"Numbers-oriented" schools?

[Waitingfor2013]

Someone used this expression in another thread, so I am wondering which are some of the schools with a reputation for giving a high weight to test scores in the selection process.

[wjb]

I think when posters refer to "numbers-oriented" schools, they're referring to universities -- typically large publics -- that make admissions decisions largely by the numbers. If an applicant's academic record -- grades plus test scores -- falls within a prescribed range, he or she is generally admitted. For such schools, recommendations, essays, extracurriculars, interviews, and personal qualities may be irrelevant or at least less important than they are at schools that evaluate candidates more holistically.

High scores sure don't hurt, but without more, they won't get you admitted anywhere.

[mathmom]

Caltech comes to mind (esp. when compared to MIT), but the numbers have to be very very high and I suspect many numbers are accompanied by science research and other awards. Definitely fewer brownie points for non-scientific activities or sports.

[mythmom]

Dartmouth was definitely more numbers oriented that Brown, Amherst or Williams.

[nngmm]

Some public universities (like Mizzou) have a formula to establish eligibility (based on GPA + test scores).

[epiphany]

Re Post #5.

While that's true, keep in mind that for some States, this is an eligibility index only. When the volume of statistically eligible students far, far exceeds the capacity of the University to house & teach them, then additional criteria figure into the decisions. Any public U which has become holistic in its admissions approach will more resemble the Privates than the Publics of forrmer years. Just look at the UC.'s this year, and how important essays became, as well as community service & extracurriculars, with certain points assigned to these. From among those who did meet the eligibility criteria, those with concrete evidence of "special talent," for example, were given a particular number of points. In the recent past, UC's such as Berkeley and UCLA have also ranked points by level of awards (up to international). Really, it's not that different from the way many privates operate.

However, where I think "strict numbers" become important is in the area of merit scholarships, which are often quite blind to any standard except a quantitative test & GPA measurement. There is automatic eligibility for many of these, among many privates. That's an indication, too, that they're looking for such candidates, who could be favored in admissions by that very fact. It's a signal that "high" (relatively) scores & GPA's are particularly valued.

[nngmm]

epiphany,
I think (at Mizzou at least) eligibility = acceptance as long as space is available (it has rolling admission, so applying early helps a lot, especially if you're not a superstar).
UCLA, Berkley, UMich, etc. are different, and numbers alone will not guarantee admission there (though they are still more predictable than the "wholistic privates", at least for instate students)

[epiphany]

Yes, some publics are "required" to admit by eligibility -- or at least to capacity, and some may even exceed their capacity because of that requirement. However, UCLA and Berkeley are not "predictable" or even "more predictable" than privates. As I said, they are also holistic now, assigning points to non-score,non-GPA categories. There are about a dozen categories outside of those two 'eligibility' components. It's in those comparisons that the decisions are made. D attends a very, very high-performing school; this year less than a third of the UCLA applicants were admitted. Since I know the GPA's & scores of the applicants, I know that the determinaion was not made on the "numbers" the OP was referring to, but on U.C.'s own "merit," "award," etc. system.