SAT Scores and College Admission
sholm...@my-deja.com
(See Laissez Faire guide). These are probably students who test well
but don't perform in school. But how about a hypotheical student with
1600's along with 3 800's SAT 2, straight A's and a sport or two thrown
in?
Just trying to understand the process.
SH
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
M. Fuss
>You always hear about perfect 1600's being rejected by Harvard/Stanford
>(See Laissez Faire guide). These are probably students who test well
>but don't perform in school.
Sorry. These students usually perform extroardinarily well and still
don't get in in any predictable pattern. It all depends on what mix of
talents the school is looking for and a lot of other non-quantifiable
factors.
>But how about a hypotheical student with
>1600's along with 3 800's SAT 2, straight A's and a sport or two thrown
>in?
If they're really good at the sport, and the coach wants them, then
they have an excellent shot at admission. Otherwise, among the kids at
our school, I've noticed that starring in your own network TV series
is a big plus.
Marshall Fuss
Darccity
>>You always hear about perfect 1600's being rejected by Harvard/Stanford
>>(See Laissez Faire guide). These are probably students who test well
>>but don't perform in school.
>
>Sorry. These students usually perform extroardinarily well and still
>don't get in in any predictable pattern. It all depends on what mix of
>talents the school is looking for and a lot of other non-quantifiable
>factors.
This is another of the big lies deliberately fostered by colleges who want to
lower their acceptance rate. Demonstrate that the process is primarily
personal and arbitrary rather than merit based. Selling this vision leads tens
of thousands to apply to selective schools where they have no chance of
admission. Remember, private college are not required to disclose their
admission standards or acceptance procedures. Here's the reality for anybody
who is neither a legacy nor a sports recruit:
If you have both very high SATs and a very high class ranking, you will get
into a substantial percentage of selective colleges. The stats that cite 1600
rejects consist primarily of low class ranks and disciplinary problems.
Valedictorian rejects have either low SATs, come from small class sizes (lying
with statistics because most valedictorians are from small high schools even
though a majority of students graduate from large high schools), or took
essentially non-college-prep schedules. Notice that colleges never cite the
number of 1500+ SAT, top 5% combination students rejected. It would make the
admission process look too much like the formula that it is. Instead, they
will deliberately advertise the 1100 SAT, 3.3 student with that heartwarming
overcoming life's challenges story: anecdotes rather than statistics to get
those application numbers up. Look at the heat Dartmouth is getting for
declining ED's.
Sean and Villate McKitrick
<> You always hear about perfect 1600's being rejected by Harvard/Stanford
> (See Laissez Faire guide). These are probably students who test well
> 1600's along with 3 800's SAT 2, straight A's and a sport or two thrown
> in?
>
It is doubtful that the process is at all as predictable as anyone would
hope. No one can really tell who has the best chances for admission. There
are plenty of students who have higher that a 1500 on their SATs and 4.0
GPAs and still get rejected by Harvard and other Ivy league schools. Some
are rejected because their applications left personnas that did not seem to
be a good "match," others rejected because their course work evidenced poor
preparation, still others because their essays did not seem to address the
essay task. Still, admissions committees must often make difficult
decisions, and so some may be rejected simply because other candidates were
better "matches," or competition within a specified major was especially
intense.
If I were a student preparing my application, and I had the above
qualifications, I would write my essay very carefully, and would make sure
that the essay "engaged" the topic. Most important, I wouldn't "stress" too
much about which school would accept me unless I were a "borderline" case
(the above case is definitely not borderline). Too much stress goes into the
process--just pay attention to the essay questions, and the application
requirements
Hope you are successful...
Sean A. McKitrick, Ph.D.
Gary Glen Price
> ...how about a hypotheical student with 1600's
> and a sport or two thrown in?
Several years ago, one of the regulars on this newsgroup (Ron Medley?
AsiaSunset?) dubbed the 1600 + 800+800+800 achievement the
"quintfecta." If we throw in straight-A grades and notable achievement
in a sport, shall we call it the "septfecta"?
Lest high school students worry that there are many such applicants:
Rest assured, there aren't. According to College Board records, only
730 out of 1,220,130 SAT-taking 1999 college-bound seniors scored 1600
on the SAT I
<http://www.collegeboard.org/sat/html/counselors/cbs/cbs99/totlvm99.html>.
Not all of the 730 would also have taken three or more SAT II tests; of
those who did, it is reasonable to assume (given the modest correlation
between SAT I and SAT II performance) that only a minority scored 800 on
at least three SAT II tests.
Gary Glen Price
Department of Curriculum & Instruction
University of Wisconsin-Madison
sholm...@my-deja.com
Gary Glen Price <ggp...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
> those who did, it is reasonable to assume (given the modest
> correlation between SAT I and SAT II performance)
Thanks for the SAT statistics. I would agree in general with your
statement about modest correlation between SAT 1 and SAT 2. But
wouldn't you expect a very high correlation between SAT 1 Verbal vs SAT
2 Writing and SAT 1 Math vs SAT 2 Math 2C?
That would imply that 1600 + 800 Math + 800 Writing may not be that
rare.
SH.
Gary Glen Price
> wouldn't you expect a very high correlation between SAT 1 Verbal vs SAT
> 2 Writing and SAT 1 Math vs SAT 2 Math 2C?
The Baron and Norman (1992) study of predictors of collegiate GPA led me
to infer that the correlation between SAT I Verbal and SAT II Writing
and the correlation between SAT I Math and SAT II Math IIC would be
modest. However, the following study by a Stanford undergraduate of his
high school alma mater does report high correlations--contrary to my
inference and in accord with your expectations. He also states that a
1995 College Board document reported high correlations of the kind you
mention.
http://www.stanford.edu/~cmestel/resume/sattable.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/~cmestel/resume/satstudy.htm
Baron, J. & Norman, M. F. (1992). SATs, achievement tests, and
high-school class rank as predictors of college performance. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1047-1055.
Gary Glen Price
newen...@my-deja.com
by colleges who want to lower their acceptance rate. Demonstrate that
the process is primarily personal and arbitrary rather than merit
based. Selling this vision leads tens of thousands to apply to
that cite 1600 rejects consist primarily of low class ranks and
disciplinary problems. Valedictorian rejects have either low SATs, come
schedules. Notice that colleges never cite the number of 1500+ SAT, top
5% combination students rejected. It would make the admission process
look too much like the formula that it is."
The first part of this is true enough. In a post of mine
titled "Brown Rice" (11/11/98), I summarized the chapter on Brown
University's rise and rise and rise in Bill Mayher's 1998 book, "The
College Admissions Mystique." Admissions director James Rogers used
publicized contempt for mere swots as a recruiting tool in the late
1960s and early 1970s, and drove the number of applications to Brown
through the roof.
But the last part of Darccity's assertion may not hold for the
most selective colleges. At the Web page
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/profile.html
we learn that 71 percent of 750+ SAT verbal scorers, 74 percent of 750+
SAT math scorers, 66 percent of valedictorians, and 72 percent of
salutatorians were rejected. There must be considerable overlap among
those categories of rejectees.
The conclusion must be that above a certain level of selectivity,
colleges are able to reject swots for commendable rather than strategic
reasons.
newengland
Darccity
>most selective colleges. At the Web page
>http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/profile.html
>we learn that 71 percent of 750+ SAT verbal scorers, 74 percent of 750+
>SAT math scorers, 66 percent of valedictorians, and 72 percent of
>salutatorians were rejected. There must be considerable overlap among
>those categories of rejectees.
But notice that they never do cross tabs on this, such as X percent of those
with 750+ AND top 5 percent class rank combination. There isn't nearly as much
"overlap" as you'd suspect. Moreover, I'd swear (we'll never know because
they'll never tell us) that most of the
valedictorians/salutorians/thirdplacesorians were rejected primarily because
they came from weak, small schools and/or had low test scores. The selective
and misleading stats released by these schools is part of the disinformation
campaign to swell application pools. As the Church Lady on SNL used to say,
"isn't that convenient." You wouldn't believe the number of kids in my son's
high school applying to Harvard this year (and nobody from the school has been
accepted in five years).
newen...@my-deja.com
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/profile.html
we learn that 71 percent of 750+ SAT verbal scorers, 74 percent of 750+
SAT math scorers, 66 percent of valedictorians, and 72 percent of
salutatorians were rejected. There must be considerable overlap among
those categories of rejectees."
And Darccity responded: "But notice that they never do cross tabs on
this, such as X percent of those with 750+ AND top 5 percent class rank
combination. There isn't nearly as much overlap as you'd suspect.
Moreover, I'd swear (we'll never know because they'll never tell us)
that most of the valedictorians/salutorians/thirdplacesorians were
rejected primarily because they came from weak, small schools and/or
had low test scores. The selective and misleading stats released by
these schools is part of the disinformation campaign to swell
application pools."
When you're talking about four groups of narrowly academic
achievers who are rejected at rates of between two-thirds and three-
quarters, the overlap is obviously significant. Incidentally, the Web
page in question also includes the third-, fourth-, and fifth-ranked
students' rejection rates (76, 77, qnd 78 percent), as well as top and
second twentieths' rejection rates (85 and 90 percent), and much more
besides. I don't regard this Web page as selective or misleading. With
all that the 17 admissions officers have on their plates (read about it
in U.S, News's America's Best Colleges, pp.66-67), I'll forgive their
not finding time for such arcana as the overlap of 1550-scorer
salutatorian Eskimos who play croquet.
I don't see a campaign of cynical disinformation on the part of
the most selective schools. The purpose of their publicizing the fact
of high SAT-scorer rejects is to encourage otherwise qualified kids who
are nervous because their test scores aren't stratospheric. Admissions
officers are reminded every day that special talents and interesting
intellects are found in the 1300 to 1400 range. In the case of Brown,
this prejudice is explicit and has been for thirty years. At a group
information session last year at Corliss Brackett House, an admissions
officer told the assembled kids and parents that more than half the
1600-scorers who apply are rejected because, "We don't want them if
they're jerks." An exact quote.
The competition between the Ivies and a dozen or so of their peer
schools is for potential undergraduate stars who will go out in the
world to cover their alma mater with glory. The way these schools
find potential stars is by beating the bushes for as broad an
applicant group as possible. These very selective schools could, if
they wished, fill three or four freshman classes each year with 1400-
scorers, but they don't. Instead they accept the people they have
encouraged with, "Let's have a look at you."
Jeremy Thorp Fox
: At a group
: information session last year at Corliss Brackett House, an admissions
: officer told the assembled kids and parents that more than half the
: 1600-scorers who apply are rejected because, "We don't want them if
: they're jerks." An exact quote.
How does Brown know half the 1600 scorers are jerks?
I bet you someone with a 1600 who put a lot of effort into the
application and indicated the Brown was his first choice would get in,
regardless of their lack of Renaissance Man (or woman) characteristics.
--
------------------------
Jeremy T. Fox
Economics Grad Student
jer...@leland.stanford.edu
KSG
jer...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jeremy Thorp Fox) wrote:
>
> How does Brown know half the 1600 scorers are jerks?
>
> I bet you someone with a 1600 who put a lot of effort into the
> application and indicated the Brown was his first choice would get in,
> regardless of their lack of Renaissance Man (or woman)
> characteristics.
Does Brown require or recommend interviews?
This post made me wonder about the "science of admissions". With the
heavy emphasis now placed on the USN&WR rankings it would seem that some
"science" would come in handy and this might mean rejecting very
qualified 1600 students. Why? Because they are too qualified.
What an admissions office might do is use past history and
trends/momentum to determine the likelihood a given student would enroll
at Brown if accepted. Given this information you'd then compute the
expected change in 25-75%ile SAT score (or mean SAT score, whichever is
being used), expected change in yield rate, and change in acceptance
rate. Plugging this into a little formula tells you whether or not it
is worthwhile to accept this student with respect to the USN&WR
rankings. Of course you'd have to properly adjust for major events such
as a Final Four appearance.
In some sense this kind of ties into the book _The Big Test_ (which I
haven't read, but have read reviews). By doing this we would be moving
away from rewarding high achieving students with their choice college.
We'd be moving to a (more perverted?) system where the goal of
admissions is to simply increase their USN&WR ranking and this might be
done most effectively by rejecting students who "traditionally" would be
accepted based on merit. We can view college admissions as a game with
the goal of the game changing occassionally.
--
KSG
Droppin' Science Mix Show KSDT Mondays midnight-2am
Peep the Archive Shows at: http://scw.ucsd.edu/ksdt/
Personal: http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~kgatlin/
Darccity
>the most selective schools. The purpose of their publicizing the fact
>of high SAT-scorer rejects is to encourage otherwise qualified kids who
>are nervous because their test scores aren't stratospheric.
Even using the deceptive stats on the Brown web page, 59% of all admits (who
applied with class rankings) placed among the top 5 in their high school class,
and nearly half of these (413 of 851) were valedictorians! The apparently low
percent ranking in top 1, 5, or 5% and 10% is created by another deception: 40%
of all applicants were "unranked" by their high schools (especially prep
schools that infer this info via letters of recommendation). Of course, the
ultimate composition of the class also contains lower ranked admits primarily
because many more of the top applicants opt for Harvard, Yale, or Princeton
(yeilds for valedictorian is 38% versus 63% for top 10% ranking applicants not
in the top 5).
>Admissions
>officers are reminded every day that special talents and interesting
>intellects are found in the 1300 to 1400 range.
We still don't know, because this Brown web site only gives separate breakdowns
by verbal and math (not combined), another way to delude potential applicants.
"I have a 620V and 620M, admitted to Brown at 12% and 13% rates. Therefore, I
have a 12-13% of getting into Brown." No way. Most of these "low" verbals
were paired with a higher math, and vice versa. His true chance of admission
could be practically nil.
> I don't regard this Web page as selective or misleading. With
>all that the 17 admissions officers have on their plates (read about it
>in U.S, News's America's Best Colleges, pp.66-67), I'll forgive their
>not finding time for such arcana as the overlap of 1550-scorer
>salutatorian Eskimos who play croquet.
>
But they do provide that kind of info. Anything that ain't substantive. It
would save families a lot of time and grief if these colleges simply revealed
the most important stat: what are your chances of getting in if you are below
1400 SAT and also not in the top 5 or 10 percent of your class. Not going to
happen.
However, when these schools are receiving 15,000 applicants, there has to be
(and is) a "first pass" weeding out. As "A is for Admission" describes for
Dartmouth, class ranking-test scores-strength of schedule are used to separate
applicants into three piles: likely/automatic, rejects, and all others. The
last of these three piles takes the lion's share of manhours to process, but
their admission rate is much, much, much lower (3 to 5 percent, as near as I
can estimate) than the first group of semi-automatics (even some of the "jerks"
you mention: a kid we know got into Duke last year despite getting suspended
from school for antics at the state science fair last year).
MaryThis
"red........hmmm--what does that remind me of?.....Nancy Regan?"--of course it
tuns out to be Satan.