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

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Silly me. You’re probably thinking that it must be that great diversity that is offered that really promotes how wonderful your college is to these other pretenders. </p>

<p>Ethnically, is there an outlier?</p>

<p>Black , Asian , Hispanic , White , College</p>

<p>10% , 23% , 12% , 45% , College A
5% , 18% , 7% , 64% , College B
9% , 17% , 11% , 55% , College C
4% , 42% , 12% , 39% , College D</p>

<p>Geographically, maybe there is an outlier. Do you see one?</p>

<p>OOS </p>

<p>58% , College A
90% , College B
87% , College C
7% , College D</p>

42

<p>RML,
Sorry to mislead with all of these statistics. Let’s get down to brass tacks (btw-that’s an American expression). </p>

<p>Let’s look at the money. Maybe you’ll finally find the outlier there. </p>

<p>USNWR Fin’l Resources Rank , Endowment Per Capita </p>

<p>10 , $965,310 , College A
3 , $393,510 , College B
7 , $948,060 , College C
43 , $86,722 , College D</p>

43

<p>So, let’s see what we have here……in comparison to the other three , one school has less selectivity, huge numbers of transfers, lower yields, larger classes, less access to profs, worse graduation rates, no geographic diversity, and a lot less money. Sounds like a compelling choice. </p>

<p>Well, hopefully they have a killer rugby team to make up for all of this…. :rolleyes: </p>

<p>Care to choose some other schools to compare against??</p>

44

<p>Please get a room, you two.</p>

<p>It’s silly to compare the selectivity of public universities versus private ones. Public u’s face more constraints and adhere to different kinds of admissions philosophies and policies.</p>

<p>It’d be more fair to compare Berkeley to other public u’s and Emory, Vanderbilt, Georgetown et al. to other private u’s. While Berkeley is among the best of its type of institution, the others are not.</p>

<p>In the interest of full-disclosure: I have no affiliation with Berkeley, Emory, Vanderbilt or Georgetown. It just seems to me that all this public/private bickering is unnecessary and wrong-headed.</p>

45

<p>

tk, i plotted sat score vs. undergrad student population and did a linear regression to correlate the data and determine a predicted score.</p>

46

<p>^^ Well I think Hawkette makes a very compelling point, that putting Berkeley as a top 5 and even top 10 undergrad institution is delusional. I’d say it’s a top 5 grad school across many disciplines.</p>

47

<p>

</p>

<p>A logical inconsistency obtains only if I had not specified certain initial conditions. Please read carefully how I qualified my claim:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Trust me when I say that the admittees from my high school are not “low scorers.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I base my judgment on more than anecdotal evidence. I am also looking at the Revealed Preference Ranking and cross-admit battles. Because both MIT and Stanford win the lion’s share of cross-admits from Columbia, it stretches plausibility to suggest that the caliber of Columbia’s student body can match that of either MIT or Stanford. </p>

<p>The highest scoring students at Columbia are the Fu engineering students. The ones who I know that go there would’ve preferred to attend MIT or Stanford if they had gotten in. This is reasonable because MIT/Stanford engineering > Columbia engineering. Do you wish to deny this?</p>

48

<p>^^ Of course Berkeley doesn’t compare well to smaller privates in terms of undergrad stats. It has a different mission and uses economies of scale. Berkeley is a unique case…it is arguably the best public university and has a faculty that is more honored academically than any other institution outside of Harvard and Stanford.</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>I am not saying that in terms of selectivity, Berkeley qualifies as a top 5 or even top 10 undergrad institution when it’s lumped together with private universities. </p>

<p>My point is that public and private universities should not be lumped (or ranked) together at all. The selectivity standards between national universities and LACs are closer than that between national private u’s and public u’s. But USNEWS doesn’t rank them together.</p>

<p>As I argued in some other thread, insofar as SAT scores are tied to family income, the differences between the student bodies at Berkeley and Emory/Vanderbilt/Georgetown reflect (socio-economic) class differences more than anything else.</p>

50

<p>Nyccard & confidentialcoll,
I appreciate your comments and we probably mostly agree on the relative selectivity of various colleges and, due to their different mission, on the greater difficulty that publics have in these comparisons. I concur that ranking them separately might be the best step. </p>

<p>I happen to like UC Berkeley an awful lot, but the promotional work of some proponents gets a bit tiresome. There are many very good colleges in the USA and these declarative statements of UCB’s supposed superiority grate after a while. Anyone with an ounce of sense and who does not have a vested interest in this can see the difference.</p>

<p>However, re the socio-economic statement point involving Emory/Vanderbilt/Georgetown, don’t stop there. If you’re going to paint these schools with that brush, then paint all schools. These schools have pretty terrific student bodies, measurably stronger than UC Berkeley, and are much closer in selectivity to HYPSM than they are to UC Berkeley. </p>

<p>Returning to the topic of the thread, IMO an improved way to judge the SAT data is by comparing based on how deep a student body is. </p>

<p>For example, below is how the USNWR Top 75 Nat’l Unis and Top 40 LACs compare on their % of students who scored 600+ on their Critical Reading section. Scoring 600+ is hardly an elite level and one would expect many colleges to have few at this level. I’ll let the reader look at the data and draw his/her own conclusions about how deep the student bodies are:</p>

<p>% of students scoring 600+ on CR , School</p>

<p>99% , Caltech
98% , Wash U
97% , Princeton
97% , Yale
97% , W&L
96% , Swarthmore
96% , Harvey Mudd
95% , Northwestern
95% , Pomona
95% , Vassar
94% , Columbia
94% , Tufts
94% , Amherst
93% , U Penn
93% , U Chicago
93% , Emory
93% , Williams
93% , Bowdoin
92% , Stanford
92% , Duke
92% , Notre Dame
92% , Carleton
92% , Claremont McK
92% , Hamilton
92% , Oberlin
91% , Dartmouth
91% , Vanderbilt
91% , Wellesley
90% , MIT
90% , Brown
90% , Rice
90% , Georgetown
90% , Tulane
90% , Haverford
90% , Colby
90% , Scripps
90% , Barnard
89% , Brandeis
89% , Kenyon
88% , Johns Hopkins
88% , Rensselaer
88% , Davidson
88% , Macalester
87% , Cornell
87% , Wesleyan
86% , Bates
85% , USC
85% , NYU
85% , Colorado College
85% , Whitman
84% , Carnegie Mellon
84% , WILLIAM & MARY
84% , Middlebury
84% , Colgate
83% , Bryn Mawr
83% , Mt. Holyoke
82% , Wake Forest
81% , Boston College
80% , Grinnell
78% , U VIRGINIA
77% , Bucknell
76% , Smith
75% , U N CAROLINA
74% , GEORGIA TECH
74% , Lehigh
74% , Occidental
73% , U MICHIGAN
73% , Case Western
73% , Trinity
73% , Furman
72% , UC BERKELEY
72% , George Washington
72% , U Richmond
72% , Holy Cross
71% , U Rochester
71% , U Miami
69% , Lafayette
67% , UCLA
66% , U MARYLAND
66% , Boston University
66% , US Military Acad
65% , U FLORIDA
65% , Sewanee
63% , U PITTSBURGH
63% , US Naval Acad
61% , Fordham
58% , U WISCONSIN
58% , Pepperdine
58% , U GEORGIA
58% , SMU
56% , BYU
55% , UC SAN DIEGO
55% , U TEXAS
55% , U MINNESOTA
55% , Worcester
52% , Yeshiva
52% , U DELAWARE
51% , OHIO STATE
51% , CLEMSON
49% , U ILLINOIS
49% , UC S BARBARA
47% , U WASHINGTON
46% , U IOWA
45% , U CONNECTICUT
44% , VIRGINIA TECH
43% , PENN STATE
43% , RUTGERS
42% , TEXAS A&M
41% , UC DAVIS
41% , UC S CRUZ
40% , UC IRVINE
38% , Syracuse
36% , INDIANA U
35% , MICHIGAN ST
31% , PURDUE</p>

<p>na , Harvard
na , Bard</p>

51

<p>And here is the same data for SAT Math:</p>

<p>% of students scoring 600+ on SAT Math , College</p>

<p>100% , Harvey Mudd
100% , Caltech
99% , MIT
99% , Wash U
98% , Princeton
98% , Yale
97% , W&L
96% , Pomona
96% , U Penn
96% , Columbia
96% , Northwestern
96% , Notre Dame
96% , Rensselaer
95% , Vassar
95% , Stanford
95% , Emory
95% , Vanderbilt
95% , Tufts
95% , GEORGIA TECH
94% , Duke
94% , Brown
93% , Hamilton
93% , Colby
93% , Dartmouth
93% , Cornell
92% , U Chicago
92% , Johns Hopkins
92% , Carnegie Mellon
91% , Williams
91% , Amherst
91% , Swarthmore
91% , Carleton
91% , Davidson
91% , Claremont McK
91% , Rice
91% , Georgetown
91% , USC
91% , Brandeis
90% , Bowdoin
90% , Wesleyan
89% , Bucknell
88% , Middlebury
88% , Haverford
88% , Lehigh
88% , U ILLINOIS
88% , Worcester
87% , Colgate
87% , Oberlin
87% , Wake Forest
87% , Boston College
86% , Wellesley
86% , U MICHIGAN
86% , U Rochester
85% , Grinnell
85% , NYU
84% , U WISCONSIN
83% , Kenyon
83% , UC BERKELEY
83% , U VIRGINIA
83% , WILLIAM & MARY
83% , Case Western
82% , Scripps
82% , Barnard
82% , U N CAROLINA
81% , Colorado College
81% , U Miami
80% , Lafayette
80% , Whitman
79% , US Military Acad
78% , George Washington
78% , Boston University
77% , US Naval Acad
77% , Macalester
77% , Occidental
77% , Holy Cross
77% , UCLA
76% , U MARYLAND
75% , Trinity
75% , UC SAN DIEGO
74% , U Richmond
74% , Tulane
73% , Mt. Holyoke
73% , U FLORIDA
72% , Furman
72% , U PITTSBURGH
71% , CLEMSON
71% , SMU
70% , OHIO STATE
70% , U MINNESOTA
68% , Bryn Mawr
67% , Smith
67% , U TEXAS
66% , Sewanee
65% , BYU
63% , U WASHINGTON
63% , UC IRVINE
63% , Pepperdine
62% , PENN STATE
62% , U GEORGIA
62% , Fordham
62% , VIRGINIA TECH
61% , U CONNECTICUT
61% , U DELAWARE
61% , U IOWA
60% , TEXAS A&M
60% , RUTGERS
58% , UC S BARBARA
57% , UC DAVIS
56% , Yeshiva
54% , Syracuse
51% , MICHIGAN ST
50% , PURDUE
46% , UC S CRUZ
45% , INDIANA U</p>

<p>na , Harvard
na , Bates
na , Bard</p>

52

<p>hawkette,</p>

<p>by your very own logic, Stanford sucks when compared to these schools:

</p>

<p>Do you still not realise until now how absurd your logic is? </p>

<p>SAT alone does not define student strength. When will you ever realise that! </p>

<p>Please.</p>

53

<p>One kid I know, he just got 670 in math as a 7th grader. I can assure you that he will not get into HYPS.</p>

54

<p>RML,
Either you don’t understand my logic or else you are deliberately mischaracterizing it.</p>

<p>Standardized test scores are a highly valued part of the equation for college admissions counselors all across the country and the single most informative datapoint that we have to evaluate relative student bodies. </p>

<p>What your argument continually fails to acknowledge is the very strong correlation between high achievement on standardized tests with high achievement in the high school classroom. As a non-American, perhaps you are not aware, but for schools that are considered “Highly Selective,” the vast majority of unhooked applicants will need both to get in. </p>

<p>Re your Stanford jibe, fine distinctions are not what you or anyone else should focus on. Modest differences in the SAT 25/75 mid-points are usually not the critical differentiator in student evaluations nor are they conclusive in judging relative student bodies. </p>

<p>IMO, far more useful than the single point measurements would be the depth comparisons, eg, % scoring above a certain threshold. Consider the following: </p>

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

<p>76%, 100% Caltech
76%, 76% Yale
73%, 77% Princeton<br>
58%, 85% MIT
64%, 77% Wash U
65%, 67% Dartmouth</p>

<p>64%, 94% Harvey Mudd<br>
76%, 74% Pomona<br>
65%, 59% Swarthmore </p>

<p>57%, 66% Stanford</p>

<p>29%, 51% UC Berkeley</p>

55

<p>Hawkette, FYI, RML did not attend Berkeley.</p>

<p>As for your numbers, while valid, I think you need to add a little context around them by listing student population.</p>

<p>76%, 100% Caltech, 951 undergrads
76%, 76% Yale, 5316 undergrads
73%, 77% Princeton, 5047 undergrads
58%, 85% MIT, 4,232 undergrads
64%, 77% Wash U, 5997 undergrads
65%, 67% Dartmouth, 4196 undergrads</p>

<p>64%, 94% Harvey Mudd, 738 undergrads
76%, 74% Pomona, 1548 undergrads
65%, 59% Swarthmore, 1525 undergrads</p>

<p>57%, 66% Stanford, 6812 undergrads</p>

<p>29%, 51% UC Berkeley, 21151 undergrads</p>

56

<p>hawkette, how do you measure school selectivity?</p>

57

<p>

</p>

<p>Is this a question that is posed in earnest? Are you, RML, really asking this question with the purpose of learning what selectivty means in the context of college admissions, and thus admitting that so far you do not know the answer?</p>

<p>Since it is doubtful --based on your posts and answers in the past-- that you would come close to admitting your lacking understanding of the terminilogy and methodology used by organizations such as USNews, I think it would a good idea for you to simply share with this forum what is YOUR definition of selectivity and how it is measured in the context of college admission.</p>

<p>After all, did you not state emphatically that selectivity was part of your notorious compilation of “all league tables.” </p>

<p>So, please do tell us! Please!</p>

58

<p>xiggi, hawkette made a lot of statements and claims about the subject, but none of which truly defines what school selectivity truly is - for her - and how it is measured. I’m interested how she was able to form a conclusion why certain group of schools are more selective than the others.</p>

59

<p>

</p>

<ul>
<li>John Ciardi</li>
</ul>

60

<p>

</p>

<p>I understand that part, but that does not really change much of your opportunity to define the same term as well. For all we know, we all could learn from reading how your definition of selectivity might differ from Hawkette’s. For what it is worth, I would not be surprised that Hawkette’s definition borrows extensively from USNWR and remains very close to the correct definition of selectivity as a … clear derivative from the word selective. </p>

<p>Again, how do you define the term?</p>