top 15 most prestigious universities

College Search & Selection
761

<p>Agreed with Cervantes re: Asian populations.</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, it is common knowledge that Stanford actively recruits the best athletes (Sears Cup anyone?) which, more often than not, do not get the absolute best test scores.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe there was an article last year about how many national merit semifinalists Stanford's football team has.</p>

<p>More importantly, HYP do recruit as much as Stanford does. However, Stanford is the only one to give athletic scholarships. The most desired athletes, of course, are those who have HYPS-caliber resumes and also top athletic ability. So if they were being recruited by HYPS and Stanford gave them a huge scholarship, where would they most likely attend? If anything, Stanford attracts the stronger athletes (in terms of SAT scores), and the not-quite-so-strong go to HYP. There's no data to back this up, but I don't think that Stanford's recruiting has anything to do with its SAT scores. I don't think there are enough athletes to bring down Stanford's SAT scores considerably. I don't even think that all or even a majority of Stanford's athletes have "low" SAT scores; I daresay they're pretty damn smart in their own right, and will probably have good SAT scores regardless (I personally know two with over 2200s, so perhaps it's just a perception bias).</p>

<p>Both your interpretation and my interpretation have validity.</p>

<p>Professor101:</p>

<p>The only other school you're using for a control is Caltech, which is ultraselective (and we've already said that those kinds of schools attract many Asians), and is also a science/engineering school, which attracts many Asians. This isn't just a stereotype. Look at MIT: I think it's around 30% Asian.</p>

<p>Now, why don't you look at other California private schools? Those ones are not hindered by California laws, and are much less selective than the two you're using for examples, generally. Try, say, University of San Diego, Occidental, etc. They have much smaller Asian populations, despite being near places where there are large Asian areas (e.g. LA).</p>

762

<p>Professor you forget 2 hugely important things. First, CalTech is one of the premier science and engineering schools, in fact it is pretty much ALL engineering and science. These fields have traditionally attracted Asian Americans more than any other racial group. While Stanford has strong engineering and science programs they are not the focus of Stanford and the great majority of students major in either the humanities, social sciences, or biology (for pre-meds not for "biology sakes" unlike Caltech). Secondly, Caltech enrolls somewhere around 250 freshman. Such a small sample size! You know you can't compare these two schools percentage of Asians so simply. You only need to add 3 more Asians to Caltech's freshman class to make it 40% asian while you'd have to add 17 to Stanford's. While you may say, that's the value of the concept of the percentage, a small sample size can not be correctly compared to a relatively large one.</p>

763

<p>Kyle and Cervantes,
I think that both of you have valid points. Why do you guys think that Stanford doesn't emphasize scores as much as HYP, other things being equal? I think that they are definitely good enough to compete with HYP.</p>

764

<p>
[quote]
Why do you guys think that Stanford doesn't emphasize scores as much as HYP, other things being equal?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Stanford, on its site and in many other instances (literature sent to students, college fairs, etc.), says over and over that while standardized test scores are important, they (along with GPA and other factors) will only get you "to" the door. To get in, you have to have much more than that, and if they don't see it in you--or if they just don't think you're a good fit for Stanford--they won't hesitate to reject you, even if you do have very high SAT scores. They're important, of course, but they don't use them that much.</p>

765

<p>


</p>

<p>I still haven't seen an answer to this. I have a slightly different figure for Caltech's yield, 38.1%, but perhaps I'm not looking at the most recent data. But if Caltech is so much preferred over other schools, why do nearly 2 out of 3 admits go elsewhere? And if not to HYPSM, then where? Or is it just that Caltech loses 2 out of 3 to Harvard but rounces everyone else?</p>

766

<p>To add onto what kyle said, Stanford's application is considerably different from that of HYP's. I think H had an optional essay, Y had one essay, and P had one essay (two for engineering). Stanford had a lot of writing if I remember, three essays plus short answers. This leads me to believe Stanford really cares about those essays, writing style+personality, probably more than HYP do and thus the SAT scores at Stanford might be lower due to these factors. This isn't to say Stanford doesn't value high test scores or that you can be admitted at HYP only because of high test scores, its more that Stanford cares about the essay sections more. The same applies to the top 10% figure. And just for some context: the median SAT score at Yale is 2240 that at Harvard is 2235, that at Princeton is 2220, while that at Stanford is 2155. (as calculated by Collegeboard, not perfectly accurate but good enough for comparison) It isn't much of a difference given the difference in admission policy.</p>

767

<p>Kyle,
I don't think that you really answer the question. Why can't they find people who are good fit and score as high as HYP? They don't have enough high scores people (as high as HYP) that can fit into the school?</p>

768

<p>^^ the answer to your question is obvious: Stanford is just looking for different things. It doesn't see so much value in SAT scores as it does in other factors.</p>

<p>
[quote]
while that at Stanford is 2155. (as calculated by Collegeboard, not perfectly accurate but good enough for comparison)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just adding that in the Senate minutes linked to previously, Shaw stated that the new SAT medians are "720 verbal, 730 math, 720 writing"--so a 2170 composite.</p>

769

<p>An SAT score is a number. It doesn't add anything to a college community. Once someone has shown that they are probably smart and diligent enough to do the work (SAT, GPA, etc.), why do their numbers matter anymore? Once you have a group of applicants deemed qualified, why on earth would you distinguish between them based on SAT scores? Ideally, you would want a group of admits that would create a great college community, something your ability to place commas, regurgitate short articles, and solve for x in several different ways in a few hours just can't really show. </p>

<p>My guess: Stanford is too busy admitting successful, high achieving people that add to their community to care what exactly their SAT median score is (of course, insert anecdote here about your slacker friend who undeservedly got in). I don't think Stanford (which has what, an 11% acceptance rate now?) is suffering at all in it's applicant pool.</p>

<p>edit: kind of the same thing kyledavid said, though quite a bit more verbose.</p>

770

<p>For the record for this discussion:</p>

<p>% of Asians, College</p>

<p>28% MIT</p>

<p>18% Harvard
12% Yale
13% Princeton</p>

<p>24% Stanford</p>

<p>46% UC Berkeley</p>

<p>Also, for those commenting on athletic scholarships and how those affect the Ivies vs Stanford and others.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>While the Ivies may not offer athletic scholarships per se, most have generous financial plans that would likely cover a large number of the student-athletes who are considering both Ivies and Stanford/other top Division I scholarship colleges (Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame).</p></li>
<li><p>According to the latest Stanford CDS, 114 athletic scholarships were granted for the latest Stanford class and there are 446 in the entire undergradute population (6.8%). This compares to 94 and 400 (1.6%) at UCB.</p></li>
</ol>

771

<p>
[quote]
% of Asians, College</p>

<p>28% MIT</p>

<p>18% Harvard
12% Yale
13% Princeton</p>

<p>24% Stanford</p>

<p>46% UC Berkeley

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These numbers seem to be for the past incoming class, not for the overall student body. The actual numbers are:</p>

<p>MIT: 26%
Harvard: no CDS
Yale: 14%
Princeton: 13% (from '05-'06 CDS)
Stanford: 24%
Berkeley: 42%</p>

<p><a href="which%20has%20what,%20an%2011%%20acceptance%20rate%20now?">quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>16% SCEA, 8% RD, overall 9% in 2008.</p>

772

<p>To 769 and 770,
Essentially, what you are saying is that low SAT scores are useful because they can be used to weed out people, but high scores are not because there are better things to use. To me, that is selective use of a standard. If you don't see the value of SAT, then get rid of it. It's like to say to a person running in the Olympics. If you are qualified, then you don't need to run anymore because we are going to use who is the best looking to determine the gold medal.</p>

773

<p>
[quote]
An SAT score is a number. It doesn't add anything to a college community. Once someone has shown that they are probably smart and diligent enough to do the work (SAT, GPA, etc.), why do their numbers matter anymore? Once you have a group of applicants deemed qualified, why on earth would you distinguish between them based on SAT scores?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Good point. It goes to show that SATs figures for those who get into elite schools can't really be separated after the fact because these number obviously cannot explain why they got in in the first place (intangible EC, GPA, etc.. factors that a low SAT acceptee score cannot account for, it is unknown)</p>

774

<p>
[quote]
Essentially, what you are saying is that low SAT scores are useful because they can be used to weed out people, but high scores are not because there are better things to use.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, that's not what we're saying. For one, we have made no judgments on the methods themselves; we have not said (nor would I pretend to know) whether one is "better" than the other.</p>

<p>Low test scores in and of themselves don't "weed out" anyone. High test scores don't do that either, necessarily.</p>

<p>Yes, Stanford sees the value in standardized test scores. However, it does not see that much value in them. Simply because they de-emphasize them does not mean that they should eliminate them. Think of it like this: I'm running a hotdog stand and I really like hamburgers and I know others do too. So I put hamburgers on the menu. I don't "emphasize" hamburgers in my business though--I don't go to lengths to advertise them, I don't try to hunt for the best-quality meats to improve my hamburgers. I see the value in the hamburgers, but I don't think that they're so valuable as to dominate--or even become a significant part--of my business. Now, Burger King right down the road emphasizes hamburgers. Not me.</p>

<p>Stanford sees the value in test scores, but only to an extent; beyond that, they're not that valuable in deciding who should be admitted, and so they go for other qualities. HYP, for example, set the point beyond which the significance of scores diminishes a bit higher than Stanford does; they emphasize scores more. But they will not, by the same token, admit someone with a 2350 just because (think of it as the law of diminishing returns, in a sense, at work here).</p>

<p>Another way to look at is that Stanford uses the SAT to compare students and to determine (with other factors) which students are competitive. Which ones actually make the cut will depend on many other factors.</p>

775

<p>^^Stanford can do whatever they want, but until their Scores are on par with HYP, they'll have a hard time to convince people that they are better than HYP for undergraduate school.</p>

776

<p>People will choose Stanford over others as long as Stanford provides good programs. Try to get into Stanford by telling them that you have a SAT score of 2300. That is the value of the SAT.</p>

777

<p>Are you kdding me? Sure Purdue is a great school and they rank with U of I and they're one of the top public institutions but they rank 64 overall, and don't you dare comapre Purdie with UChicago. Were'nt impressed? Well not everythings based upon your personal opinion. Did you actually get into Chicago? A third of the people at my HS got into Purdue, tehy're not even near as selective as Chicago. Sure Purdue is great, but truly not prestige. That's why your the first one to mention it.</p>

778

<p>
[quote]
^^Stanford can do whatever they want, but until their Scores are on par with HYP, they'll have a hard time to convince people that they are better than HYP for undergraduate school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1) They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. Nobody here is. Stanford (and its reputation) speaks for itself.
2) They aren't trying to claim to be better for undergrad. Everyone knows it's as good as HYP for undergrad.
3) Scores do not measure quality of undergrad. Only newbs on CC think that way.
4) Even if scores did measure quality of undergrad, such an incremental difference between the two really isn't enough to draw conclusions. It's pretty insignificant.
5) You don't honestly think that Stanford can't fill its class with 2300+ scorers, do you? Stanford has stated many times before that it gets enough applicants with stellar scores to fill its class--many times over. Why accept them for that reason only, though? There's much more to an applicant. See Cervantes' post on this.</p>

779

<p>Professor, top universities don't need to convince anybody of anything. They have the best resources, the best facilities and the best faculties. The best companies aggresively recruit on their campus. Students smart enough to know better will flock to them by the thousands.</p>

780

<p>Kyle,
I probably won't be able to convince you and vice versa. At the end of the day, I think that the reason that Stanford practices witchcraft is stil for the sake of diversity and they stated so.</p>

<p>BTW, if they admitted students with all 2300+, they would have 25% yield.</p>