<p>Hawkette,</p>
<p>Alex did say “mid 50% is 28-32”…Michigan’s CDS says 25-75% is 27-31…so, Alex was in the right range for the lower end, which is where you have criticized Michigan before.</p>
<p>Out of ~1600 students attending Brown only somewhere around 25% are submitting ACT scores. It’s very unpopular in the Northeast and typically only by people who consider themselves to be “poor test takers”. Now I know that’s drastically different than in the Midwest, however, I think using ACT ranges instead of SAT is probably not a super idea, especially when comparing a Midwest school to schools in any other part of the country.</p>
<p>I also think that SAT ranges should be organized in “buckets” since the difference between a school that has a 1200-1360 range and a 1210-1370 range is precisely 0.</p>
<p>
I’ve never heard that one. Ok.</p>
<p>
And how many times have you done the same sort of thing without a moments pause because it confirmed your own bias?</p>
<p>IBClass-- brilliant analogy.</p>
<p>
I don’t think he was making a judgment call, just stating a reality.</p>
<p>I’m not in love with any of these kinds of threads but sometimes it can be fun to see who shows up and debates what on what point and to offer suggestions and tweaks.</p>
<p>ucb,
I’m not criticizing U Michigan although it may come off like that to some of its supporters. I’m just trying to get the facts right and put them in context vs other colleges. </p>
<p>The statement was made that U Michigan’s ACT 25/75 is 28-32. That’s inaccurate. </p>
<p>The fact is that it is 27-31. </p>
<p>Big difference? No, but does this correction accentuate the distance between U Michigan and the crowd it wishes to be associated with? Yes. Is the school more accurately compared to the likes of Wake Forest, NYU, Boston College, etc? Yes. I’m not sure why, but judging from the reactions I often get from U Michigan supporters, that is a fate worse than death. Heck, I think Wake, NYU, Boston College et al are pretty darn good. </p>
<p>Look, U Michigan is a good school and enrolls a nice student body. No one is contesting that. But I have respect for a lot of places and students around the USA who compare very favorably against the likes of U Michigan. If U Michigan’s fans want their school’s student body to be considered a true peer to higher ranked schools, then I don’t understand what is so controversial about asking U Michigan to earn their stripes like everyone else.</p>
<p>^ Let’s put some context to these numbers with UG student pop.:</p>
<p>1220-1430, 27-31 U Michigan, 26,083</p>
<p>1170-1410, 25-31 UCLA, 26,928
1220-1440, 27-32 U Virginia, 13,617
1250-1420, na-na Georgia Tech, 13,515
1180-1400, 26-31 U Illinois, 31,173
1160-1400, 26-30 U Wisconsin, 29,153</p>
<p>1160-1380, 25-30 U Florida (stretch), </p>
<p>1240-1400, 27-31 Wake Forest, 4,412
1250-1440, 28-31 NYU, 21,638
1250-1430, na-na Boston College, 9,081
1230-1400, na-na Lehigh, 4,856
1190-1380, 27-31 U Miami, 9,855</p>
<p>Not the following (I can easily add more, but you get the idea):</p>
<p>1330-1520, 30-33 U Penn, 10,153
1300-1500, 29-33 Cornell, 13,510
1320-1540, 28-33 Brown, 5,874
1290-1510, 29-33 Johns Hopkins, 4,744
1330-1500, 30-33 Vanderbilt, 6,637
1320-1500, 31-34 Notre Dame, 8,371</p>
<p>Now, given some context here, what college do you think is doing a better job attracting better students? A university with avg. SATs of 1220-1430 and ~26,000 undergrads or a university with avg. SATs of 1240-1400 and ~4,400 undergrads? What about compared to a university with avg. SATs of 1220-1440 and ~13,600 undergrads? </p>
<p>I’d say the larger university is doing a much better job and is probably doing a better job than a university with avg. SATs of 1330-1500 and undergrad pop. of 6,000 - 10,000 undergrads…</p>
<p>
Hardly. First off, I was suggesting it as only part – and a small part at that – of a ranking. It was also merely one of a couple suggestions for a measure of faculty quality. This is a far cry from the several posters who would have peer assessment be the sole determining factor of a ranking.</p>
<p>Furthermore, you may know from my past posts that I am a somewhat vocal critic of peer assessment. If someone can propose a more objective measure of faculty quality, I would be the first to favor it over peer assessment.</p>
<p>
Yes, I agree. Perhaps we should add #4 to your list:</p>
<p>4) IBClass06 pipes up with his $0.02. ;)</p>
<p>^
Yes, sadly I keep forgetting the basic economic principle of losing a penny per post (you give your $0.02, but you only get a penny for your thoughts).</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>ucb,
I think that the large universities are doing a good job. Never said otherwise. I just don’t think that their final student body, when measured in its full context, measures up as consistently elite. Pockets of strength? Yes. Overall elite? Nope. </p>
<p>And just to be fair to the privates—I think that they are LESS likely to be numbers driven than the publics. The U Penn example where they showed admit rate by SAT range amply demonstrated this. They could easily have enrolled many more higher scoring students, but chose not to as part of their holistic approach to admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But don’t you think they’re more appropriate to compare. I mean, isn’t it just right and proper to compare Ross with Mendoza instead of Michigan vs ND as Michigan is huge, has a different set-up and requires different level of standard for every program??</p>
<p>If you think Mendoza can hold on its own against Ross, then fine. At least, we’re now comparing apples to apples this time. </p>
<p>What about ND comsci program/dept vs Michigan comsci program/dept? Can ND’s comsci head-to-head with Michigan’s???</p>
<p>hawkette, you didn’t answer my question…but that’s ok. I wasn’t really expecting you to because you’d have to acknowledge something you’re uncomfortable with.</p>
<p>Hawkette, universities that do not publish CDSs are hiding something. As such, I will question the integrity of all universities that suspiciously refuse to release such information. Universities that lie about SAT ranges by publishing super-scored scores make me sick as it is, but universities that hide behind admissions data of admitted students (rather than that of enrolled students) or those that only release data of their more selective schools should be exposed for the liars that they are. </p>
<p>As for the ACT range I stated for Michigan, I guess I got it wrong, although I got the SAT average right. Not that it matters since my point stands; far, far, far more than 25% of Michigan students are of non-HYPM elite private university calibre. FAR MORE. The top 25% at Michigan have ACT scores over 31 and SAT scores over 1430. Now I am not sure why youincluded Notre Dame and Vanderbilt in the mix as they are not academic peers to Michigan. But if your claims were true, more than 75% of students at Brown, Cornell, Penn and Johns Hopkins, would have ACT scores over 31 and SAT scores over 1430. That is not the case. Statistically speaking, the top 50% of students at Michigan are equal to the top 75% of the students at their smaller private peers, at least according to the statistics you provided above. Your ability to proceed without admitting that you were wrong that that in fact, the top 50% of the students at Michigan is equal to the top 75% of the students at their private peers shows how incapable you are of admitting your error.</p>
<p>Hawkette, Mendoza is not equal to Ross. Ross is clearly one of the top 4 or 5 BBA programs in the nation, Mendoza is not. The only undergraduate Business program that are peers to Ross are Haas, McIntire, Sloan and Stern. Wharton is in a league of its own, of course. Although Mendoza does not publish detailed information in, from what I have seen, Ross students place into exclusive companies at a higher rate than Mendoza students.</p>
<p>Just as I stated earlier, this thread is nothing but another rankings dispute based on ACT/SAT scores and all the schools pitted against each other. Same old story. </p>
<p>What is the “environment” like at any school where people are SAT score obsessed?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would agree that the differences in those ranges seem trivial. But these numbers aren’t averages though, are they? Aren’t they the range of SAT scores achieved by the middle 50% of (what-- admitted or matriculating?) students. </p>
<p>It seems to me to answer this question, you need to know what the average SAT score of the middle 50% was. I doubt that there are many schools that have an equal distribution of the 50% between the high and low scores. So if University A’s average was closer to the top of its range than the bottom. that’s more impressive than a school whose range is closer to the bottom of its range, even if the range is identical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reading Hawkette’s posts, I don’t see how any one can say this. She says over and over that she thinks big public universities should have their own rankings.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is necessary to have separate rankings. If rankings compared apples to apples and used relevant and verified criteria, there would be no problems comparing top research universities, public or private.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s the SAT scores for enrolled Berkeley students broken down into colleges:
Take note that Cal, like Michigan, does not superscore SATs.
The figures are also for enrolled students which are normally a few points lower than the admit scores.
And like, Michigan, Berkeley admissions don’t put as much weight on SATs as they do high school GPA’s. </p>
<p>College of Engineering
1330 -1520</p>
<p>College of Chemistry
1310 - 1490</p>
<p>College of Arts & Letters
1190 - 1450</p>
<p>College of Natural Resources
1170 - 1400</p>
<p>College of Environmental Design
1130 - 1390</p>
<p>Based on these data, two Berkeley colleges, the College of Engineering and the College of Chemistry have stats on par or better than those of the Ivies. Again, that’s not even counting the fact that Berkeley does not superscore, does not put as much weight on SATs as the privates do and the figures are for enrolled students.</p>
<p>ucb,
Didn’t know you asked me a question. What was it?</p>
<p>RML,
I think your question is valid, but in practice, it’s often not how the conversation or the situation plays out. People will generically compare ABC to XYZ. Plus lots of folks from outside the undergrad b-schools interview for business jobs. I’d be perfectly happy to interview a Religious Studies or Spanish language or even a Women’s Studies student if they were smart enough. Anyway, as noted earlier, I don’t think that there are great differences in the average to top student coming out of any of the top Midwestern undergrad b-school programs. </p>
<p>Alex,
- Re your comment,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lots of schools don’t publish a CDS, including places like Caltech, U Penn, Duke, Columbia, U Chicago, Rice, etc. Are they all hiding something? Do you have a shred of proof on any of your assertions? </p>
<p>Note to Alex: don’t pursue being a lawyer. You actually need something to back up declarative statements. </p>
<ol>
<li>One thing we can agree on is a dislike for the misleading marketing that one sometimes finds on college websites. You and I understand the distinction between admitted and enrolled classes, but to the newbie or generally unsophisticated, this is often missed. I share your distaste when colleges post their admitted student data for things like standardized test scores and don’t provide enrolled data nearby. Here’s one example:</li>
</ol>
<p>[Office</a> of Undergraduate Admissions: About Michigan](<a href=“http://www.admissions.umich.edu/about/]Office”>Explore & Visit | University of Michigan Office of Undergraduate Admissions)</p>
<p>I should add that U Michigan is hardly alone in doing this. I come across such presentations far more often than I should. It’s all in an attempt to look more selective than they really are. </p>
<ol>
<li>Just to correct/clarify your comment on ACT achievement within U Michigan’s student body,</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>they have scores OF 31 and over. We don’t know how many scored at the 31 level (equal to a 1380 on the SAT) nor do we know the distribution of the scores as you go higher.</p>
<ol>
<li>Not sure what your point is about Notre Dame and Vanderbilt, but if you mean that they don’t score as highly on the PA scoring, you are correct. Congratulations.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>However, if you are referring to their student bodies, you need to do some brushing up. A lot has changed since you attended college in the mid-90s and your old impressions are not accurate today. ND and Vandy compare and compete very effectively today with the non-HYP Ivies and I doubt many non-U Michigan observers would equate U Michigan’s student body to theirs. Pockets? Sure. Overall? Nope. </p>
<p>Which is the outlier here?</p>
<p>SAT 25/75, ACT 25/75, Top 10% students, Acceptance Rate, College</p>
<p>1330-1520, 30-33, 99%, 17%, U Penn
1330-1550, 29-34, 90%, 13.5%, Dartmouth
1360-1550, 29-34, 94%, 10%, Columbia
1320-1540, 28-33, 93%, 14%, Brown
1300-1500, 29-33, 88%, 21%, Cornell
1330-1500, 30-33, 84%, 25%, Vanderbilt
1320-1500, 31-34, 87%,27%, Notre Dame</p>
<p>1220-1430, 27-31, 92%, 42%,U Michigan</p>
<p>Or this?</p>
<p>% 30+ on ACT, % 700+ on CR, % 700+ on Math, College</p>
<p>76%, 52%, 70%, U Penn
73%, 65%, 67%, Dartmouth
73%, 64%, 66%, Columbia
66%, 58%, 66%, Brown
69%, 41%, 64%, Cornell
82%, 47%, 66%, Vanderbilt
88%, 50%, 64%, Notre Dame</p>
<p>44%, 22%,46%, U Michigan</p>
<ol>
<li> Re your claim about U Michigan’s student body relative to the Ivies, let’s test your logic.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>You believe that if School A has a mid-point of its standardized test scores 25/75 equal to or better than the 25th percentile of School B, then School A deserves to be considered a peer to School B. Well, let’s see if you agree with the following:</p>
<p>Mid-point of SAT 25/75</p>
<p>1230 Clemson
1230 Ohio State
1225 U Georgia</p>
<p>1230 Pepperdine
1225 Fordham</p>
<p>25th Percentile </p>
<p>1220 U Michigan</p>
<p>So, is your argument that students at Clemson, Ohio State et al should generally be considered as strong as those at U Michigan? </p>
<p>Let’s try ACT scores and see if that is any different….</p>
<p>Mid-point of ACT 25/75</p>
<p>27.5 U Pittsburgh
26.5 U Minnesota
26.5 U Delaware</p>
<p>27.5 George Washington
27.5 Boston University</p>
<p>25th Percentile </p>
<p>27 U Michigan</p>
<p>So, again, are you claiming that students at U Pittsburgh, U Minnesota et al should generally be considered as strong as those at U Michigan? </p>
<p>Would you accept someone making declarative statements to the effect that the students at Clemson, Ohio State, U Georgia, U Pittsburgh, U Minnesota, U Delaware, Pepperdine, Fordham, GW, BU are as strong as those at U Michigan? I didn’t think so….</p>
<ol>
<li> Re the Ross/Mendoza comparison, I suspect you are basing your view on placement into NYC investment banking jobs from when you were in the industry and in NYC many years ago. While I think your perspective is frequently outdated, here you are probably right as the legacy/pipeline benefits probably remain in Ross’s favor and I’d guess that Ross will have modestly higher market share there.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>If you’re talking about other financial or consulting jobs, particularly in places like Chicago, I think you’re overstating Ross’s rep. At worst, it’s a toss-up and more likely it’s slightly in ND’s favor. Otherwise, I don’t think that there’s a dime’s difference between the placement strength of students from these undergrad b-schools.</p>
<p>I did a little further analysis using Hawkette’s data on the national universities regarding undergrad population size to their average SAT score. There is definitely some hair on this analysis, but it does show which schools are sort of overperforming and those that are underperforming based on student pop. Here’s the list:</p>
<p>School, Avg. Sat, UG pop, Model SAT Predicted Score, Difference
Harvard 1485 6678 1364 121
Yale 1490 5277 1373 117
Caltech 1515 921 1398 117
Prince. 1485 4981 1375 110
Wash U 1460 6985 1363 97
Northw. 1445 8476 1354 91
U Chic. 1465 5065 1374 91
MIT 1470 4153 1379 91
Columbia 1455 5667 1370 85
UC Berk. 1340 25151 1256 84
U Penn 1425 9756 1346 79
Cornell 1400 13846 1322 78
U Mich. 1325 25994 1251 74
Duke 1440 6496 1366 74
U Illinois 1290 31417 1219 71
U Florida 1270 34654 1199 71
Stanford 1435 6532 1365 70
NYU 1345 21269 1278 67
USC 1370 16608 1306 64
Ohio St. 1230 40212 1167 63
Brown 1430 6095 1368 62
Dart. 1440 4147 1379 61
Wisc. 1280 30750 1222 58
Notre D. 1410 8363 1355 55
JHU 1430 4774 1376 54
Vandy 1415 6837 1364 51
Texas 1230 37389 1183 47
Tufts 1420 5044 1374 46
UCLA 1290 26536 1247 43
Rice 1425 3154 1385 40
Gtown 1400 7092 1362 38
Minn. 1245 32557 1212 33
Emory 1405 5214 1373 32
Penn St. 1210 37988 1180 30
Maryland 1275 26431 1248 27
CMU 1395 5998 1369 26
U Virginia 1330 15208 1314 16
BYU 1235 30912 1222 13
Tex. A&M 1190 38430 1177 13
G. Tech 1335 12973 1327 8
UNC 1300 17895 1298 2
BC 1340 9060 1350 -10
Brandeis 1370 3196 1385 -15
U Wash. 1215 29397 1230 -15
UCSD 1255 22518 1271 -16
W&M 1345 5850 1369 -24
Boston U 1270 18534 1295 -25
U Georgia 1225 25467 1254 -29
Tulane 1335 6749 1364 -29
Renss. 1335 5394 1372 -37
Rutgers 1200 28031 1239 -39
Mich. St. 1150 36337 1190 -40
Pitt. 1260 17427 1301 -41
U Roch. 1325 5355 1372 -47
U Miami 1285 10422 1342 -57
Wake F. 1320 4476 1377 -57
Vir. Tech 1205 23567 1265 -60
Lehigh 1315 4876 1375 -60
GWU 1280 10590 1341 -61
Purdue 1150 31761 1217 -67
Indiana U 1150 31626 1217 -67
Case W. 1310 4356 1378 -68
U Iowa 1205 20823 1281 -76
UC Irvine 1195 22122 1273 -78
UC Davis 1175 24209 1261 -86
Clemson 1230 14713 1317 -87
UCSB 1200 18892 1292 -92
Delaware 1210 16384 1307 -97
Worc. 1280 3252 1385 -105
U Conn. 1200 16765 1305 -105
SMU 1245 6240 1367 -122
Fordham 1225 7994 1357 -132
Syracuse 1170 13651 1323 -153
Pepperd. 1230 3404 1384 -154
UCSC 1155 15135 1315 -160
Yeshiva 1210 3044 1386 -176
</p>
<p>Sorry for the formatting. Some schools, as expected, way overperform for their size (Harvard, Wash U, Berkeley and Michigan are some examples)…surprisingly, Ohio State and U Florida also do well, probably because of being the flagship colleges in their respective states.</p>
<p>Other colleges underperform for their size…most notably the mid-tier UCs…the other UCs cannabalize the better students.</p>
<p>RML,
Re your latest post, it has never been my contention that there aren’t subsets of students at places like UC Berkeley that are statistically competitive with many that attend the non-HYP Ivies and other top privates. Of course there are. </p>
<p>BTW, engineering at UCB represents less than 15% of the class. Same for Biological/Life Sciences, which I guess includes the Chemistry College you cite. </p>
<p>One big gap when it comes to evaluating student quality at the UCs is the strength of the incoming transfer population. Each year transfers increase enrollment by 2000 which means a 35% increase every year in the size of the freshmen class. No one has any data on their relative academic statistics, including your favorite metric of Top 10%.</p>
<p>
There is a high correlation between subjects studied and SAT scores anywhere. While your point is certainly well made, there is a lot of self-selection into chemistry and engineering that is connected to SAT score and I think to do apples to apples you’d still have to disaggregated scores by subject area even at schools that have no internal colleges. Unfortunately, that information is NOT available.</p>
<p>Looking at things like the difference in GRE and LSAT scores for engineering and chemistry student suggests that across the board students in these subject areas are doing better on standardized tests.</p>
<p>Not that I would abandon your logic, but I would say that looking at the college of engineering and chemistry is likely to overestimated the differences, and definitely would not underestimate. There may be a meaningful difference that one can find here, but it’s certainly not a given or obvious.</p>