<p>“I am also not sure that Reed’s table is drawn only from this data set – whatever it may be. They certainly know how many PhD’s by department they are producing.”</p>
<p>Well, you either believe what they say (in the caption at the bottom of the Reed page) or not. To be meaningful, the data must be consistent across all schools; Reed played no part in the data collection. And they actually don’t know how many PhD’s by department they are producing; grads are not all good about supplying the info.</p>
<p>Of course it would make a difference. A major comprehensive university that offers undergrad programs in everything from soup to nuts is going to have a far smaller percentage of its graduates going on to earn Ph.D.s in the arts and sciences than LACs that teach only arts and sciences. The relevant comparison group would be undergrad arts & sciences majors at both sets of schools—which at some universities would be 50% or 60% of the total undergrad population, and at most LACs would be 100% of the undergrad population. No wonder LACs always look so good in these comparisons. It’s a fixed fight.</p>
<p>Good points (in my narrow view, it wouldn’t make much difference at the LACs), but there’s another way of looking at it: If a student wants to go to a school with the highest concentration (i.e., fellow classmates) of future bio PhDs, choose Caltech or another from the list (i.e., schools that specialize in the field).</p>
<p>More students are turning to Public schools as well. This is especially true in New York’s SUNY system. The state schools in New York are now much more selective than ever before. </p>
<p>Students attending SUNY Geneseo, a public LAC in NY, have an average SAT score of 1340 and GPA of 94. This school has become increasing selective over the past 10 years. </p>
<p>Families are looking for colleges that provide a strong undergraduate education at a reasonable cost. Geneseo and several of the other SUNY schools meet those needs.</p>
<p>Both UGA and Ga Tech are much difficult than ever before due to Hope scholarship (free tuition for B’s students) in Ga. Ga Tech used to have average SAT of 1200 (1270 roughly in the new scale), now average SAT is around 1350. </p>
<p>Also, Ga Tech used to attract so many rural Georgians. Nowaday, I wonder those students couldn’t even make it Georgia Tech. UGA is same way. It is full of suburbs students from Atlanta (almost 50%).</p>
<p>There was a study a couple of years ago. Only about 11 to 12% of UGA and Ga Tech students even eligible for Pell Grant.</p>
<p>I know a lot of schools admitted more students this year because of the economy. I’m wondering if we’ll see the reverse effect once the economy rebounds. Thoughts?</p>
<p>The number of PhD candidates coming out of any school is not necessarily a good measure of selectivity or success. PhD programs are highly selective, and many of them admit fewer than 15 students a year, because they are often tuition waivers and come with a paid stipend of 20-25k a year. Many students also have a lot of student loans from undergrad and can’t afford to take on more debt for a PhD which takes at least 6 years. A very long road indeed. And many students prefer either to enter the workforce or go to a professional school in law or medicine. You can graduate magna cum laude with a 3.6 and have a decent GRE and NOT be admitted to a prestigious PhD program…where they may have a selectivity admissions rating of 10%. Many students who want to go onto graduate school take the position that either they get admitted to a program which is not going to cost them anything or they simply won’t bother going at all, and make another life choice instead. </p>
<p>If every PhD hopeful was admitted to a PhD program of their choice, the numbers would rise sharply. Thus, the measure of PhD candidates is affected by factors wholly unrelated to the quality of education and prestige of an undergraduate school. </p>
<p>On the economy, a lot of students are being admitted and saying “no” to schools with inadequate financial aid. Everyone knows the federal FAFSA that calculates EFC is a total joke. Sadly a college education is quickly becoming economically elitist…only for those who have the money. I would love to know the real story of how many colleges admit students who aren’t applying for financial aid…for that very reason: they can stroke a full check. Most say they are “needs blind” but I think that is utter bunk. I think they are VERY needs aware.</p>
<p>To clarify, the PhD list above is not candidates, but earners.</p>
<p>For part of “the real story of how many colleges admit students who aren’t applying for financial aid” check a school’s Common Data Set, section H2a and b:
</p>
<p>These data are for matriculants, which may differ from admittees.</p>
<p>I am still perplexed that so many high school students think that HPY is the holy grail. I personally have known graduates from both their undergrad and MBA program that are unemployed, not-particularly-useful and some outright wasting the education they were given. Yet, year after year more and more students want to attend. I think to many it is just about image and prestige, not the education. Just to give you all advice (I am older)–I am an OSU graduate of their business school. No MBA yet I am a CFO of a corporation. And while I do not recommend OSU to many-due to its size-it is more important to find a school in which you can succeed. You need the right atmosphere, some moderate name recognition and a ton of hard work. In a career, as in school, it is the hard work, creativity, the ability to take on a task NO ONE else wants, and pursuing a life with intent, not to mention the most important criteria-NETWORKING and CONNECTIONS that makes the difference. Many of the HPY entering freshman are legacies, know someone, have “contributed” to the university or have a hook. Bottom Line: Find a university where you can suceed in your endeavors and WHEREVER you go, try to stand out. Worry less about whether is is Lehigh, Wash U., University of Indianapolis or Harvard.</p>
<p>A 1550 in 2009 is not as “outstanding” as a 1550 in 1977. My guess is that Crimsonchin’s dad was pretty smart – that is not to say that crimsonchin is not. But, don’t get fooled by the inflated SAT scores. The percentiles are a better indicator, but even they are scewed because there is a much less selective testing universe encouraged to sit for the SAT than in earlier eras.</p>
To be meaningful, the data must be consistent across all schools; Reed played no part in the data collection. And they actually don’t know how many PhD’s by department they are producing; grads are not all good about supplying the info.</p>