamilton 34-36 ACT: 12.5%
I hear a lot that schools can fill their classes with high test scorers if they wanted to. Letās say Hamilton admitted every single 700-800/34-36. Thatād be only 274 students enrolling (out of a class size of 475). In other words, it is virtually impossible for Hamilton, with the pool/yield history it has, to have an exceptionally high enrolled testing profile.
Amherst on the other hand, if examined under a similar lens, can fill their seats with 750-800/34-36 quite readily: 754 spots based on yielding history and admitting all students (this even excludes those with 700-740s). Their class size is 471. Amherst could be the most selective college in the country by enrolled test scores if they truly desired it.
My endorsement is not for colleges to do anything like this. But itās something to think about when trying to put a weight on test scores in identifying the quality of students admitted. Both schools make deliberate choices to not select all the best scorers: Amherst more so than Hamilton. Their enrolled profiles donāt reveal a huge gap: 31-33 at Hamilton and 31-34 at Amherst. But the reality is made more complex by the applicant pool and yield. Few schools are as transparent as these two regarding a detailed breakdown of testing standards/yields, but it could have implications for the LAC pool at large.
Interestingly, Hamilton is test flexible and lists testing as āImportantā, whereas Amherst requires ACT/SATs and lists them as āVery Importantā. Yet the data seems to suggest that Hamilton may favor higher test scores more than Amherst does. Really goes to show that the CDS criteria arenāt particularly meaningful.
@nostalgicwisdom, iām missing something as the total of 700-800/34-36 at Hamilton is at least 592 (SAT 700-800 of 433 using Math score as basis, and ACT 34-36 of 159), so they could enroll 100% if all accepted. Understand that historic yield has been much less, but as accepted student median ACT increased from 32 to 33 this year it will be interesting to see impact on yield.
You have to factor in the yields as well, because 100% will not enroll.
Hamilton 700-800 per section on the SAT CR: 955 applications
If all admitted, 25.3% yield = 242 enrolled
Hamilton 34-36 ACT: 240 applications
If all admitted, 12.5% yield = 30 enrolled
Total with high scores in class size: 272 (Class size = 475)
Amherst 750-800 per section on the SAT CR: 1401 applications
If all admitted, 28.5% yield = 400 enrolled
Amherst 34-36 ACT: 1098 applications
If all admitted, 32.3% yield = 355 enrolled
Total with high scores in class size: 755 (Class size = 471)
All the numbers/yields are from the above data sets.
It will be interesting to see this yearās data at Hamilton as over 50% submitted the ACT, as compared to 20% in the prior year, and with that the median accepted ACT increased from 32 to 33. If other schools maintain a more holistic approach, yield within this group could increase substantially - I have two admitted DDās in that group so that will be 100% yield in our case.
A few months ago, I did a Yield Ranking based on 2020 data. The LACs ranked like this:
- Bowdoin 50%
- Pomona 48%
- Williams 45%
- Claremont McKenna, Wellesley 43%
- Colorado College, Davidson, Swarthmore 42%
- Hamilton 41%
- Harvey Mudd, Scripps 40%
- Amherst 39%
- Middlebury 38%
- Carleton, Washington and Lee, Wesleyan 35%
- Colby*, Vassar 34%
- Colgate, Oberlin, Smith 32%
- Grinnell 28%
- Macalester 25%
- 2015 data wasn't available at the time, used 2014
Now, granted, Yield can be manipulated in a variety of ways.
You could do a similar ranking with ED data, i.e. which schools get the most ED applications.
One thing to think about with yield ā and iām sure this has been mentioned somewhere, but maybe not yet in this thread ā is that it will be affected by the other schools each applicant was admitted to.
I see Amherst ādown thereā at 39%. Might that mean it isnāt quite as desirable, in the final analysis, as some of its peers? Maybe.
Or maybe a few more kids who got into Amherst also got the call from HYPSM and just couldnāt turn it down.
To have anything approaching adequate knowledge to be able to make yield-based judgments, first we would have to know which schools admitted every kid. We could throw a blanket on that and presume, āAhh, well, every kid gets into a bunch of schoolsā¦ā but thatās not the case, and the desirability of each kidās list of admissions is not equal. We just canāt know. Unless we can trust Parchment. Can I get a L-O-L?!
Are you sure your data is from Cā20? CMC/Pomonaās yield was 54%, Davidson 46%, Middlebury 43%, and Scripps 30%. A number of others are off too.
RD yields are more telling as overall yields can be manipulated with ED numbers. Here are some of them for the class enrolled last fall:
- Pomona 38%
- Barnard 36%
- Bowdoin/Wellesley 35%
- Williams 32%
- Amherst 30%
- Mudd 29%
- Claremont 27%
- Swarthmore/Davidson/Colorado 26%
- Vassar 24%
- Smith/Oberlin 23%
- Washington and Lee/Hamilton 21%
- Middlebury/Wesleyan 20%
- Colgate/Scripps 19%
- Carleton/Colby/Grinnell 18%
- Macalester 17%
@prezbucky just saw your comment; thatās why RD yields are a better metric in my opinion. Amherst actually does quite well, but they donāt use ED to the same extent as other LACs do. For instance, a whopping 68% of CMC students come from early processes compared to 38% of Amherst students. Of course CMC will do exceptionally well on the overall yield: 2/3 of their class is filled by committed students.
@prezbucky appears to be performing a social media experiment to determine whether LAC or University aficionados are more obsessed with rankings.
Results so far:
LAC ranking thread - 51 comments, 133 views
University ranking thread - 33 comments, 114 views
LAC aficionados have overcome their late start and they are pulling ahead!
By historical standards, todayās college landscape might not be recognizable. As examples, though Reed has always generally been strong, they once fell, universities included, distinctly into the top level (by standardized scoring); Antioch enrolled statistically similar students to those at Penn; and Sewanee rivaled Duke in the South:
Select LAC SAT levels ca 1960
Amherst
Carleton
Haverford
Reed
Swarthmore
Williams
Hamilton
Oberlin
Antioch
Bowdoin
Kenyon
Middlebury
Union
Sewanee
Colgate
Denison
Grinnell
Knox
Lawrence
Muhlenberg
Occidental
Beloit
Interesting. But doesnāt a high ED application rate (and low admit rate in that round) indicate high interest on the part of kids who are, after all, willing to forgo other options to attend? That means something.
Then again, what it seems to often mean is the school has a large athletic program 
I think disregarding ED vs RD using the overall admit rate is the way to go.
I realize this is a side convo to the OP but since itās here, please humor me, itās discussed here more than anywhere else.
Sounds like students want some tutorials but not others. And lots of students have the same preferences.
So popular tutorials are a carefully rationed, limited resource.
Applicants should know that.
@nostalgicwisdom I used the Common Core data sets for 2015-16 to calculate. Where are you getting your data from?
Anyone care to list ED admit rates for these LACs?
Iām just a newbie who hasnāt yet figured out where to get these interesting stats to compare.
Thereās a thread with them somewhereā¦Iāll try to locate.
@MACmiracle Theyāre being collected and posted here. Not everyone has published them yet.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1944094-college-admissions-statistics-class-of-2021-early-and-regular-decision-acceptance-rates-p55.html - those are the most recent posts in that long thread.