I don't recall the book particularly well, but if memory serves, these weren't authoritative 1600-admit figures. Instead, I think that they were "simulated" admission probabilities based on survey data (which wasn't close to complete). That particular table used SAT score as a proxy for overall qualification, because although the authors ran more sophisticated simulations taking other factors into account, they wanted to present a simpler statistic to the reader.</p>
<p>By using SATs as a proxy for overall qualification, does that mean that the "1600" applicants are essentially perfect applicants rather than perfect score applicants?</p>
<p>I don't think Byerly's #'s are accurate. I've seen different numbers for Stanford, for instance. I don't remember them exactly, but they were lower, definitely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By using SATs as a proxy for overall qualification, does that mean that the "1600" applicants are essentially perfect applicants rather than perfect score applicants?
[/quote]
More or less. At least, that was the conclusion I reached - in particular, the percentages for the University of Chicago in that chart (anyone own the book?) were far too high to reflect percentages of applicants getting in with particular test scores.</p>
<p>I am preparing to take the SAT 1 and 2. I want to chose harvard or any other ivy . what advice can you give me on the following:
1. I finished high school since 2002, hope that will not affect my chance
2. I cant attend a school without financial aid or schorlarship that will cover almost all the cost of attending a school.
3. I will want to enter college for spring next year, can i start sending my application?
I will be grateful if u can help me in those that i have said.</p>
<p>johnson - you should start another thread with those questions. If you read the thread title, you will see that this conversatoin is about the percentage of 1600s getting into Harvard. Your personal questions will most likely be ignored if you keep it in this thread.</p>
<p>Would a single sitting 800 Verbal and 800 Math count as the same as an old SAT 1600? My writing score was far lower but two SAT IIs were 800 as well.</p>
<p>Wait a minute. If Byerly's offered statistics are correct, then if I had applied to Princeton ED, then there's a 97-odd % chance I would have gotten in? That's crazy! What are the numbers for Cornell/MIT? It doesn't seem right. It shouldn't be right.</p>
<p>Apparently those would have been the odds - or close to it - in 2000 or 2001 --- at the very top..</p>
<p>The "Revealed Preference" study, interestingly, indicates that for those just a bit below the top, however, the odds of admission might have been <em>lower</em> at Princeton than for those in the quadrant below them. Based on the observed evidence, the authors concluded that - during the yield-dominated Hargadon era - there was a tendency at Princeton to avoid admitting those who it felt were more likely to enroll at Harvard or Yale.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wait a minute. If Byerly's offered statistics are correct, then if I had applied to Princeton ED, then there's a 97-odd % chance I would have gotten in? That's crazy! What are the numbers for Cornell/MIT? It doesn't seem right. It shouldn't be right.
[/quote]
It's not right. As I've said, SAT score in this table is merely a proxy (unless my memory is completely incorrect) for overall qualification, which means that their "1600" sample includes survey participants who were at "1600-level" (whatever that is) in the other areas covered by the survey. Of course these people are admitted at a ridiculously high rate.</p>
<p>Also, keep in mind that Princeton has changed admissions directors since 2000. Dean Rapelye has supposedly greatly curtailed Fred Hargadon's alleged practice of not going after some of the top applicants to artificially boost yield. If Hargardon was rejecting some of the most qualified students in the RD round, he would have to accept the highest scoring ED applicants to keep the SAT range high. However, Rapelye is apparently being more agressive in pursuing top students regardless of whether they "fit" the percieved "Princeton type." Consequently, she would have less need to admit students ED simply on the basis of statistical strength; though her new policies might hurt yield, it can only help the strength of the RD matriculants.</p>
<p>Randomperson's comments seemed so odd to me, that I looked into it, re-reading the "Early Admissions Game", then quizzing one of the authors, who I happen to know. </p>
<p>In fact, the statistics for 1600-scorers shown in Table 5.2 on page 160 are for actual 1600 scorers, as shown in the survey data.</p>
<p>Randomperson may be confused by the fact that the study DID attempt to normalize for other factors (recruited athlete, legacy status, etc) in calculating the odds of admission, both early and regular, for applicants with the same SAT score.</p>
<p>I am one of the authors of the book, so perhaps I can clear up some of the confusion. We sourced our data from two sources. First, we got full access to the databases from 14 of the 20 most selective schools in the country. We were able to run regressions to show the effect of applying early action/decision while controlling for all relevant factors. But we agreed to protect the anonymity of the schools in exchange for access to the data. To validate our findings and to provide school-specific data, we then conducted surveys of several thousand seniors during their senior years. the students in the pool were selected from students in the top 10% of their high school class. As a result, the admission rates cited in the thread are higher than the rates for the pool of 1600's as a whole, because these applicants were also top classroom performers. Hope that helps to explain the difference.</p>
<p>that's wrong - the statistics are wrong. the statistics dictate that if 100 perfect scores apply to penn, only one will not get in. no. that is wrong. you suck.</p>
<p>what it's saying is that - on average - well over 90% of applicants who apply to Penn ED with SATs of 1600 who are in the top 10% of their class will be admitted. I contend that's actually pretty close to being spot on.</p>
<p>Andrew Fairbanks is a co-author of The Early Admissions Game", and former Dean of Admissions at Wesleyan University.</p>
<p>We are fortunate to have him with us. Perhaps he could be persuaded to answer a few questions about this study and about general trends in early admissions programs.</p>