<p>
</p>
<p>Any methodology which puts Cal in a positive light. Conversely, any methodology which puts Cal in a negative light is flawed and must be completely discounted.</p>
<p>xiggi, like I said, hawkette has made a lot of claims regarding about certain groups of students which are more smarter than the others. For example, she made a bold statement that Emory students are smarter than Cal students. She also said that USC students are smarter than UCLA students. I’d like to know from her how she was able to draw such conclusions.</p>
<p>the_prestige, let’s leave Cal for a moment if that’s what makes you feel comfortable. I have no direct association with Cal. I am only using Cal in all my examples because it’s the clearest school that’s been hurt by the biased criteria of USNews. Consequently, I’ve been using Emory to prove my point as it is the school which was ranked directly above it. I have nothing against Emory. I think it’s a fantastic school and rightly is a top 30 school in America. In fact, my aunt went there for her advance training in medicine and she’s really fond of the school, so much so that whenever someone mentions it, she’s the first person that comes to my mind.</p>
<p>RML, asking you for YOUR definition of selectivity is not a trick question. Why is so hard to define a term or concept you said is included in all the rankings you posted here? </p>
<p>Again, why are you asking Hawkette to explain how she measures selectivity if you might not agree on the definition itself?</p>
<p>xiggi, I prefer to know hawkette’s definition first.
If you remember, I never made any claims regarding matters that I constantly object to her many claims. If I made a claim on such subject, I’d feel obligated to define it first. But I haven’t. </p>
<p>As for the latest rankings I made, they’re based on school prestige.
My selectivity rank section/data was based on USNews.</p>
<p>RML, why such waffling?</p>
<p>Tom Brokaw came to my school as a guest speaker last night and talked about how the greatest generation did what they had to do as opposed to what they wanted to do.</p>
<p>With a thread trying to make claims about what a “Top 30” school even means, it is clearly a mark of our generation’s constant competition to measure up to everyone else in order to assure ourselves that we are doing something worthwhile.</p>
<p>I’d say much of selectivity has to do with standards that must be met in order to attend that institution. A school is “more selective” if they are reaching into your personal life to discover if you’re fit or not to represent that name when you leave that school. Or how about digging into someone’s medical record?</p>
<p>We have lost sight of what the “whole person” really means across the board. </p>
<p>Some of the world’s biggest movers and shakers, the people who have been there when it mattered, who held the world in their hands, like Brokaw, whose importance was not measured on his SAT score or the college he went to, but the amount of integrity he had and the thirst to present the world with the truth despite pressure.</p>
<p>In the end, I want somebody on my team who is intelligent in their own right, but most importantly of all, someone I can trust.</p>
<p>DunninLA & Hawkette have provided useful information in an organized manner in posts #1 & #6 above. But, as I had read that the Univ. of Chicago’s SAT statistics were incorrectly inflated since Chicago officials submitted admitted student data when all other schools submitted the requested scores for matriculated students, Chicago’s math & verbal SAT scores are probably much closer to those shown in post #1 (1420) than those listed in post #6 (1465). Additionally, I think that CalTech & Harvey Mudd should not be listed with the other schools since both are too tiny & too highly specialized schools to draw any meaningful comparisons with the other schools. The top 20 schools should, in my opinion, be listed as:</p>
<p>Yale 1490
Harvard 1485
Princeton 1485
Pomona 1475
MIT 1470
WashUSt.L. 1460
Columbia 1455
Northwestern 1445
Duke 1440
Dartmouth 1440</p>
<p>Stanford 1435
Swarthmore 1435
Brown 1430
Penn 1425
Rice 1425
CHICAGO 1420
Williams 1420
Amherst 1420
Tufts 1420
Vanderbilt 1415</p>
<p>Hey Navy…always gotta throw that service academy monkey wrench into the equation. 
I agree that service academies are the most selective when looking for mental and physical fitness as well as character.</p>
<p>Thanks for your commitment and service.</p>
<p>These arguments about selectivity are ridiculous.</p>
<p>UCB,</p>
<p>Haven’t posted on this topic in a long time. When the term “monkey wrench” is thrown around, it almost makes it sound like the SA’s are a “wild card” or are “not included” in this discussion. There is nothing tricky or unexpected about the expectations here.</p>
<p>People here would be alarmed at the statistics of the cross admits at my school and the Ivy Leagues and where those students ended up enrolling. Some part of selectivity definitely should consider preference when one student is admitted at two schools and where that student eventually enrolls.</p>
<p>My commitment and service is also as an undergraduate student who has chosen my school as an ACADEMIC institution for learning over some of the other said schools.</p>
<p>xiggi,
I’m shocked! Shocked!..that RML was unwilling to provide any specifics for how he might compare relative selectivity of colleges, including his favorite of UC Berkeley. He loves to put down top privates like Emory and post that his favorite is so much better, but he does precious little to back it up. Maybe that’s the entitlement thing he learned at Cambridge. :)</p>
<p>While RML won’t (can’t??) answer your question about selectivity, I’ll give it a try. As a guide, I look to the way that the National Association of College Admissions Counselors (NACAC) evaluates the various admissions factors. Here is how they do it:</p>
<p>Considerable Weight , Moderate Weight , Limited or No Weight </p>
<p>75.9% , 17.4% , 6.7% , Grades in college prep courses
61.5% , 25.3% , 13.2% , Strength of curriculum
60.4% , 27.9% , 11.7% , Standardized Test scores (SAT, ACT)
51.2% , 36.4% , 12.5% , Grades in all courses
27.9% , 30.6% , 41.5% , Essay and/or writing sample
23.1% , 38.6% , 38.3% , Class rank
21.2% , 40.7% , 38.0% , Counselor recommendation
20.8% , 31.2% , 48.1% , Student’s demonstrated interest
19.5% , 41.1% , 39.3% , Teacher recommendation
10.4% , 23.1% , 66.5% , Interview
7.6% , 37.0% , 55.4% , Extra-curricular activities
7.6% , 23.5% , 68.8% , Subject test scores (AP, IB)
6.3% , 13.4% , 80.4% , State graduation exam scores
5.2% , 8.5% , 86.3% , SAT II scores
2.9% , 21.5% , 75.5% , Work</p>
<p>Of the data that is available to us (standardized tests and class rank and acceptance rates), I use them as guides to a school’s relative selectivity. Underlining my conclusions is the belief that, for the vast majority of unhooked applicants applying to the USA’s most selective colleges, there is a strong correlation between high standardized test scores and high achievement in the HS classroom. Most of us understand that applicants will need both, eg, a candidate with a 1470 SAT and an uninspiring HS transcript is very unlikely to get into a top private. </p>
<p>For interpretation purposes on standardized test scores, I prefer the % scoring above a threshold (600+, 700+, 30+) as the best indicators. If one insists on a single point comparison, I’d look at the 25th percentile numbers for the most selective schools and estimate that somewhere around 20-40 points on a given SAT section (CR or Math) or more than 1 point on the ACT constitutes a material difference in selectivity. Others may approach it differently.</p>
<p>I posted in post #1 that Cornell’s 25/75 ave. is 1400, and that I assumed if only the CAS and Eng. schools were used, as this is the case with most of the schools, that the number would be much higher.</p>
<p>I stumbled upon another post with a link to the Cornell website that does in fact break out 25/75 SAT by school. Here are the results: School/ 25/75 Ave. / # students</p>
<p>Arts & Science: 1405 / 4,200
Engineering: 1440 / 2,800
---------- for a weighted average here of about 1420</p>
<p>Agriculture: 1350 / 3,400
Architecture: 1370 / 500
Hotel Admin: 1310 / 900
Ind./Labor Relations: 1375 / 900
Ecology: 1380 / 1,300</p>
<p>CAS + Engineering represent only 50% of the undergraduate student body at Cornell, a unique situation indeed.</p>
<p>The SAT scores of Cornell’s A&S are lower than those of the A&S colleges of other ivies (and equivalents).</p>
<p>Navyguy and UCBChemE – my nephew is a 3rd year at Annapolis. He chose the Academy over Berkeley, aeronautical engineering. His SATs were nearly perfect and he was Valedictorian at his prep school.</p>
<p>However, since the Academies are selecting students based primarily on:</p>
<p>1) desire to serve as an officer
2) demonstrated LEADERSHIP capabilities
3) Character
4) Academic qualifications, especially in sciences
5) Physical and psychological fitness</p>
<p>there is going to be a % of students who are not 1300+ scorers on the SAT. The advantage of the Academies is that they all have small enough classes that they are able to bring a good but not great high school student up to speed rather quickly. I don’t think midshipmen at the Naval Academy have more than 20 minutes in a given day that is not allocated to training, eating, class or studying… and the time in between each is just long enough to keep anyone from walking…</p>
<p>^ Your nephew made the right decision since Berkeley doesn’t have an aeronautical engineering program.</p>
<p>GoNavyXC, when I say “monkey wrench” I did not imply that in a derogatory way…I just meant that there are additional factors, like Dunnin pointed out, that make the academies more rigorous in selecting their student bodies.</p>
<p>hawkette, you shouldn’t be shocked(!) when I chose not to give my definition of student selectivity because I never made any claims about the subject matter. For example, I never made claims such as Yale students are smarter than Stanford students. Or, Emory students are smarter than UC Berkeley students. And so on. However, you have, not just once, but many, many times on this forum. Nevertheless, thank you for granting my request. I didn’t realise that your “definition” for student selectivity is quite detailed (however it may be is a rip-off from a certain institution’s own definition/criteria.)</p>
<p>Now, basing on the “definition” that you yourself provided, how is Emory more selective than UC Berkeley is? How is it that Emory students are smarter than UC Berkeley students?</p>
<p>(If you’re not comfortable using Berkeley for comparison, feel free to use Michigan to test your “definition” and prove your theory right.)</p>
<p>nyccard – how did you find the A&S only stats on the other schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To say that UC Berkeley is more prestigious than Emory is NOT AT ALL condescending on the part of Emory. That statement is a fact. Berkeley is consistently ranked top 10 in the world. Meanwhile, I have yet to see Emory ranked in the top 10 in the world.</p>
<p>lastMa – you had asked why I posted "… the focus of higher education being generally on the upper east coast of the US… " –</p>
<p>Actually now that you asked, I realize I should have specified “undergraduate education” rather than “education”.</p>
<p>In a review of the NRC rankings for the 41 ranked Ph.D. programs, and further summarized into “5 Main Areas”, it becomes clear the epicenter of Ph.D. level research is found on the 30 mile corredor connecting UC Berkeley (#1 overall) and Stanford (#2 overall in a tie with Harvard). </p>
<p>The Harvard + MIT corredor stands just next in line.</p>
<p>So I suppose one could say the elite of the elite in the Ph.D. world is bipolar: CA Bay Area, and Cambridge, MA., wherein these four schools dominate the top 3 positions in most of the 5 areas of Ph.D. research.</p>
<p><a href=“NRC Rankings”>NRC Rankings;