Unis and LACs rank ordered by Ave. 25/75 SAT

College Search & Selection
21

<p>PH, why are people “affiliated” with Chicago so defensive and prompt to throw flasks of vitriol at anyone who dares to question the school in any shape or form. It might be hard to believe but people who question certain aspects of the school might in fact truly admire and respect the school. </p>

<p>Do you as an insider love EVERY part of attending Chicago? Why do you feel compelled to answer questions of outsiders with denial and ad hominem attacks? Think about it! </p>

<p>Now, let me help you with a couple of things. First let’s address the similarities and differences between the data reported by USNews and by the College Board. Do you know how those independent organizations obtain the data they report? </p>

<p>Since you are quick to state, “Judging that the reported statistics are incorrect requires an extreme familiarity with the given institution, something that you do not possess” allow me to ask you if you understand the impact of Chicago’s yield on the admitted class? Do you think that the students who do not decide to matriculate at Chicago do so to attend schools that are less selective? Also, are you familiar with the historical SAT statistics of Chicago? Are you telling me that Chicago is a school that values the SAT more than other elements such as … compelling essays, character, quirkiness, and other non-measurable attributes, and thus seeks to recruit high stats students? </p>

<p>Oh well, you’re the one with all the answers and the superior analytical ability!</p>

22

<p>I don’t know if there is really an issue here or not with Chicago’s SAT scores. One could just go with the numbers on the university site (class of 2013 middle 50%=1320-1530, but with no M & CR breakdown.) <a href=“https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml[/url]”>https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Next time a Chicago student calls in the middle of dinner for an alumnus donation, this gives me a good pretext to refuse. I’ll tell him or her that xiggi demands they publish a CDS, or he’ll make College Confidential a living hell for anyone affiliated with the school. At my level of giving, they’ll probably say they do not negotiate with terrorists.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>1) your sample size is so small that your evidence is simply anecdotal, I’m sure counter anecdotal evidence exists.</p>

<p>2) Your post doesn’t follow, if Columbia is actively selecting SAT scores (i.e. taking in students who only have high scores and nothing else), and Stanford and MIT do not do this, then presumably, Stanford and MIT will take some super star with low scores who Columbia will reject because of low scores. But if everyone who gets into S,M gets into Columbia, then every low scorer who S,M takes is also someone taken by Columbia, meaning Columbia is not actively selecting SAT scores</p>

<p>3) You want some anecdotal evidence, try: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-university/824326-official-columbia-ed-class-2014-results-5.html?highlight=Official[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-university/824326-official-columbia-ed-class-2014-results-5.html?highlight=Official&lt;/a&gt;
If you notice there are many 2200, 2300+ kids who are deferred(90% of these will ultimately be rejected) or rejected, many outstanding 2000-2100 kids get in. Higher scores clearly get in at a slightly higher rate, but you can’t fault them for score selection. </p>

<p>4) Columbia has similar SAT ranges to Duke and UChicago, both schools with 2x and 3x the acceptance rate, while there might be differences in applicant pools, again you cannot fault Columbia for picking scores. Princeton has the same acceptance rate as Columbia with higher SAT scores.</p>

<p>Finally if you want to make the judgement that the student body at Columbia cannot match Stanford or MIT you’re welcome to, but the numbers simply do not support your argument. The numbers did 10 years ago, but not anymore.</p>

<p>Stanford and MIT have more world renowned departments, more layman prestige and more money, but you have little to support that the students at Columbia are outmatched by S,M.</p>

24

<p>xiggi, this is objective data, correct? It can’t be manipulated as easily as an aggregate of ~2,000 academic opinions…right? ;)</p>

25

<p>Right, UCB! There is, however, a subtle difference. Short of massive efforts by courageous students using their right to access public information, there is no easy way to uncover errors, omissions, or blatant manipulations in the documents submitted by the 2,000 academics. On the other hand, numbers that appear at odds with previously published ones or substantial increases and decreases are easier to spot. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, aren’t we all hoping to see the information given to all students and their families to be clear, accurate, and … honest? This level of transparency, however, should never stop us to have different interpretations and opinions. ;)</p>

26

<p>^ Good evening, xiggi. :slight_smile:
What difference does it make? I’d say the students choosing a college because one has an average SAT score of 1465 vs. 1400 is practically nil. Much more important, I say, is the academic reputation of intended program…and CC’s own poll confirms this.</p>

27

<p>I did this ranking using Hawkette’s data a while ago. It adjusts SAT score for UG student population. The rationale being a larger school will have an SAT average closer to the national mean as it gets larger. This ranking shows which universities are overperforming and underperforming enrolling top students for their size compared to their peers.</p>

<p>Actual SAT Avg, UG Student Pop., Predicted SAT Avg., Difference (Actual - Predicted), School
1485, 6678, 1364, + 121, Harvard
1490, 5277, 1373, + 117, Yale
1515, 921, 1398, + 117, Caltech
1485, 4981, 1375, +110, Princeton
1460, 6985, 1363, +97, WUSTL
1445, 8476, 1354, +91, Northwestern
1465, 5065, 1374, +91, U Chicago
1470, 4153, 1379, +91, MIT
1455, 5667, 1370, +85, Columbia
1340, 25151, 1256, +84, UC Berkeley
1425, 9756, 1346, +79, Penn
1400, 13846, 1322, +78, Cornell
1325, 25994, 1251, +74, Michigan
1440, 6496, 1366, +74, Duke
1290, 31417, 1219, +71, Illinois
1270, 34654, 1199, +71, Florida
1435, 6532, 1365, +70, Stanford
1345, 21269, 1278, +67, NYU
1370, 16608, 1306, +64, USC
1230, 40212, 1167, +63, Ohio State
1430, 6095, 1368, +62, Brown
1440, 4147, 1379, +61, Dartmouth
1280, 30750, 1222, +58, Wisconsin
1410, 8363, 1355, +55, Notre Dame
1430, 4774, 1376, +54, Johns Hopkins
1415, 6837, 1364, +51, Vanderbilt
1230, 37389, 1183, +47, Texas
1420, 5044, 1374, +46, Tufts
1290, 26536, 1247, +43, UCLA
1425, 3154, 1385, +40, Rice
1400, 7092, 1362, +38, Georgetown
1245, 32557, 1212, +33, Minnesota
1405, 5214, 1373, +32, Emory
1210, 37988, 1180, +30, Penn State
1275, 26431, 1248, +27, Maryland
1395, 5998, 1369, +26, Carnegie Mellon
1330, 15208, 1314, +16, Virginia
1235, 30912, 1222, +13, BYU
1190, 38430, 1177, +13, Texas A&M
1335, 12973, 1327, +8, Georgia Tech
1300, 17895, 1298, +2, North Carolina
1340, 9060, 1350, -10, Boston College
1370, 3196, 1385, -15, Brandeis
1215, 29397, 1230, -15, Washington
1255, 22518, 1271, -16, UCSD
1345, 5850, 1369, -24, William & Mary
1270, 18534, 1295, -25, Boston U
1225, 25467, 1254, -29, Georgia
1335, 6749, 1364, -29, Tulane
1335, 5394, 1372, -37, Rensaleer
1200, 28031, 1239, -39, Rutgers
1150, 36337, 1190, -40, Michigan State
1260, 17427, 1301, -41, Pittsburgh
1325, 5355, 1372, -47, U Rochester
1285, 10422, 1342,-57, U Miami
1320, 4476, 1377, -57, Wake Forest
1205, 23567, 1265, -60, Virginia Tech
1315, 4876, 1375, -60, Lehigh
1280, 10590, 1341, -61, George Washington
1150, 31761, 1217, -67, Purdue
1150, 31626, 1217, -67, Indiana
1310, 4356, 1378, -68, Case Western
1205, 20823, 1281, -76, Iowa
1195, 22122, 1273, -78, UC Irvine
1175, 24209, 1261, -86, UC Davis
1230, 14713, 1317, -87, Clemson
1200, 18892, 1292, -92, UC Santa Barbara
1210, 16384, 1307, -97, Delaware
1280, 3252, 1385, -105, Worcester
1200, 16765, 1305, -105, U Conn
1245, 6240, 1367, -122, Southern Methodist
1225, 7994, 1357, -132, Fordham
1170, 13651, 1323, -153, Syracuse
1230, 3404, 1384, -154, Pepperdine
1155, 15135, 1315, -160, UC Santa Cruz
1210, 3044, 1386, -176, Yeshiva</p>

28

<p>^ Very interesting. UCB, how do you derive the “Predicted SAT Average”?</p>

29

<p>

</p>

<p>Because they’re already a part of the selectivity rank.
It’s common sense.</p>

30

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow to Pomona, WUStL and Shwarthmore being more selective than Stanford. Wow. Wow. Wow! I lost my respect for Stanford now. hahaha…</p>

31

<p>RML,
Interesting comment on losing respect for Stanford.</p>

<p>Which college looks to be the outlier?</p>

<p>1360-1540 College A
1340-1550 College B
1370-1530 College C
1210-1470 College D</p>

<p>Given your conclusion above on Stanford, one can only imagine how poorly you must feel about College D….</p>

32

<p>^ You failed to get the sarcasm. lol</p>

33

<p>Oh, I got it.</p>

<p>Did you?</p>

<p>Did you figure out which is the outlier?</p>

<p>Maybe you need a few more comparisons to see it…</p>

<p>% scoring 700+ on CR , % scoring 700+ on Math , College</p>

<p>57% , 66% , College A
64% , 77% , College B
96% , 91% , College C
29% , 51% , College D</p>

34

<p>hahaha.</p>

<p>I just proved a point that SATs alone is a useless basis to determine selectivity level. (Do you see now, hawkette, that if we would all follow your logic, then Stanford isn’t really all that amazing.) On the other hand, there are still a few folks on here who can’t move on after already knowing - what seems to be a glaring fact - that some universities do not weigh SATs as much as they do HS/classroom performance. Some schools just don’t see SATs all that important. That’s a plain and simple fact. Yet some people who already know of such a thing aren’t moving on.</p>

35

<p>Oh, I see. So, you’re hanging your hat on some other statistic. </p>

<p>Maybe Top 10% students? Is there an outlier here?</p>

<p>92% , College A
96% , College B
87% , College C
98% , College D</p>

<p>or maybe you’re thinking about Acceptance Rates…</p>

<p>9.5% , College A
21.7% , College B
15.7% , College C
21.6% , College D</p>

36

<p>Could the transfer populations affect these numbers in a positive…or negative…way?</p>

<p>Should the transfers be considered in making a judgment about the strength of a student body?</p>

<p>22 students , College A
102 students , College B
17 students% , College C
2012 students , College D</p>

37

<p>don’t divert the topic. this is about SATs. And, as I’ve been informing you over and over again and again, some schools don’t use SATs as some others do. That’s a plain and simple fact. deal with it and move on.</p>

38

<p>Maybe you’re thinking about their relative yields as a possible clue about their desirability to OOS students. </p>

<p>Should their yields be considered as a measure of their prestige (your most important factor!!!)? </p>

<p>71% , College A
30% , College B
39% , College C
19% , College D</p>

39

<p>Maybe you’re thinking that the class environment is more effectively arranged at your favorite school and that students have such wonderful access to their professors. </p>

<p>Let’s compare again. Do you notice an outlier??</p>

<p><20 , >50 , College</p>

<p>72.2% , 11.7% , College A
74.2% , 8.7% , College B
75.1% , 1.9% , College C
60.3% , 15.1% , College D</p>

<p>Nah. That can’t be it. </p>

<p>Maybe it’s the Student/Faculty Ratios which show the great proximity students have to their profs?</p>

<p>6/1 , College A
7/1 , College B
8/1 , College C
15/1 , College D</p>

<p>Is there an outlier in this comparison??</p>

40

<p>Maybe the outcomes are better and students have a better chance of graduating. </p>

<p>Let’s see if the 4-year data helps you see an outlier? How about the 6-year data? </p>

<p>4 Yr Grad Rates , 6 Yr Grad Rates , College</p>

<p>79% , 94% , College A
85% , 94% , College B
88% , 92% , College C
64% , 90% , College D</p>

<p>I don’t know about you, but does one college seem to be consistently lagging in these comparisons?</p>