Top Colleges Ranked by Difficulty of Admissions (Updated)

Chance Me / Match Me!
1

<p>I have developed a scoring system constructed from the published admissions data in order to rank the top schools by selectivity. </p>

<p>This list may be useful in providing some comparison of schools selectivity based on objective admissions statistics. For example: When a thoughtful respondent, perhaps an alumnus who is very familiar with a school, replies to your 'Chance Me' post and offers you their assessment of your chances, you may then take that information and more objectively extrapolate what other schools with which you are likely to be considered a match or that may be a reach, etc. Or for example: When posting a chance request for a long list of schools it is prudent to consider that few people have familiarity with the admissions tendencies of more than a single college, so you may find that less informed respondents may offer nonsensical assessments of selectivity. The rankings below may offer a less subjective reference to at least question when advised that you are a reach at Georgetown but a match at WashU.</p>

<p>In a premature rush to have the latest rankings, I have updated the stats of some of the listed schools incorporating the 2011 admissions data in order to see how things are shaping up in terms of selectivity this year. Although it is not terribly informative to compare schools using mixed data (from different admission cycles), hopefully because the majority of the updated data falls into contiguous block of the top schools, it may still provide a slightly useful comparisons overall</p>

<h1>Rank Score College</h1>

<p>Rank 1 100 Harvard University*
Rank 1 100 Princeton University*
Rank 3 99 Yale University*
Rank 3 99 Columbia University*
Rank 5 98 California Inst of Tech*
Rank 5 98 Stanford University*
Rank 7 97 MA Inst of Technology*
Rank 7 97 Brown University*
Rank 7 97 University of Pennsylvania*
Rank 10 96 Dartmouth College*
Rank 10 96 Duke University*
Rank 12 95 Northwestern University*
Rank 12 95 Pomona College
Rank 12 95 Washington Univ in St Louis
Rank 12 95 University of Chicago*
Rank 16 94 Vanderbilt University
Rank 16 94 Cornell University*
Rank 16 94 Tufts University*
Rank 19 93 Amherst College
Rank 19 93 Swarthmore College
Rank 21 92 Harvey Mudd College
Rank 21 92 Rice University
Rank 21 92 Williams College
Rank 21 92 Johns Hopkins University*
Rank 25 91 Bowdoin College
Rank 25 91 Claremont McKenna College
Rank 25 91 Cooper Union
Rank 25 91 Georgetown University*
Rank 25 91 University of Southern California
Rank 30 90 Emory University
Rank 30 90 Middlebury College
Rank 30 90 University of California Berkeley*
Rank 30 90 University of Notre Dame
Rank 30 90 Washington & Lee University
Rank 35 89 Haverford College
Rank 35 89 Tulane
Rank 35 89 Vassar College
Rank 35 89 Wesleyan University
Rank 39 88 Boston College
Rank 39 88 Carleton College
Rank 39 88 University of California-Los Angeles
Rank 39 88 US Naval Academy Annapolis
Rank 39 88 Carnegie Mellon University
Rank 44 87 Davidson College
Rank 44 87 Hamilton College NY
Rank 46 86 Bates College
Rank 46 86 Brandeis University
Rank 46 86 Colgate University
Rank 46 86 Oberlin College
Rank 46 86 University of Virginia
Rank 51 85 Barnard College
Rank 51 85 College of William & Mary
Rank 51 85 Macalester College
Rank 51 85 New York University
Rank 51 85 Wellesley College
Rank 51 85 Colby College
Rank 51 85 Reed College
Rank 58 84 Bucknell University
Rank 58 84 Colorado College
Rank 58 84 Grinnell College
Rank 58 84 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
Rank 58 84 US Military Academy West Point
Rank 63 83 Northeastern University
Rank 63 83 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Rank 63 83 University of California, San Diego
Rank 63 83 University of Rochester
Rank 67 82 Kenyon College
Rank 67 82 University of Michigan Ann Arbor
Rank 67 82 Whitman College
Rank 70 81 Occidental College
Rank 70 81 University of Miami
Rank 72 80 Smith College
Rank 72 80 Trinity College (Connecticut)
Rank 72 80 Villanova University
Rank 72 80 McGill University
Rank 72 80 University of Richmond
Rank 77 79 Boston University
Rank 77 79 Lafayette College
Rank 77 79 Rhodes College
Rank 80 78 Mount Holyoke College
Rank 80 78 University of Texas at Austin
Rank 80 78 Georgia Institute of Technology
Rank 83 77 Bryn Mawr College
Rank 83 77 University of IL Urbana-Champaign
Rank 83 77 University of Tulsa
Rank 83 77 University of Wisconsin Madison
Rank 83 77 Case Western Reserve University
Rank 88 76 Trinity University
Rank 89 75 Stevens Institute of Technology
Rank 90 74 Colorado School of Mines
Rank 90 74 Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Rank 92 73 Wheaton College </p>

<p>2009-2010 Admission data by National Center for Education Statistics
*Schools noted have released partial 2010-2011 stats, the admission rates used for these schools are projections. </p>

<p>"Difficulty of Admissions" score weightings:</p>

<h2>70% SAT/ACT midpoint scores</h2>

<p>55%|SAT midpoint between 25% - 75% ranges for accepted applicants
15%|ACT midpoint between 25% - 75% ranges for accepted applicants</p>

<h2>30% Admissions Selectivity</h2>

<p>20%|Percentage of applicants accepted
5%|# of freshman openings as a percentage of total # of applicants (1)
5%|Total # of applicants (2) </p>

<p>Notes:
(1) Acceptance rates at colleges are based on expected yields, which can be strongly influenced by many outside factors including weather (ex. So Cal schools), uniquely motivated applicant pools (US Military Academy), the amount of merit aid and other grants (ex. Cooper Union, Washington Univ in St Louis) and many other factors. Using the number of freshman openings as a percentage of the total # of applicants is another way to examine selectivity without relying exclusively on the acceptance rate figure. </p>

<p>(2) Total # of applicants is offered because more applications may result in reduced uniqueness of applicant, higher chance of being overlooked, and generally more applicants should result in increased competition.</p>

2

<p>The 2011 admissions data is released by individual admissions depts, and is not centrally located. So, if you know your schools 2011 stats and would like your schools ranking/score updated then you should post:</p>

<p>college
total # freshman applications received
total # accepted (if this is not provided, provide last years number)
total # freshman enrolled (if this is not provided, provide last years number)
overall admission rate (if no rate is released then it will be projected using last years number of applicants accepted)</p>

<p>and preferably a link to the admissions article/source for verification.</p>

3

<p>Just replace the last two criteria with 10% Yield, for Christ’s sake. Yield is an approximate measure of desirability. Though not perfect, it’s a much better indicator of selectivity than the two criteria you listed.</p>

4

<p>Also, I must again make the observation that either your statistics are wrong or you’re ■■■■■■■■ for Northwestern. Let us compare the data for Northwestern and Chicago from Collegeboard. (Go check if you’re curious.)</p>

<p>Chicago
SAT CR: 700-780
SAT M: 700-780</p>

<p>Northwestern
SAT CR: 670-750
SAT M: 690-780</p>

<p>Chicago Acceptance Rate: 19%
Northwestern Acceptance Rate: 23%</p>

<p>Chicago ACT 30-34
Northwestern ACT 30-33</p>

<p>So in all significant criteria, Chicago beats Northwestern quite handily, especially in SATs. Oh, and if yield were used instead of your arbitrary last two criteria (which you obviously/shamefully used so that NU would have an edge in the rankings), Chicago would be beating NU 39% to 33%. Yet somehow, they come out to have equal selectivity in the end… hmm, a little suspicious? No one’s paying attention to these rankings anyway, but I thought I’d call out your asshat-ery since, you know, I’m a 4th year with nothing better to do.</p>

<p>Also, JHU is slightly more selective than NU. Ranking it 9 spots behind NU is blatant ■■■■■■■■.</p>

5

<p>^This topic has been addressed in the original thread - but your opinion has been noted (for Christ’s sake). On a personal note, I believe this is the first post I have ever seen you make that didn’t involve your obsession to portray Northwestern University as the ugly step-child of the far superior U Chicago. It is nice to see that you may have more than a single facet, even if your posts are similarly impolite.</p>

<p>Ahhhh… i was too soon in indicating that you have more than a single facet, before you cleverly edited your post. So I am declining to respond to your inquiry or diaglog with you any furthur based on the many fruitless exchanges you engage in regarding your obsession with Northwestern. But as usual you always give me a chuckle.</p>

6

<p>“… your arbitrary last two criteria (which you obviously/shamefully used so that NU would have an edge in the rankings)”</p>

<p>Ah so now I see why he came up with that, now it makes sense. And only that way.</p>

7

<p>@phiruko Your post history does portray a sizeable NU chip on your shoulder, so this is probably pointless to continue, but I was able to replicate the score results using the average combined SAT/ACT scores as listed by CC’s college search (collegeview.com)</p>

<h1>SAT Combined Avg (55%)</h1>

<p>NU 2158
UC 2188</p>

<h2>JHU 2090</h2>

<p>SAT*100/2263 * 5.5 (55% weighting)

  • scored as % of the highest data point in column (Caltech 2263) </p>

<h1>Admissions Rate (20%)</h1>

<h2>As OP notes, 2011 data is projected admission rates (I used table of projected rates posted in another thread except when admission rate is actually released - NU admissions office has announced rate below 20%)</h2>

<p>NU 20%
UC 17%</p>

<h2>JHU 20%</h2>

<p>((1-Rate)<em>100)</em>100/93 * 2.0 (20% weighting)
-scored as a % of the highest data point in column (Harvard 7%)
(rate is inversed to provide easier scoring of denial rate instead of admit)</p>

<h1>ACT Combined Avg (15%)</h1>

<p>NU 31
UC 30
JHU 31
ACT*100/34 * 1.5 (15% weighting)
-scored as a % of the highest data point in column (Caltech 34)</p>

<h1>Enrolled as % of total applicants (5%)</h1>

<p>======================
NU 6.6%
UC 6.5%
JHU 6.6%
((1-Rate)<em>100)</em>100/96.24 * 0.5 (5% weighting)
-scored as a % of the highest data point in column (Tulane 3.76%)
(rate is inversed to provide easier scoring of un-enrolled rate instead of enrolled)</p>

<h1>Freshman Apps (5%)</h1>

<p>======================
NU 30,529
UC 21,669
JHU 19,201
Apps*100/57613 * 0.5 (5% weighting)
-scored as a % of the highest data point in column (UCLA 57,613)</p>

<h1>**Score</h1>

<p>NU 95
UC 95
JHU 92**
-scored as a % of the highest data point in column (Harvard 96)</p>

<p>You should note that # Enrolled as % of total applicants data point offers no statistical distinction at all between these three particular schools and is hardly a likely candidate to have been added with the purpose of allowing NU to outshine UC.</p>

<p>You should also notice that if the purpose of these weightings were to allow NU to outshine UC, then why not weight ACT score more heavily vs. the SAT score which slightly favors UC? </p>

<p>As for # of applicants, IMO, even in such a small weighting, this data is probative. Increasing energy/effort/resources are being spent by admissions depts to attract applicants. (U Chicago is reported to be one of the most aggressive) and would indicate that admissions offices feel this number is a relevant component when considering desirability, selectivity, and admissions rate measures. And, as OP noted, more apps means more competition and allows an alternative to relying solely on admission rate/yield numbers (for which there are countless threads discussing the failings). </p>

<p>Looking at the data available it does not seem unreasonable that NU and UC would be scored as relative equals (within a point) in terms of selectivity. It may be more useful, and less stressful for you, to see the scores for which they were intended; a tool to provide context and not another “prestige” contest over which to obsess.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It is myopic to view the validity of a particular data point only as it affects your particular school. It is more interesting and less competitive (which is anathema to many in this forum) to see the probative value of data points on their own merits.</p>

8

<p>^I have found that never will anything constructive or informative come from feeding ■■■■■■… if in response, the flaming continues (as I imagine it might), you may be better off finding more interesting threads instead of wasting more energy (I know I am likely to move on as well) :)</p>

9

<p>But once again you neglect to address the fact that SAT optional schools have a very different skew for their test scores–Bowdoin, Bates, Wheaton, not sure about Trinity and Colby.</p>

10

<p>^You are right. This update was just a premature rush to use new more fun data and the SAT optional issue has not been addressed. It would be easiest to simply abandon SAT optional schools from the list but before moving forward I wanted some more concrete insights into whether or not the SAT data that is provided is representative of the whole. </p>

<p>I was also hoping not to have to research the issue from scratch. But what has become increasingly clear to me is that this is not the forum where the experienced, knowledgeable contributors seem to dwell. Although this list was meant to help tame the the Wild West approach of chancing in this forum - for collaboration and insight this thread would likely have had a much better opportunity to thrive in a different forum, probably college admissions. So any insights into the issue or any other are welcome. Should this thread lack further substantive contribution I will likely try again in college admissions with hope of better collaboration.</p>

11

<p>With the limited data provided by schools I realize it is difficult to dig particularly deep into the nuances but have you thought of any additional methods to attempt to bring context to the admissions rate/yield combination. &&&</p>

<p>It is sometimes suggested that some schools ‘buy’ matriculation |higher yields, lower admission rate| with money. But many endowments restrict the admissions offers to need-based aid only. Can the admission rate of a school that only provides need based aid be compared informatively with the admission rate of a school that offers grants, regardless of need, to sway the highest qualified applicants towards matriculation (resulting in increasing yield and conversely lowering their admissions rate as well as boosting their avg Test/GPA stats)?</p>

<p>Have you considered developing a data point that introduces tuition, financial grants into the equation in order to provide some further context to the admissions rate number? I am not sure what percentage, or which of the top schools offer merit grants but it might be interesting to factor. I suppose this data point would not be kind to the military academies … but money must be considered an influential factor in their high yields * and thus their low admission rates.</p>

12

<p>^Sorry I did not notice your Q earlier. I am just not famiar with the data set, nor have I read alot of specific examples of numbers for serious money used for ‘merit’ aid that effects matriculation in large numbers. I would apply a simple common sense threshold before accumulating all that data as a first step. So if you, or any one else caring to respond, have some links to posts, articles, etc discussing the practice at specific schools in specific amounts and where this data is centralized - that would be helpful.</p>

13

<p>Carnegie mellon 38!!! Naah</p>