Vanderbilt Vs. University of Wisconsin-madison PLEASEE HELP!

[rjkofnovi]

<p>“It’s not a tiny number…”</p>

<p>Oh so it’s not a tiny number. Now we are at least starting to see some honesty.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

but they get pretty diluted in the middle of all the others. That was my experience at my Big Ten school- especially freshman year. I met some truly unprepared students who bordered on completely unqualified. They didn’t last long. I’ve heard similar reports from many other state schools.

Okay, so the cream rises up and sets the curve and the weak and “truly unprepared” flunk out. What’s the issue?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Lets say it’s 10%. Wisky must have at least 6000 students in it’s entering class. So I guess 600 is a tiny number too right?

</p>

<p>A few versus tiny. Tiny versus pretty small. What difference does this make? Take the top 10-12 schools and you have over 300,000 applications. How many are seriously considered? If you trust the adcoms, the answer is that EVERY application is given serious consideration. 300? 600? 1,000? None of those numbers is pretty relevant. </p>

<p>In addition, “serious consideration” is such a fluid term that it means absolutely nothing. What matters is how many students in your not “so tiny” group do get accepted at one of the most selective schools. The bottom line remains the same: the student body at the institutions discussed herein (and in similar threads) is simply NOT interchangeable. We covered that issue at length when Stanford shared its cross-admit enrollment with Cal and revealed that a dozen of so students admitted at both schools selected Cal over Stanford. </p>

<p>Cross-applications are different from cross-admits, and the final enrollment decisions contribute to a vastly different student body. </p>

<p>And that is what is relevant! Not the coulda, shoulda, and mighta!</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>^^We’re talking about Vanderbilt here xiggi, not Stanford. Speaking of staying relevant…</p>

[xiggi]

<p>^^</p>

<p>Fair enough, but I was following up on the original quotations:</p>

<p>

There are plenty of students at Indiana, Wisconsin, Texas, Alabama, Georgia etc. that are every bit as smart as anyone at Vanderbilt, Yale, Duke and the like.

</p>

<p>Again, using ACT scores, there are a few students at the state flagships who would be seriously considered for admission at the most selective private schools. There may be a small handful that would rank in the upper 50% of the students at the more selective schools.

</p>

[annasdad]

<p>You can grasp at all the semantic straws you want. That doesn’t change the fact that while flagship Us have important roles to play, educating the best and the brightest is not among them.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Last year approximately 1100 UW freshmen scored 32 and above on the ACT. That’s the 98th %tile and up. This Fall the average ACT (29) and 25/75 range were up a point from last year so the numbers should be even a bit better. So maybe there are 1200. That is hardly a few.
Stanford has an ACT comp 25/75 range of 31/34 for under 1700 freshmen. So those over 31 total about 1275. </p>

<p>1200 versus 1275 not that much.</p>

<p>Annasdad is just not numbers savvy.</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>“Annasdad is just not numbers savvy.”</p>

<p>“That doesn’t change the fact that while flagship Us have important roles to play, educating the best and the brightest is not among them.”</p>

<p>Geez…</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Again, hurling ad hominems at members seems to be THE weapon of choice here.</p>

<p>Fwiw, before casting aspersions about one’s understanding of numbers, one might want to gain a modicum of understanding of admissions’ numbers. </p>

<p>As a quick rebuttal to the posts above, most everyone who knows how to read admissions’ data of elite schools KNOWS that Stanford does not come close to have 1200 freshmen with 31 ACT scores. And for the good reason that only 600 freshmen submitted ACT scores. Fwiw, about 85 percent of such students score above 30 and the 25th percentile is 31. And for comparison purposes, that is above to Wisconsin’s 75th percentile of 30. As far as students in Wisconsin scoring above 30 on the ACT, the number is about 35 percent. </p>

<p>More comparisons? Look at the FALL 2009 16 percent of Wisconsin’s freshman who score above 700 on the SAT critical reading and writing. </p>

<p>No need to go on. It is obvious that some are eminently more able to hurl insults than able to understand basic admissions’ statistics. </p>

<p>Not that pointing to correct data will ever stop them.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>Annasdad:</p>

<p>

Again, using ACT scores, there are a few students at the state flagships who would be seriously considered for admission at the most selective private schools. There may be a small handful that would rank in the upper 50% of the students at the more selective schools.

</p>

<p>Perhaps you may be correct with ACT scores, but there are more than a few (or handfulls) of students at Berkeley, a “state flagship”, with Ivy League SAT scores. Indeed, if you do the math, you’ll find that in fact there are MORE students at Cal with top scores than at Harvard.</p>

[barrons]

<p>I used the 25/75 ACT scores from Stanford’s site to estimate the overall numbers using the ACT as that was the topic. With over 600 (37%) of the class submitting the ACT it’s a pretty good sample size. So nice try in your usual unsubtle but always negative manner.
So how’s that understanding working for you now?</p>

<p>UW does not superscore so it is harder to compare SAT scores with most schools that do. The ACT is cleaner that way and what most UW students submit by far.
The 2011 class had a reported 25/75 of 27/31 so you are out of date. </p>

<p>Fall 2011 Freshman Class
New student enrollment as of 9/7/2011
5,830 total new freshmen
4,249 Wisconsin and Minnesota 1,328 Out of State
253 International
Freshmen Profile (middle 50%)
Average GPA: 3.5–3.9
Rank: 85–96th percentile
ACT: 27–31</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

So how’s that understanding working for you now?

</p>

<p>My understanding is still solid as it is accurate. Yours is still extremely approximate. But that is Ok!</p>

<p>You attack people for not being savvy with numbers. In admissions’ statistics, numbers are facts. Obviously, you prefer to build your “cases” on pure fiction and speculation. </p>

<p>As far as negativity, all one needs to do is read our respective posts. Have more ad hominems to add to your usual tally?</p>

<p>As far as being out of date, how do I say this without being caustic? Let me try this … People who understand this type of reports do also know that the numbers disclosed by the schools for Fall 2011 are still estimates. Do you want to bet that they will be substantially different from the official numbers that will be released later? Actually, I do not think you want to bet with me on this type of issues, and for good reasons.</p>

[barrons]

<p>No, it was built on solid extrapolation using 37% of the total. The chance of significant error is small. It is a simple adjustment.</p>

<p>“one might want to gain a modicum of understanding of admissions’ numbers”.</p>

<p>Yes you should.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>I rest my case. I apologize for relying on an unfair advantage. Let’s talk football and Nobel prize winners.</p>

[goldenboy8784]

<p><a href=“http://apa.wisc.edu/CDS_USNews/CDS_2011.pdf[/url]”>http://apa.wisc.edu/CDS_USNews/CDS_2011.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
ACT Range: 26-30</p>

<p>The admitted students figures are different from the enrolled figures barrons.</p>

[barrons]

<p>That is 2010 not Fall 2011 I have. I know the difference.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.uwalumni.com/media/chapters/rochmn/documents/pdf/2011Counselors.pdf[/url]”>http://www.uwalumni.com/media/chapters/rochmn/documents/pdf/2011Counselors.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;