<p>^^^I do not disagree that it is difficult to take a subjective process such as the admissions decision at elite schools in this country and try to rank the difficulty. However, the data presented is substantially more objective than the typical “chance me” response (IMO) and may even provide a fairly good approximation of exactly what you said is not possible. At the very least it provides some useful context, based on hard admissions figures for midpoint SAT scores and selectivity by admission rates. </p>
<p>I am not sure how saying that there are too many variables for it to be done perfectly should therefore mean that we need to be relegated to simply taking for fact every joe/joephine with a keyboard who offers his/her opinion of the schools you are intereted in attending. Or that individually looking at each of the average stats of the freshman class of all schools and comparing those to our own is somehow more illuminating.</p>
<p>“… the data presented is substantially more objective …”</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the exercise is futile, because admissions are not objective. Trying to come up with the “right” formula is overanalyzing what cannot be analyzed. That’s why my guesses can’t be any better than reach (<5%), match (50%), safety (>95%).</p>
<p>I do not believe that the number of freshman slots does change substantially from year to year. A change of 5-10% would be extreme in my opinon and even this amount would have minimal if any impact on the calculated scores and is not statistically significant so I am not sure this is a particularly useful criticism of the data point.</p>
<p>The main problem with this is that almost any admissions office will tell you that the single most important factor in the admissions decision is the high school transcript (especially class rank and GPA). Since your methodology completely leaves out any GPA or class rank data it seems to limit the usefulness.</p>
<p>^^I agree that including avg GPA data would be a significant improvement but unfortunately the avg GPA data that I am able to locate does not appear to be reported consistantly across colleges and severly limits its usefulness. But just because one data point is missing, or is subjective (like EC’s or essays) does not mean that the existing objective data points are not relevant or useful or do not present a useful comparison between colleges.</p>
Tell me, please, where I said that. If your data analysis is anything like your quotation ability, then we might as well throw it out now. I really hate it when people put words in my mouth, especially when it is so easy to copy and paste an exact quote.</p>
<p>Tulane will only enroll about 1400 this year. Therefore there will be about a 20% drop in slots. Unusual to be sure, but the fact that it makes so little difference (if indeed it does according to you) means that the factor itself has little sensitivity and is relatively useless.</p>
It means exactly that when that data contributes a highly significant amount to the decision. pointoforder has it exactly right, as demonstrated by the fact that many students that your model would predict would not get in because they have lowish SAT scores in fact often get in based on stellar grades and other honors earned along the way. What you are contending is like saying we will build a model to predict who will get into the baseball Hall of Fame, but we will just leave out batting average.</p>
<p>^^^ You are of course entitled to your opinion - I, however, must confess I am not enamored of your spirit and fail to see any real thoughtfulness in your contributions beyond adamant negativity (I modeled no such thing and never attempted to use the list to predict anything - it is simpy a more data driven comparison of schools admission criteria and selectivity stats). You will of course pardon me if I feel that further discourse with you in particular would be counterproductive.</p>
<p>Now that’s funny. Sure, just misquote me, contend that one of the two most important factors in college admissions can just be left out of a calculation of college admissions, and respond by saying I am negative and unthoughtful. I bet no one on here agrees with you though.</p>
<p>fc, hins is younger than our kids, so a bit more experience should soften the rough edges, and college exposure next year should provide additional perspective.</p>
<p>Is he young? OK, that explains a lot. Thanks for that.</p>
<p>Still for him to complain about you being condescending after he misquotes me and makes an unfounded assessment about my posts, insulting me along the way, is pretty poor behavior even for a high schooler. Talk about needing to look in the mirror! But at least it is an explanation.</p>
<p>hisdale, there is nothing else to discuss. Do you disagree that GPA is a huge factor in college admissions? You cannot and still be credible. Since it clearly is, How can any evaluation system leave out such an important factor and be remotely representative? It is a sign of maturity to just admit that you fell a bit short in this case and move on.</p>
<p>Short time lurker, first time poster. I felt compelled to join in order to add my .2Cents (and that is probably over valued).</p>
<p>My daughter is a Jr, and we started college planning recently. She and I created a spreadsheet in a similar vein to this list, but for the 3 dozen schools that she was interested in attending. We used the data from her high schools Naviance system. She goes to a large highly competitive public school that is a sizeable feeder to the Ivies and peers. The system provides data from all the kids that have applied to colleges for the last 5 years and tracks all of their vitals, and whether they were accepted or denied, enrolled. I made a list of the relevant data (avg SAT score, avg ACT, avg GPA of all the kids accepted into the schools for which my daughter had interest). The first thing I noticed was that the admission rates for the local Naviance data was almost spot on with the national published rates in my US News and World Report (they did not always match with some of the smaller schools because the data set was too small)</p>
<p>Anyway, working with the data a bit, I found that sorting the data from highest to lowest Avg. SAT score (of those accepted) and Avg. GPA (of those excepted) did not change the order of the schools (a few schools swapped places with a school immediately above or below). The average GPA’s seemed to correlate almost identically to the average SAT scores. Lesson being that you should not assume that the availability of usable avg GPA data would substantially alter your list. </p>
<p>Lastly, I am an avid reader and collector of admission statistics and I have reviewed your list for quite awhile and find the order woke me up to a few schools and that the order corresponds very closely to my growing understanding of the admissions challenges ahead. When considering it is completely data driven, with a formula that can be replicated, it seems to me to be a very worthy effort and personally very useful (I have already printed this as the cover of our college planning binder). So thank you.</p>
<p>I must admit that I am having a difficult time taking you seriously. The reason I suggested that I had no interest in further discourse with you is because I am familiar with your type, and did not want to digress to THIS silliness.</p>
<p>Are you so self important that you believe your opinion is the deciding factor and so insecure that you need to keep repeating your opinion, only louder? I have noted your opinion – this list cannot be done without GPA data (please correct me if I am not paraphrasing you correctly). If I have not thanked you adequately for your opinion then I apologize. I simply wanted to move on to what is, in my opinion (yes we are all entitled to one) more relevant and thoughtful discussion. So hopefully we do not need to continue wasting each others time?</p>
<p>Thoughtful? What can be more thoughtful than pointing out that your methodology is fatally flawed and why? It is we that are having trouble taking you seriously because you have no basis for ignoring such a huge factor in admissions. I repeat what I say because you never really address the issue, you just take shots at me. I have not done that to you, I have talked about the deficiencies of your approach. I did respond to the person that told me you were young, because that seems to explain a lot.</p>
<p>Desperatu - the problem with your reasoning is that you are confusing the trends over a large group, where you are exactly right that GPA and SAT will correlate fairly well, to what the hypothesis was for this thread. To wit, that an individual can look at that order and decide which schools are more selective for that individual. Simple example - A student has SAT scores 200 points below the average for a certain school, but has a nearly perfect GPA with a fair number of AP courses. I see that and the reverse situation on here all the time. And that person might not be a native English speaker, which can be taken into account. They might be a URM, which is taken into account. So while one might be able to list selectivity with some accuracy for the schools because they represent large groups, the ability for an individual to use this to improve their estimation of their chances of being accepted at any given school is not enhanced to any greater degree, and probably less than, a chance thread where numerous individuals can weigh in. I am actually no fan of chancing, for exactly the same reason I think this approach by hinsdale is fairly worthless. There are too many variables and too many things we don’t see in the app and things we don’t know about the admissions mindset of any given school in any given year for people on here, or this equation severely lacking in depth, to really know anything very useful. The only times chancing threads really help is when you can inform a person who is either aiming far too high and risking having no school to go to in the fall, or too low and perhaps should be aiming higher.</p>
<p>But hinsdale put this out here saying that much chancing was based on “gut reactions” and that this more analytical approach was superior. That is probably a nearly impossible task anyway, but certainly his rather simple equation that leaves out numerous variables, including a very important one, cannot possibly help an individual know their chances at a school. It only represents, possibly, the overall results for thousands averaged together. In other words, to truly help an individual using this approach, one would have to come up with an equation that you plug all your stats into, get some kind of value out of it, and compare that value to the same value for all the schools on the list using their average. That would require using both test scores and GPA, per my example, as well as some way to assess subjective factors like essays, recs, URM status, EC’s etc. Almost impossible.</p>
<p>Actually fallenchemist, I found your last post more thoughtful. Perhaps I misjudged you and if so I apologize. I do not disagree with you that this list is not useful in “chancing” anyone - and it was never intended as such. As I explained in the preface, it is simply a source to more objectively compare schools relative to selectivity. </p>
<p>So when a thoughtful respondent, perhaps an alumnus who is very familair with a school, takes the time to reply to you and offers you their assessment of your chances, you can then take that information and more objectively extrapolate what other schools you are likely to be considered a match or that may be a reach. Rather than relying on the somewhat common practice of posting a list of schools and asking everyone to tell you your chances - resulting often, in my opinion, in nonsensical assessments of selectivity that do not correspond with the admission stats. </p>
<p>For example being told that you are a reach at Notre Dame but a match at Pomona College would not be consistent in my opinion.</p>
<p>^^^Actually no, it escapes me how a list of schools could be mistakenly interpreted as some sort of “chancing” mechanism simply because I contend it may be of use in the “chancing” process. </p>
<p>But I can be slow somedays so I would be happy to clarify if it is unclear to you. The list is simply a tool to attempt to more objectively compare schools relative to selectivity.</p>
<p>OK, this is just getting bizarre. You give a formula that gives a rank score, so that presumably people can put in their own data and see where they fall on the list. If that isn’t the idea, then the thing really is rather useless. I mean it is anyway because key parameters are not taken into account, but even putting that aside what is it supposed to do in relation to chancing in any manner? You quantified something, but it isn’t supposed to be used in a quantifiable process? I think everyone is now more confused than ever as to what you were trying to accomplish.</p>
<p>Are you saying your only goal was to give people a guide so they wouldn’t tell someone that School A is a reach but School B is a match even though they seem similar in selectivity? If that is all you intended, then OK, but I don’t see that as useful really, for all the reasons I stated earlier.</p>