<p>maof4…on the “manipulation” question, read posts 27 & 43. Bottom line I believe is that Midd, for whatever reason that I am certainly not privy to, only counted in a subset of SAT scores for their official reporting purposes for the class of '08 and prior years…those counted scores happened to be the higher scores, making their reported scores look exceptional high relative to other schools. Other institutions counted a larger population of enrollees, making comparisons to Midds numbers impractical. </p>
<p>I think the word “manipulate” might be a bit strong as it implies intent which I have no direct indication of, nor have I heard of any credible conspiracy theories that convincingly prove manipulation. It is very conceivable that the way they did it was just the way they had always done it because they only formally collected the scores used for admissions purposes, being a quasi-SAT optional school perhaps. Likely the same legacy reporting issue for their Feb inclusion, or at least their lack of including Febs in SAT reporting…just the way they’ve always done it I guess…course they do appear to count Febs into their yield numbers which makes the numbers look slightly more favorable. As a consumer, I’m into consistency in how the numbers from various institutions are compiled to enable apples-to-apples comparisons…IMHO Middlebury still has some work to do here to be best-of-class (& others like Colgate & Tufts have a longer way to go)…so I’ll continue being a broken record. This critical discussion should not take away from the fact that Middlebury is a top school with high selectivity (low acceptance) and high appeal (high yield rate).</p>