@OneMoreToGo2021 , Reed is certainly NOT below those schools intellectually. I think Reed has the highest percentage of PhD candidates of all LACs.
Is Harvey Mudd “better” than WAPS because its grads earn more? I think most would say perhaps not, but if money earned is the deciding factor, then it surely must be better. And rightfully, some people would disagree with that.
I think, particularly, Williams and Amherst have the reputation they do because they have long histories of being associated with boarding schools and old money New England families. They are two of the oldest colleges in the country, and the fact that they are still around testifies to their excellence. Reed and Harvey Mudd haven’t been around anywhere nearly as long. Many people haven’t heard of them. It doesn’t mean they aren’t great colleges.
Reed and Mudd dominate all other LACs in terms of per capita PhDs produced. Reed is top 10 in virtually all subjects. In STEM fields, it Caltech way above everyone, then Mudd, and then a huge drop. As in near an order of magnitude difference between Mudd and whoever is #3.
Of course, the actual explanation for Mudd graduates’ higher pay is the distribution of majors there (heavy on better paid engineering and CS majors, light on lesser paid majors like biology).
Average Reed SAT is 1413. That is with fairly low URM enrollment (black is 3%, Hispanic 7%). This is a totally different league from practically all T10 universities of course, and when adjusted for URM enrollment, quite a lot lower than top NESCAC.
To me, those are middling numbers when we are talking about “top” intellectual horsepower. Others may disagree.
"Average Reed SAT is 1413. That is with fairly low URM enrollment (black is 3%, Hispanic 7%). This is a totally different league from practically all T10 universities of course, and when adjusted for URM enrollment, quite a lot lower than top NESCAC.
To me, those are middling numbers when we are talking about “top” intellectual horsepower. Others may disagree."
I do disagree. I don’t see why URM enrollment should matter at all when evaluating sheer brainpower of a student body as I have seen zero indication that a non-URM with high stats is somehow dumber than a URM with the exact same stats.
If you use that methodology, all the dumb things like adjustments and gaming the rankings don’t matter. You either produce a high proportion of alums who achieve something or you don’t.
Reed is an Ivy-equivalent by alumni achievements. On par with Caltech, Georgetown, UPenn, Bryn Mawr, Carleton, CMC, Oberlin, Smith, and Wellesley
Thanks for the link to your earlier thread outlining your methodology for “ranking” the schools. Very interesting, and I want to spend some time going through the thread.
But your argument is sort of weak here isn’t it, on the question whether Reed is comparable to Willams, Amherst and Swarthmore (WAS)? You assign a score of 8 to “HYPSM + WAS LACs and Brown” and only a 5 to the group including Reed. That’s the only point I am making here, originally in response to a challenge about Reed somewhere upthread: Reed is not in the same category as WAS, and your scores seem to support that view.
About minority representation and average SAT scores, I am sorry if I was not very clear. URM at NESCAC will have much lower SAT scores than non-URM. It is not difficult to find support for this fact (ephblog for instance contains some sources from an Amherst professor showing a 200 point difference). Given the higher percentage of URM at WAS (particularly Amherst, which is more than double the URM representation Reed has), the higher overall scores at WAS are even more remarkable. Of course, SAT scores are only one metric, and nowhere did I say (or believe) that " a non-URM with high stats is somehow dumber than a URM with the exact same stats."
On average I think scores are pretty good indications of ability, especially in aggregate, with the understanding of course that any individual will evidence all sorts of idiosyncratic factors that presumably wash out when aggregated with others. That is why I am very confident saying that a large student body with an average SAT score of 1500 is “smarter” than a similar size student body with an average score of 1400, while I would not necessarily make the same claim if comparing a single student with 1500 versus another with 1400.
As I said above, others can disagree whether scores are a decent proxy. Some have suggested Ph.D production. Well, maybe… I can think of many reasons why the best and brightest do not necessarily get Ph.Ds…
^ Social science Ph.D’s?? Education Ph.Ds? As I have said, others may disagree with me…
I saw in the data that Reed is #3 in social science Ph.Ds… #2 in Psychology…
Just so I am clear, I am not saying that there are not brilliant people who get Ph.Ds in any field. But I would not weight a Ph.D in Psychology for instance the same as I do one in mathematics, if I only had that data point to guess the intellectual horsepower of the degree holder.
“About minority representation and average SAT scores, I am sorry if I was not very clear. URM at NESCAC will have much lower SAT scores than non-URM. It is not difficult to find support for this fact (ephblog for instance contains some sources from an Amherst professor showing a 200 point difference). Given the higher percentage of URM at WAS (particularly Amherst, which is more than double the URM representation Reed has), the higher overall scores at WAS are even more remarkable. Of course, SAT scores are only one metric, and nowhere did I say (or believe) that " a non-URM with high stats is somehow dumber than a URM with the exact same stats.”
OK, so if you believe what you said, then it doesn’t matter what the percentage of URM are in a student body if you are talking solely about intellectual horsepower, so why bring it up?
Some schools may or may not willingly take in URM with lower scores. I don’t give them bonus points just because they do. We aren’t comparing “non-URM intellectual horsepower”, after all. At least, I have no interest in a discussion that segregates racially like that.
I think also if schools are located in higher COL areas that plays a roll. You can live very well on a much lower salary in Maine, for example, than you could in much of Southern California. Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin grads might be more likely to settle in Maine or NH, and other NE states where the COL is less than other parts of the country.
Asians (from Asia) and Asian Americans are URM at many NESCACs and often have higher SAT scores than non-Asians and non-Asian Americans.
I think that a high SAT score indicates a type of intelligence but doesn’t mean a person is smarter than someone with a lower score. The smartest kid I know around here has a score that I think is just above what you get for putting your name on the test. Brilliant and if you met him in person you would be certain this is so. But he has severe test anxiety and doesn’t test well. He is mature beyond his age and is charismatic to the extreme. People want to talk to him, hear him talk, follow him. He is a natural leader. He talks with ease with adults and has since he was in middle school, now in Sophomore or Junior year in HS. He is an amazingly talented writer. He has done so many things in leadership in his school and community. He is in an elite school (at least for our area) and top classes and getting As. He is very academically capable. His score shows to me that there is no doubt that judging people just by SAT scores will miss incredibly talented and brilliant students.
My child has very high SAT scores and is very bright but lacks the charisma of this other young man. Of the two, the other boy has a head start on being successful in life as his outgoing personality, quick wit, and personality that attracts others along with his leadership skills make him a stand out and someone easy to picture as a great success in the future. He would just have to get an interview anywhere to make anyone interviewing him want to admit him to school, hire him, etc.
@suteiki77 - Asians might be underrepresented at some LACs but for purposes of score comparisons will never be categorized as URM (and that is consistent with the sources cited at ephblog).
About scores in general I do not disagree at all. It’s crazy to use a single score solely to judge the intellectual ability or potential of a particular student, because of idiosyncratic factors. That does not mean the scores do not have relevance for comparing two student bodies (say, at different schools) because the idiosyncratic factors wash out.
Also, I totally agree that people skills, charisma, drive - these are all important qualities, none of which can be captured by something like an SAT score. Again, though, even in your story, the other kid you describe would have even greater potential if he had your son’s scores.
@PurpleTitan - Fair points about average SAT if your criterion for determining intellectual firepower is average scores, which I implied (at least in part). I need to think a little more on this. Intuitively, I feel like the intellectual firepower of a school vis a vis any other is determined by no more than a small fraction of its students, maybe 20% at most. Maybe I have internalized too much Pareto
All of those are excellent schools where someone would get a great education. It is so very competitive to get a job as a professor at any school, even schools who admit most all students, that I think it is very wrong to think one school has ‘better’ teachers than another because it is rated higher on whatever rating scale. Also, many schools now are test optional, another flaw with the idea that you can tell how intelligent by the average SAT scores when many are not reporting their scores and in some cases that could bring down those averages quite a bit if all were counted.
A student would be fortunate to get into any of these schools. All of them have very good rates for grad school placement. Colgate stands out as having a high return on investment.
I have seen many here who got into a more competitive school after getting rejected from several supposedly less competitive schools. Schools use holistic evaluation of applicants, not only test scores and GPAs.
Also, if it were true that students at those 3 have higher SAT scores and a student with equally high scores went to a school where their average would be among the highest, they could be slight ‘big fish in a small pond’ and being that seems to have a positive effect on both college and career success. Students who stand out at a college can get more research and other special opportunities and gain confidence and more skills and go onto a better career.
I have posted this elsewhere but I know someone who got tenure at one of the top Ivy league schools who was denied tenure at a local regional state college. He is the same person now as when he was at the local regional school. I had to take some classes at a local regional school for my job after having had an undergrad degree from a high ranking small liberal arts college and I found the classes at that local regional school to be better. The best professors I ever had were there!! This idea that higher ranked = better isn’t an exact thing. In many cases it’s flat out wrong, I believe.
higher rank is often tied to the size of the endowment. Endowment size can be tied to having one or a small number of very wealthy alumni rather than an overall high earning power of all grads. It can give a false impression of the results of a degree from said college.
I know so many people with great careers who went to so called ‘no name’ schools. I know people who went to top schools who don’t make a lot of money, and all sorts of people in between. A top school can help get interviews and in some fields, it does seem to matter. Some schools are feeders for certain grad schools, careers (finance, etc). But all the schools you mentioned would help grads get interviews at least in areas where people have heard of those schools, and all should give a great education. I would not pick one of the higher-ranked 3 over the other great 3 schools you listed if I didn’t like it more.
I don’t think that kid’s scores are going to stop him from being successful at whatever he does in life.
I think SAT is one measure to consider. However, I wish our country would make funding for schools and resources and other aspects of education much more equal than they are now. People who site the lower test scores of certain groups do not seem to be very interested in change so that all Americans can get an excellent education, no matter if they are wealthy or poor or in between. Having high class sizes, small budgets, insufficient materials, etc, and then judging those schools as ‘failing’ and those students as less than is wrong. And those students are not less intelligent. Given the same advantages of students in wealthier districts, they would achieve as much. When I taught high school I often got the students no one wanted, the ones in the lowest level classes along with one middle level class. I would often find those middle level (college prep class) students looked down on the students in the general education classes. They were sometimes pretty snotty about it, too. I remember lecturing the class after they called those kids, “scummy” because, truly, the main big difference between those kids in the college prep classes and those in general ed classes was money and family situation. Those kids had more money, had parents that were more involved, bought them nicer clothing. Often times they were not any brighter and quite a lot really in my opinion had lower IQs those a bunch in the general ed classes. Those kids in the general ed classes often had a lot of family stuff that was weighing them down and also didn’t feel that school and trying hard had meaning to their futures. There were so many who I felt could have been in Honors classes if they tried, if they had different childhoods, if they had more money, less chaos at home, etc. Not all, but a good number of them. And there were almost no kids in the college level who I felt could have been in Honors and a good number who would have been in general level if not for their families.
Our education system doesn’t treat students equally. I personally think it is very wrong and immoral that people can buy a better education. And I think it is short-sighted to waste the great potential of people who are not in school districts that get the deluxe treatment or average treatment others in America get. Those people could all contribute more to society and achieve more and maybe discover the cure to cancer or Covid 19 or whatever if we allowed them to develop their abilities to the fullest. That isn’t to say that there are not great schools in poor districts but they are great in spite of lack of sufficient funding and resources often times.
Judging students on the end result of years in an unfair school system without looking at fixing the unfair school system itself is short-sighted. Unless one believes in eugenics, which would make a person a racist, then one has to think that there are a lot of factors that go into SAT scores.
Yes, math is at lowly 