<p>BJM8, I wasn't referring to any comment that you made, just some general posts such as the type made by Motherwaitingfornews.</p>
<p>didn't bring up rankings I was referring to admissions statistics.]]</p>
<p>And SATs :) You also made the comment Bryn Mawr was more selective by any measure. I was pointing out that isn't true.</p>
<p>[[By the way, wasn't 09 an aberration for Smith? ]]I</p>
<p>No, '08 was an aberration. i.e 57% admission rate in last Augusts mag. '09 may have been a slight compensation for the high acceptance the yr before. But both yrs combined averaged the norm of 52% --the same % of the class of 07 and this yr. I already posted the stats for 07 and did again below b/c '07 is a good rep of the norm for both colleges, I believe.</p>
<p>Does this make a bit of sense at all, or should I get back on my exercise wheel with my Vodka filled water bottle?</p>
<p>I don't know if you read my post about a Bryn Mawr alumna about was a Sr. manager at one of the companies I owned. She was amazing. I mean it when I say the college produces incredible women. Although she did have fun picking on my Smithie wife when she would stop by---but not to her face--lol</p>
<p>If you go back to the 2005 USNews ranking (class of 2007) Smith had an acceptance rate of 52% Bryn Mawr 51% .. Smiths SATs were (mid 50%) 1150-1370.. Bryn Mawrs 1200-1400- a measly 40 point average difference and statistically insignificant."</p>
<p>Note:The admission rate for this yr also was 52% but 70 % enrolled are in the top 10% of the class. That's a 9% increase for the top 10% stat. It will interesting to see where the SATs come in.</p>
<p>"How do you know the scores of <em>all</em> the incoming students if they didn't submit them?"</p>
<p>I believe all the students are required to submit scores when they enroll. I read that in a news article that looked at schools like Bowdoin and Mt. Holyoke which made SATs optional. I still feel like SATs mean /something/ I'm just not sure what. I read in this same article that students from low-income backgrounds, when adjusting for college performance, are expected to get an average of 40-50 pts lower on SATs than students from higher-income backgrounds. That's not a very big difference, actually. Although people say SATs are not the best indicator of college performance, I am not sure anyone knows what /is/ the best indicator. I mean, one student who is top-2% at one high school would be top 20-30% at another, so I don't think class rank is the best indicator. At my hs they worked us really hard and our exiting SATs were about like Carleton's incoming SATs, and everyone I know is now doing quite well at their college. On the other hand, I also know of some people with low SATs doing really well. I've just yet to know of anyone who has really high SATs doing poorly .</p>
<p>I believe all the students are required to submit scores when they enroll]]</p>
<p>Nope. I was correct. I called. :) The average is for the 75% that submitted SATs. The actual average if the other 25% submitted would be lower. The rankings are skewed in the favor of SAT optional colleges.</p>
<p>[[I read in this same article that students from low-income backgrounds, when adjusting for college performance, are expected to get an average of 40-50 pts lower on SATs than students from higher-income backgrounds.]]</p>
<p>What the blazes is adjusting for college performance supposed to mean?</p>
<p>Kids from a low/very low income level families score on average 100+ points less on the SAT, period!---again, another proven fact that has an effect on Smith more than any other LAC. As a matter of fact, some admission officers assume their applicants from upper, upper-middle income families (they look at the parents career/profession on the common app) took the SAT prep course and their scores reflect that fact.</p>
<p>[[I've just yet to know of anyone who has really high SATs doing poorly .]]</p>
<p>The Ivies and every top LAC and University almost always have a student or three with high SATs that is put on academic probation (some leave all together), or receive a 2.0 (less than steller if your SATS were 1500) average their 1st yr. or beyond.</p>
<p>Couple of things--not sure who you spoke with in the admissions office at Midd--maybe a student intern or something. Midd has long had a policy that students could submit 3 SAT IIs, 3 IBs, or the ACT for standardized test requirements. This past year is the first year that SAT Is were considered in admissions. At least that's what admissions told me when I emailed them. </p>
<p>And Middlebury has never reported the scores of only accepted students and not matriculating students. The difference in scores reported is due to the fact that traditionally, Middlebury did not report scores of those students who chose not to submit them. Midd's new policy is to publish the scores of all matriculants who took the SAT I, regardless of whether they chose to disclose these scores on their application.</p>
<p>"What the blazes is adjusting for college performance supposed to mean?</p>
<p>Kids from a low/very low income level families score on average 100+ points less on the SAT, period!---again, another proven fact that has an effect on Smith more than any other LAC."</p>
<p>I think the (unfortunate) thing is, is that on average students from lower income backgrounds don't do as well in top colleges. period. Chances are much better that low-income students are from high schools that do not prepare them well for college. Therefore, the fact that low-income students don't perform quite as well on the SATs doesn't necessarily mean there isn't correlation between SAT performance and academic performance in college. And I'm fairly sure in the case of Bowdoin (Bowdoin, not Midd we're talking about here) the college does get the SATs for all matriculated students. The range I gave you above which was supposedly for all students /is/ about 50 pts lower than their reported range for US News.</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, of students at top LACs like Smith that make GPAs below 3.0, do you think more have 1450+ SATs or -1200 SATs? I totally agree they're not the most definitive thing, I just have difficulty believing so many schools place emphasis on them if they haven't been shown to be some sort of indicator...</p>
<p>This /is not/ the 1st yr SAT1s, math+verbal, were considered. You could always submit the SAT1s but you also needed SAT subject tests--especially writing.. Last yr was the 1st yr you could submit SAT1s /without/ SAT subject tests (b/c SAT1s now have the writing component) by using the AP, IB, tests in lieu of subject tests. </p>
<p>Yes, in yrs past, you could use IB and AP tests to replace the SAT1 Fer pete's sake,;) Ive had a kid apply (only SAT1 and subject tests were submitted) and there are a few kids I know who are enrolled that submitted SAT1 and subject test only)never mind my many alum friends who submitted SAT1s, along with me.
There was never an argument about the ACT. As long as I can remember, Midd always accepted the test</p>
<p>I wont argue with you about the SAT reporting. The USNews stats dont match the enrolled students. USNews is higher.</p>
<p>Well, but which SAT range was she talking about? I /know/ the USNews SATs only include 75% of students. But I actually found another, different, range, that was lower. Perhaps, though, that other range was simply from many years ago, and the reporter was misinformed about which students it accounted for...</p>
<p>Bowdoin, not Midd we're talking about here) all students /are/ required to submit SATs upon matriculation. ]]</p>
<p>I talked to an admission officer and was informed the 25% who didn't submit SATs were NOT part of the SAT mid 50% range. If you want to call Bowdoin admissions dishonest, thats up to you. After all, its your college now.</p>
<p>[[Just out of curiosity, of students at top LACs like Smith that make GPAs below 3.0, do you think more have 1450+ SATs]]]</p>
<p>Who cares? You said you knew of none. I merely stated that yes there are.</p>
<p>[[I /know/ the USNews SATs only include 75% of
students.]</p>
<p>Then we don't have an argument. The reported SATs are inflated and shouldn't be used by USNews</p>
<p>
[quote]
I totally agree they're not the most definitive thing, I just have difficulty believing so many schools place emphasis on them if they haven't been shown to be some sort of indicator...
[/quote]
They are definitely an indicator, but I wouldn't, nor would many colleges or universities put that much emphasis on them. There is so much more that goes into an admissions package. There is a factor called the academic index (AI) which is really the sum of three factors: 1. The average of your highest SAT I M/V/CR scores; 2. The avg. of your two highest SAT II scores; 3. the student's converted class rank score. This academic index accounts for about 75% of admissions factors at highly selective colleges and LAC's. Then you must look at and score essays using a rubric, take a look at EC's, and mist importantly, is this college the right fit for the student. Take a look at parents financial background and ability to pay, etc, etc, etc...</p>
<p>But obviously the AI must be calculated differently for different colleges, since some colleges apparently place little emphasis on SATs (Bowdoin, Smith) and other colleges seem to place a lot (UChicago). </p>
<p>"Then we don't have an argument. The reported SATs are inflated and shouldn't be used by USNews"</p>
<p>I wasn't arguing about rankings. I don't particularly like the rankings. I was just trying to point out that the reported scores didn't differ a huge amount from the actual scores for some schools (assuming the other range I found wasn't totally bogus)</p>
<p>But obviously the AI must be calculated differently for different colleges, since some colleges apparently place little emphasis on SATs (Bowdoin, Smith) and other colleges seem to place a lot (UChicago).}]</p>
<p>Not calulated differently-- used differently.</p>
<p>"Often, admission officers at colleges that use the AI (or other similar systems) insist that they are very tuned into the disadvantages that a rigid numerical evaluation can engender for those students whose ranks or grades are unweighted. Thus, many ratings are flexible and governed by a strong subjective component that enables them to take such anomalies into account.</p>
<p>"Important Note: the Academic Index is not used by all elite colleges and even those that may consider other factors, like extracurricular achievements, recommendations, and essays, equally or even more important as pure academics. Use with caution!"</p>
<p>. I was just trying to point out that the reported scores didn't differ a huge amount from the actual scores for some schools ]]</p>
<p>Yes they do. At Bates the unreported SATs are 160 points lower. Bowdoin isn't much different. To me anyway, thats a /huge/ difference, especially if they were averaged in the mid 50% stat</p>
<p>I have a friend that is an admission officer at a top LAC. Heres another trick some colleges are pulling. Many students are filling out the online pre-app but never completing the app process-- e.g. sending SATs, h/s transcripts, common app, etc. b/c for whatever reason they decided they dont want to attend that college. However, admissions is counting the students as an applicant to increase the application number and misleadingly lower the acceptance rate</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Important Note: the Academic Index is not used by all elite colleges and even those that may consider other factors, like extracurricular achievements, recommendations, and essays, equally or even more important as pure academics. Use with caution!"
[/quote]
Absolutely true! The AI is a starting point for admissions decisions; however, very selective colleges and LAC's use so much more information to decide entrance through their elite gates. Also, as RLT has pointed out numerous times, colleges like Smith who successfully admit students from lower income families, have a harder time with the rankings. Let's see: higher rankings or a more diverse, smart, student body? It's a no-brainer for Smith, and I agree with their decision!
[quote]
However, admissions is counting the students as an applicant to increase the application number and misleadingly lower the acceptance rate
[/quote]
What a game we play with students lives. It is a sad commentary when colleges care more about these US News rankings than the students they admit or deny.</p>
<p>What a game we play with students lives. It is a sad commentary when colleges care more about these US News rankings than the students they admit or deny.]]</p>
<p>True. Here's the thinking behind the ranking wars; they're a self-fulfilling statistic, so to speak. The higher the rank, the higher the statistics of the students who apply and matriculate, which then leads to better stats for the next ranking etc. etc. </p>
<p>Alums will often berate their alma mater regarding the rankings should they drop.
Gezz, did I get an earful from one recent alumna who operates a business in Northampton.</p>
<p>The rankings can also have an effect on the alumni giving rate, furthering a drop in that equation of the formula. And on and on. </p>
<p>We may not like the rankings, but unfortunately were a prestige driven society. College ranking bragging rights are all too prevalent and lead many students (parents included) to choose the college with the higher rank. You see it all the time. A kid will get accepted to Harvard and Amherst College but will choose Harvard b/c of the prestige and perceived advantage after graduation. Never mind the small LAC might have been a much better fit for the student. </p>
<p>I saw a student post that when he was visiting Dartmouth, he asked a student why he chose Dartmouth. The student replied, because it was an Ivy</p>
<p>USNews has changed forever how colleges operate.</p>
<p>This isnt a statement of good, bad or indifference but has anyone noticed the number of posts and hits--half the hits are probably Smith administrators :)--on the Smith thread compared to other colleges? Only Swath and Williams have more. If I had to guess, interesteddad had a great deal to do with Swath ;)</p>
<p>The Smith board is one of the most active boards in the LAC folder. If people search for "latest posts" instead of going directly to a college, then they would see the Smith threads popping up again and again. After a while, someone might click on the link to see why the discussion here is so heated. Hey, I confess. I found myself in the International Student thread for this reason. </p>
<p>This particular thread is valuable for rising juniors and seniors who are trying to form their lists. A year ago, I never would have imagined my daughter attending an all-women's college, but, as we researched and visited, we realized that these colleges were a viable - and later, desirable - option.</p>
<p>Although my d. made her final decision on her own, my husband and I believe that she couldn't have made a better choice for the type of person she is and the type of education she wants. For many, though, this isn't the case. This thread serves to illuminate the strengths while occasionally pointing out the drawbacks, thus providing invaluable information for the prospective student.</p>
<p>After a while, someone might click on the link to see why the discussion here is so heated. ]]</p>
<p>Post it and they will come! Cool;)</p>
<p>[while occasionally pointing out the drawbacks]]</p>
<p>Yeah, well, what might be drawback to some--lack of boys-- could very well be utopia to another.</p>
<p>Not my definition of nirvana, but..........</p>
<p>
[quote]
This thread serves to illuminate the strengths while occasionally pointing out the drawbacks, thus providing invaluable information for the prospective student.
[/quote]
Thanks MWFN! As the OP, I thought it was important to discuss the importance of all-woman's schools, and the historical relevance of how women were (are) treated in coed classrooms across the country. Many posters have written very relevant responses as to why they disagree with my thesis, and I leave the differences for the reader to distinguish. Hopefully, young women who are thinking about all-women's colleges will learn something about the history of why they began in the first place. For those who never even thought about a women's college before and are reading this thread, I believe that they have read some good debates over the value of these schools, and what they have to offer the students who choose to attend them.</p>
<p>As I was a part of this conversation when it started last spring, I thought it might be helpful for prospective students to hear an update, now that my daughter is one month from finishing her first semester at Smith.</p>
<p>First, the not-surprising: she loves Smith, and it seems like the perfect school for her.</p>
<p>Next, a personal view of why Smith succeeds: the community and educational environment allows the students to be intelligent women. I know this sounds simple, but it's anything but. </p>
<p>We received a call from our daughter not six hours after we dropped her off. "I love Smith!" she gushed. "The women are so . . . intelligent!" The most notable change was her ability to call her classmates "women," since just six hours before, people of her gender and age were "girls." You might think this is a subtle distinction, but it's not. When you call yourself a "woman," you speak of maturity and confidence. Smith must emphasize from the start the idea of womanhood - or we would not have heard this so soon.</p>
<p>In my first post on this thread (#2, I think), I said that women's colleges help foster self-confidence. Again, this is something that happened right away. Although my daughter hung out with the "smart girls" in school, she never considered herself smart - despite evidence (grades) to the contrary. Although at Smith she is awed by her quick-witted, intelligent classmates, she also considers herself one of them. As her professors draw her aside to compliment her on papers, tests, and class participation, her confidence soars - and that in turn boosts her ambition. Of course, this could happen at any small LAC, but at Smith, for whatever reason, she is willing to take the compliment, and then take advantage of it to work more closely with her professors. I'm not sure she would have done that at a co-ed school. Before, she preferred not to draw attention to herself. Now, she takes the attention and runs with it. Remember, she has been at Smith for only three months. </p>
<p>I'm sure that this scenario is being played out at all single gender colleges. Like other LACs and the Ivies, the community is emphasized and school spirit promoted through traditions. (Note: Smith has fewer traditions than the other remaining Seven Sister schools.) Again, like the smaller Ivies, universities, and LACs, class size remains small, allowing open discussions with professors and classmates. What's different is the level of personal support, both inside and outside the classroom. Women thrive on social connections and intimate friendships; Smith has allowed my daughter to feel supported, no matter what she does, because of the "sorority" feel of the entire campus. </p>
<p>To return to the question of "Why All-Women's Schools?": because some women need a more open, supportive environment that also challenges their intellect. My husband and I, both Ivy grads, are now relieved that the Ivies didn't accept her and that she chose Smith out of her remaining six or seven choices. We both believe that Smith is a much better fit for her than the Ivies would have been. She is getting an Ivy-like education in an environment that has already prompted her to go beyond what she thought herself capable of. </p>
<p>Of course, an all-women's school is not for everyone. I do suggest that high school seniors take a serious look at these schools. Keep in mind that each single gender school has its own character, and they are not interchangeable. For example, those who love Wellesley generally don't like Smith - and vice versa. </p>
<p>I can't emphasize enough that my daughter originally wanted a co-ed school, but was won over by Smith. Despite my own initial reluctance to consider Smith an option, I'm thrilled that things worked out as they did.</p>