Which underrated colleges are on the way up?

@YaleMomOf7 Agreed, on Lawrence, though I think it gets a little more “love” than Earlham and Knox here on CC.And I’ve also been very impressed by Kalamazoo, and I wish I could have seen Centre, though we never made it.

Seems like a lot of the CTCL schools are on the way up.

@Muad_dib which ones did you have in mind? I’ve seen some that are appearing in the NACAC list a few years running, so I don’t feel they are on the way up, but I also don’t know much about some of them.

Of the CTCLs I do know a little more about, there are definitely a few that deserve more recognition. Clark U, St. Olaf, Whitman and College of Wooster are all well-regarded by those in the know here on CC, and I hope they do get increased interest from students.

We really liked College of Wooster when visiting last summer. Met with several administrators and students and everyone was great. Pretty campus with new science building coming. Very interesting Independent Study (IS) program requirement for all students. For those students who wish to pursue graduate school, the IS project is especially valuable training and mentorship. Good merit aid is available.

University of Rochester does not report their SATs to the US Department of Education so there is no way to tell how selective they are. If you read SATs from any source other than the US Department of Education, don’t believe them. The US Department of Ed requires SAT reports from colleges for all students who are required to submit them. If they don’t report SATs to the US Dept of Ed, it means they don’t require SATs from any students. By the way, SATs and ACTs are the only measure of selectivity (except that grad rate is a good proxy for SATs). Acceptance rate and yield are not valid measures of selectivity because they are affected greatly by factors that have little to do with student body quality. U of R was rocked last year by a faculty member sex scandal. President resigned. Doubt if they went up in selectivity.

^^^ I’m well aware of the scandal and all sides regarding it considering my son was in the affected department and knew many of the “players” by name.

I’ve been curious to see how they would fare as WAY too many who were never involved could have been affected/hurt by those eager for a huge witch hunt. Fortunately that doesn’t seem to have happened. Just their application numbers alone show they are still popular and possibly getting more popular. Of course, it could also mean many thought it would be easier to get in… If so, that backfired this year. We’ll know overall when we see more data from another year or two.

You can have your own thoughts about SAT/ACT scores. I don’t get too concerned at specific numbers knowing how much they can vary with the same student. I look at general scores in a range and assume the test optional schools (like URoc lately) are only reporting what they have. There are truly some excellent students out there who benefit from test optional schools. I’m glad more schools are realizing that.

I agree that there are some great test optional schools and students out there and that the SAT or ACT is of course just one piece of the puzzle. However, I also agree that it is the best overall “objective” measure when trying to compare selectivity. The truth is there really is no pure way to compare selectivity because of the multitude of variables, but SAT and ACT scores are the closest thing we have. Even at test optional schools because some kids still submit scores (many).

And yet, my daughter attends Bates, a well-known test-optional college with an 18% acceptance rate, which will likely be even lower next year. A large proportion of students (30% in 2015, possibly higher now), do not submit scores, and the average ACT score is 30. I don’t think test scores are the only true measure of selectivity.

Having said that, let’s try to keep this thread on track. This is meant to be a post about not super well known colleges that might be landing on more people’s radars for whatever reason.

“Just saw where someone posted that U Rochester had their most selective year ever (and most apps). They’re already Top 30 something, so hardly underrated, but still getting more popular.”

I agree about U Rochester having grown up in upstate NY, know it’s an excellent school. However you can say that about most colleges in the US, since the number of high school seniors are increasing, as are the number that want to attend college, and the number of spots are about the same. All the schools are going to have the most number of apps and their most selective year, but not all of them would be considered up and coming.

UCs are the best example, UCLA’s apps went from 97 to 113K, acceptance rate is 16%, Irvine went from 77 to 94K, acceptance rate is 37% (used to be around 60%). The UCs are probably rated right where they are, maybe slightly underrated, are well known and are not considered the next big thing, as the OP asked.

@theloniusmonk UCLA is not underrated. Let’s try to stay on topic.

I know UCLA is not underrated , that was my point, just because a college has more apps and a decrease in acceptance rate does not make it underrated or a hidden gem. However that’s been one of the reasons given for colleges in this thread, that a more popular college means it could be the “next big thing”.

The test-optional schools might show artificially high scores because only high-scoring applicants submit them.

The discussion of SATs is relevant in this thread because there is no way to know if a college is on the way up unless you know the average SATS or ACTs for the entire entering class. SATs are such a good predictor of student success that it is hard to understand why a college would not require them except as a marketing ploy. I assumed the title of this thread referred to being on the way up in terms of academic quality, not financially on the way up. Many colleges are like used car salespeople. They don’t necessarily want consumers of their product to be aware of all the facts. Regarding the U of R scandal, the complaints about the professor were badly mishandled. I think the U of R’s reputation lately has come more from its medical school and research hospital than from its undergrad program. I don’t wish the U of R any misfortune but their decision to ignore the best single predictor of student success in their admission process makes me wonder whether their undergrad program is in decline. It indicates that they don’t have the best interests of prospective students and their parents in mind.

@collegehelp , sorry, but that is not strictly true. Bates conducted a well-known study and found that students who submitted no test scores had almost identical grades once in college as those who did submit scores. The fact that more colleges than ever allow applicants to apply test-optional indicates that more and more colleges do not agree that standardized tests are a great predictor of student success. The vast majority of colleges still value high grades over high test scores. If you want to discuss the topic further, please start a new thread.

I didn’t specify what qualifiers show that a college is on the way up. I simply wanted to hear about colleges that are becoming more well-known, gaining respect, improving standards, or whatever it might be. It doesn’t necessarily mean they have to be climbing the rankings, but they could be.

As an educator, I don’t see much difference between 100 - 200 point ranges on the SAT or within about 5 point ranges of the ACT.

The kids who tend to do the best are those with a really curious mind and good work ethic, esp if combined with good people skills. They may, or may not, get high scores. They tend to succeed in life though, including college.

I suspect colleges have seen similar things - hence - far more going score optional. “If you’re good at testing, show us that. If you’re good at other things, show us that.” I doubt they suddenly start accepting students who are in the bottom quartile of their school…

And just doing a quick google search, I only find that SAT scores are a slight predictor (slight correlation) of student success in college. High school grades do better. High school grades show work ethic and people skills. SAT scores show neither. Both can show academic accomplishments.

The College Board claims to have research that shows SAT scores combined with HS grades are a slightly better indicator than either factor taken separately. There’s generally a correlation between the two, but there are always some brilliant slackers who test well but haven’t put in the work to get top grades, and some overachievers who compensate for whatever causes them not to test well by sheer effort that gets them top grades. I should think most colleges would prefer to have the overachievers.

"there are always some brilliant slackers who test well but haven’t put in the work to get top grades, and some overachievers who compensate for whatever causes them not to test well by sheer effort that gets them top grades. I should think most colleges would prefer to have the overachievers. "

Probably depends highly on the college, or employer for that matter. The grinders will always perform well until they get to the top levels of most disciplines - because at the top levels intuitive leaps or ability to synthesize complex data in new ways becomes more of a factor. At colleges or employers that are a fit or offer an enticing challenge, the brilliant slackers may shine because they feel the spark and have brainpower to make those advanced leaps.

^ I’ve never heard of a college that prefers brilliant slackers. I’ve been at info sessions where parents of brilliant slackers have asked that question—using kinder terminology, of course, like “a student who has great potential but but doesn’t necessarily show on the high school transcript.”. They’ve gotten a pretty cold rebuff from the AO running the session. And the top colleges don’t need them. But then, they don’t need the pure grinders either.

Brilliant slackers can sometimes blossom in the right environment, but why take that chance if you don’t need to?

“Brilliant slackers can sometimes blossom in the right environment, but why take that chance if you don’t need to?”

It can be good to have a few of them in the mix because they’re sometimes the types that come up with the next level leap forward in the field. Some are weirdo late bloomers who come into their own later, some never develop and some just become normal. But sometimes you need the brilliance because that’s where the advances are made.

The world runs on the backs of the work of the steady, hard workers. They’re necessary and definitely a safer bet. But if they’re truly just working hard but don’t have the raw material, they won’t usually be the ones that make the big leaps forward in their field.

AOs are human and will of course be turned off by the term “slacker.” But the description of a brilliant person not getting top grades doesn’t mean they’re a slacker, nor do less than top grades make a kid ineligible for top colleges. If the description were made with a less judgmental, negative slant, I suspect many top colleges would be interested in a brilliant student who only made a 3.7 or 3.8 in high school and hadn’t yet lived up to his/her potential…