The Ivy League has done a great job, but there is great quality around the country

College Search & Selection
41

<p>USC....
Total undergrads: 16,729
Degree-seeking undergrads: 16,449
First-time degree-seeking freshmen: 2,763</p>

<p>Do those SAT scores reflect all the full time students at USC? Does USC count spring admits in their SAT numbers? Does USC count transfer students SAT scores? Does USC count SAT scores for foreign born students or students where English is a second language?</p>

<p>Hawkette, I am sure you know the answer to all these questions because you like to use objective data and if you don't know the answers then you don't know if the data is objective, or what the data means, or how to compare the data with other schools. Since you are using the data, what are the answers to my questions.</p>

<p>I'm with Bluebayou post #39.</p>

<p>Yes or no, can you measure the intelligence of a student body by its average SAT scores?</p>

<p>Yes or no, can you measure how good a school is by the average SAT scores of a student body?</p>

<p>Can you measure the quality of education you will receive at a college by the average SAT scores of a student body?</p>

<p>These aren't rhetorical questions. I'd like to read your answers to these questions.</p>

<p>If the answer to the above questions is yes, then why don't schools just use SAT scores in the admission process?</p>

42

<p>Why are we trying to 'legitimize' the quality of these fine institutions by trying to pair them each of the Ivy League schools?</p>

<p>All these schools mentioned — Chicago, Gtown, Emory, Tufts, etc. — they're all great, and they don't have to be particularly like any of the Ivies. They stand well enough on their own!</p>

43

<p>"Why are we trying to 'legitimize' the quality of these fine institutions by trying to pair them each of the Ivy League schools?"</p>

<p>Because schools are better than other schools and schools that people think are better, aren't better, and we can measure schools by objective data that is incomplete, inacccurate, isn't objective, doesn't measure what we think it measures, and we can all come to the same conclusions about schools using this objective data, and Wilt Chamberlain slept with 10,000 women, but he really didn't because 3 were dead, so technically they were no longer women.</p>

44

<p>I don't get why people continue to cite collegeboard.com data for some of these colleges. Its OLD data!</p>

<p>Looking at things today:</p>

<p>Acceptance rate at Cornell: 20.5%
Acceptance rate at USC: 25.3%</p>

<p>Yield at USC: 34.67%
Yield at Cornell: about 49%</p>

<p>Average SAT at Cornell: 1420 (M and CR only)
Average SAT at USC: 2054 (all three parts)</p>

<p>No theres not too much of a difference here, but i just can't stand people providing old information!</p>

<p>Also consider that, if your looking for "diversity," Cornell is way more diverse than USC. USC is 99.2 percent Caucasian and 0.8 percent Native American (for undergraduate only). While I don't have the complete number for Cornell undergrad, I can assure you that its wayyy more diverse (Cornell generally having about 5% black enrollment, 6% Hispanic enrollment, and an even higher Asian enrollment). While not "perfect," its more diverse than USC!</p>

45

<p>Hawkette: SAT mid ranges and selectivity numbers do not have that much to do with your attempt to equate ivies and non-ivys. They are only two of the most basic factors that help create a student body and an atmosphere for learning. It goes without saying that top schools require top stats. So? I know that you think that those two stats basically define the "quality" of a school, but you are so wrong.There are many other stats and factors that go into making a school what it is. If what you are doing is equating ivies to other schools in terms of similar SAT scores, in an attempt to show that the student bodies are similar, why not just say so? </p>

<p>Schools look for kids with all sorts of backgrounds and talents. Having the scores is just the leveling factor that tells admissions committees that the applicants can do the work. After this, the colleges determine if they think that the applicants will fit, have something to offer the life of the school, would add something positive to the personality of the environment, etc. To compare schools, one needs to be able to look at all of these factors and then determine if the student bodies are similar. The personality of the school is an important factor when making such comparisons. I think that pretty much everyone understands that there are overlaps in SAT scores, among the ivies and the top non-ivies.</p>

<p>Granted, I live in the NE, so I probably do not understand the way people, or high schools from across the country view colleges and universities. But I completely understand the way the process is viewed, here. I can all but guarantee you, that kids in the top echelons in terms of grades and SAT scores are completely aware of all of their options around the country. </p>

<p>I can see that you believe this not to be true for where you come from, and I will take that on faith, as, as I said before, I can only speak from my own experiences. But I think that there is probably a large group of people around the country who are extremely knowledgable about the college process, and opportunity. Don't think for one minute that all we, in the Northeast, know about are the ivies and a handful of other schools. Don't think that for one minute. This is where you tend to miscommunicate with people...You make the assumption that we are not aware of what is out there, when we very much do. You take this from your own experiences. Even if you find this considerable level of understanding prevalent here to be astonishing, it is a fact. Believe me, we are very well versed in the available opportunities, and the value of said. Our college advisors are generally very sophisticated, and there is very little that they are not aware of. </p>

<p>Your beliefs are a very telling reflection of the people you meet, come in contact with in your daily activities. They seem to have led you to believe that in general, students and their parents and advisors only know about what is available in their own backyards. This mindset is very alien to everything that I know to be true about the same population, here in the Northeast. Conceit? I don't think so. Just the way it is.</p>

<p>When you mention schools like Hotchkiss, Exeter, Choate, and the like, and allude to the students who attend those schools (as well as their parents and advisors) as being ignorant of college opportunities around the country, you just sound silly to people who really know these top prep schools. Really. Think about it. The very notion that top NE prep schools, that have been around for centuries, would not know what is out there, just makes no sense. It is almost an oxymoron. C'mon. Get real. Sure their kids would rather go to an ivy or the top handful of schools you refer to. This does not mean that they have no clue about Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, etc. Some of their kids even go to those schools. Oh, yes, they do!</p>

46

<p>I think the most telling difference between USC and Cornell is the graduation rate.
USC = 84%.
Cornell = 92%.
USC is either a really bad experience or they are fudging their SAT data.</p>

<p>98% of the faculty at Cornell are full time.
82% of the faculty at USC are full time.</p>

47

<p>Regarding Cornell and its potential lack of "attractiveness" to applicants given its isolated location, be aware that Cornell receives more applications BY FAR than any other Ivy (plus Stanford and MIT), and hence in a way could be considered the "most popular" Ivy.</p>

<p>School, Applications Received</p>

<p>Cornell 30382
Stanford 23956
Harvard 22955
Penn 22634
Columbia 21343
Yale 19323
Brown 19044
Princeton 18942
Dartmouth 14176
MIT 12443 </p>

<p><a href="http://hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/resources/early2007statistics.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/resources/early2007statistics.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Hawkette: I don't understand the criticism directed at you on this thread - You've consistently reported objective data on CC to help break (Ivy and other) stereotypes. Isn't that part of becoming educated? Keep it up.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
Do you really think that the Columbia student is any better/smarter and/or better prepared than the Wash U student? I don't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I do.</p>

<p>Moreover I am insulted to be compared to Northwestern. UChicago, yes. Northwestern, no way.</p>

49

<p>You can't go by pure application numbers to determine awesomeness. There are two factors at work here:</p>

<ol>
<li>awesomeness</li>
<li>probability of acceptance.</li>
</ol>

<p>UCLA gets 50,000 applications every year. Does that mean it is better than Harvard?</p>

<p>Yale's applications didn't plummet 9% because Yale was somehow less amazing. They plummeted because more students looked at the probability of getting in and said "screw it, i'll save the $65"</p>

50

<p>"UCLA gets 50,000 applications every year. Does that mean it is better than Harvard?"</p>

<p>No, but it does mean that UCLA is at least "attractive" to students! </p>

<p>Sure a university's total number of applicants doesn't necessary mean that its "better," but I don't think thats what being argued here! This data is being used to simply show that statements saying Cornell's "isolated" location is a factor in peoples' interest is wrong!</p>

51

<p>I certainly agree that many of these schools mentioned are equal to or even better than their ivy counterparts.HOWEVER, the ivy schools have one thing that most of their "competitors" don't have: Name Cache! There is no question that if you go to an IVY school, you will have people more impressed, in general, then if you attended Emory, Wash U, USC or even Duke.</p>

52

<p>I will agree that Cornell does operate under two difficulties:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Its location. I've never minded Ithaca but apparently it's a big deal to some people not to live in a major metro area.</p></li>
<li><p>The perception of grade deflation/suicide/rigorous academics (not really a reality but the perception is out there)</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Yet, it is STILL ranked #12 and is, in my opinion, the best educational "bargain" out there in that it is relatively easy to get into (ie its student body isn't quite as strong) but its programs (particularly in engineering, hard sciences, pre-professional, arch, business) are as strong as more selective schools.</p>

53

<p>Norcalguy--I totally agree with you. I think that Cornell is a wonderful school, with strong departments in numerous areas and somewhat undervalued by prospective applicants.</p>

<p>As to hawkette, I guess I'm going to have to disagree with you SarahsDad.
When starting this thread, this is what hawkette wrote:</p>

<p>"I was talking with a friend recently about this and she suggested the following is probably a better reflection of the quality of the Ivy League schools once you strip away the Ivy label:"</p>

<p>There is no mention of objective data and when pushed, hawkette's answer was that the size of the undergraduate body and the SAT ranges were relatively similar for the paired schools, factors that I consider to be of limited value in truly comparing schools. Also, if you are truly interested in promoting less well known schools (although frankly, all of the schools mentioned are quite well known), why do you need to compare them to Ivies at all? </p>

<p>While I agree that too many people pick schools on the basis of rankings in USNWR and there are many people blinded by supposed prestige, this thread doesn't add much to the discussion--it is just another one of hawkette's supposed "objective" threads that when parsed through have little logic or meaning.</p>

54

<p>I was thinking about the question of what makes for higher numbers of applications. It seems to me that any given student's decision to apply to a school has two main elements: (1) Do I want to go there? (2) Do I think I have a chance at getting in? From the local high school, the state flagship u. gets way more applications than Harvard--I think that's probably pushed by factor 2. I think perhaps Cornell serves as a compromise between the two factors for some people--they want to go there (for whatever reason, including because it's an Ivy), and there's a perception that it's easier to get in than the other Ivies. I suspect that there may be a lot of students who apply to two or three Ivies, and it may be that one of the "safer" Ivies is typically among the two or three.</p>

55

<p>The Ivies collectively receive one-third more applications than the US News "next eight", excluding MIT and Caltech. I think you should trust the wisdom of the marketplace. Forty-thousand high school seniors can't be wrong. The campus culture at an Ivy is wonderful. </p>

<p>This thread highlights the psychological benefits of attending an Ivy. Attending and graduating from an Ivy is great for self-esteem and peace-of-mind. Why spend the rest of your life trying to justify your college choice? If you are accepted at an Ivy, go there. Otherwise, it will gnaw at you. You won't have to pay a therapist to reassure you that Duke = Harvard.</p>

56

<p>yay ivysport dot com</p>

57

<p>I could probably offer no greater testimony to the myopia and perceived superiority of the Ivy colleges than many of the posts on this thread. </p>

<p>Re some of the questions that have been raised,</p>

<p>1) I recognize and accept the criticism that college admissions and comparisons are far more complex than a simple evaluation of undergraduate size, SAT scores and acceptance rate. But they are part of the consideration and I'd be happy to add additional quantitative data for any of the earlier comparisons (request any of these and I'll oblige). Please, just take the time to actually look at the objective data for any of the USNWR factors (Graduation & Retention, Selectivity, Faculty and Financial Resources). You may be surprised at the statistical similarity of the schools being compared. I think that, based on the objective data, I believe that four of the five comparisons are spot on.</p>

<p>2) Re applications, I think that the non-HYP Ivies benefit greatly from their Ivy label via a large beneficial effect on the number of college applicants. As stated in the opening post, "Put any of these colleges in a different athletic conference and consider how differently they might be perceived by the public and by academics who grade, via PA scores." I suspect that the result for several of the non-HYP would be….Tufts.</p>

<p>3) For questions about the impact of transfers on the reported data, I agree that this is a hidden problem for some colleges. Among the highest ranked colleges, the biggest offenders by far are UCLA (111% ratio of transfers to incoming freshman) and UC Berkeley (74%). This is also a problem at USC (75%) and I would agree that the quality of the transfers is likely statistically lower. Among the top 20 privates, Cornell (21%) has the greatest percentage of transfers, but this is still a lot less than USC.</p>

58

<p>Hawkette, Your premise that their are many great schools out there and many aren't Ivies is a premise I can agree with. The way you go about making your case doesn't work for me. From reading your threads, I can see it doesn't work for others either.</p>

<p>You are using SAT scores to evaluate student bodies and quality of schools.</p>

<p>You are using SAT scores like they are degrees of temperature. 98 degrees is hotter than 97 which is higher than 96, etc. </p>

<p>SAT scores don't measure intelligence or student ability the same way temperature measures heat. A person with a 2000 SAT score can be brighter than a person with a 2100 SAT score.</p>

<p>Just like the problems you have with PA, there are problems with SAT scores too. They are a very imperfect measure. Just because we have this measure doesn't make it truthful.</p>

<p>Plus, you don't know who is counted and who isn't when you look at SAT scores. You don't really know the average SAT scores of USC students and the SAT scores of Cornell students. Your comparisons can be way off. </p>

<p>Here is a problem that involves objective numbers.</p>

<p>Two people invest the same amount of money over a 10 year period. One makes an average of 10% a year. The other makes an average of 20% a year. </p>

<p>Who made more money?</p>

59

<p>I think that taxguy hit the nail on the head that the Ivy colleges have the name catchet over the other schools. I am trying to strip away the labels and look at the schools themselves, the students that they attract, the quality and nature of the undergraduate experience that they offer and the quality of the graduates that they produce. My conclusion is that the Ivies have done a great job, but there are a lot of quality colleges around the country that deserve higher public and CC regard and greater consideration from potential college applicants. </p>

<p>dstark,
I hear you and I think you greatly overstate my belief that standardized test scores are the driver for admissions committees and how they admit their classes. However, it is a data point, it is publicly available and it is widely used for college admissions purposes and lends itself to comparisons. If you have other objective data points that you think more effectively compare schools, then suggest them.</p>

60

<p>dstark:</p>

<p>You are mixing up "objectivity" with level of confidence and margin of error. The SATs are like an opinion survey. They do measure something and confidence levels and margins of error are well known, given certain initial factors that, in the case of the SAT, are pretty well controlled.</p>

<p>It is well known (meaning you really don't have to tell us, you know) that the SAT I is not a test of intelligence. Even if there were agreement on what "intelligence" is (and there's not), no test that requires a body of knowledge can be a "pure" test of intelligence. The SAT I requires at least some familiarty with algebra and geometry, acquired vocabulary and reading skills, and (now) writing and grammar skills within very narrow and controversial limits. It IS a test of academic skills such as reading comprehension and mid-level quantitative skills and mathematical problem solving. WHAT the SAT I measures is inherent in the items on the questionnaire.</p>

<p>The SAT I is objective. It does measure something objectively and what it measures is embodied in its design. You may or may not think that what the SAT I measures is useful. Most colleges do. I do. The SAT I is clearly culturally biased but, then, so is much of the reading material college students will encounter. In that sense, the SAT I is a useful bit of information on how prepared a student will be to read college-level material when that student enters college. As many have pointed out, it does not measure how hard the student will work and how quickly the student will master better vocab/reading comprehension skills.</p>