Comparison of 2000 & 2003 SAT 25%-75% @ Top Schools

Test Preparation
1

<p>With the increase in graduating high school students steadily increasing in the past years, I thought it would be interesting to see if top schools were capturing more of the top end market so to speak, that is, higher scoring matriculating students. I dusted off my old US News rankings for the data. Here’s a comparison of 2000 vs 2003 25%-75% total SAT scores as reported in the 2002 & 2005, respectively, US News college rankings.</p>

<p>…2000…2003
…25%-75%…25%-75%
1410-1580…1400-1590…Harvard
1350-1540…1370-1560…Princeton
1380-1550…1380-1580…Yale
1310-1490…1330-1510…Penn
1410-1560…1410-1560…MIT
1360-1560…1340-1560…Stanford
1450-1580…1460-1580…CalTech
1310-1510…1310-1510…Columbia
1330-1520…1330-1530…Dartmouth
1290-1490…1290-1500…Brown
1270-1460…1280-1470…Cornell
1310-1510…1310-1510…Williams
1300-1510…1320-1540…Amherst
1340-1530…1340-1530…Swarthmore
1360-1510…1390-1520…Pomona</p>

<p>So, some ranges have risen, some lowered, some spread. Looks like more have risen though. Here’s a listing of the same schools above by total net quartile points changed:</p>

<p>+50 points= Amherst
+40 points= Princeton, Penn, & Pomona
+30 points= Yale
+20 points= Cornell
+10 points= CalTech & Dartmouth
no change (net 0)= Harvard, MIT, Columbia & Williams
-20 point change= Stanford</p>

<p>Only one looser, Stanford, with the rest of the group gaining or status quo. Therefore, assuming the tests between the years are equivalent and each school’s management of their scores is equivalent between the years (both BIG assumptions), then it does appear that the top schools are capturing higher scoring students as time marches on. Interesting that Amherst & the 3 P’s gained the most, but I realy don’t know what to make of that.</p>

<p>I had a quick scan down the top 50 LAC list to see if there were any more big winners or losers (>=40 points net either way):</p>

<p>LAC’s
+50 Davidson
+40 Middlebury
+40 Wesleyan
+50 Vassar
+40 W&L
+60 Colgate
-40 Harvey Mudd
+50 Colby
+140 Hamilton
+50 Mt Holyoke
+80 Trinity
+60 Bucknell
+70 Scripps
+70 Barnard
+50 Kenyon
+90 Holy Cross
+60 Lafayette
+140 Bard
+40 Whitman
+50 Furman
+100 Dickinson
+70 Union
+110 Depauw
+140 Occidental
+140 Gettysburg
+60 Skidmore</p>

<p>Other than Harvey Mudd, no big declines, but some substantial increases.</p>

<p>Other notable net changes on the National U top 50 list:
+60 Wash U
+110 UNC
+60 USC
+60 William & Mary
-50 NYU
+60 Tulane
+70 RPI
+60 UT Austin
+60 U Wash
+60 U Florida</p>

<p>Perhaps a bit more positive change with the LACs vs the Nationals.</p>

<p>Had a look at the 3rd tier nationals to see if any group was losing more points than gaining…well, not that group, as it appears that the 2003 SAT scores were for the most part slightly better, school for school than the 2000 scores. With more applicants, some set of schools would theoretically have to take more lower-scoring students, again, assuming the testing between years was equivalent. Anyone know if that assumption is true (i.e., did average SAT score stay the same between 2000 & 2003?)</p>

2

<p>don’t you have APs to study for? T______T </p>

<p>With more applicants, some set of schools would theoretically have to take more lower-scoring students, again, assuming the testing between years was equivalent.</p>

<p>more graduates –> more higher scores —> higher scores takes up seats in “better” colleges —> ppl with lower scores get bumped down to schools not in magazines.</p>

<p>Anyone know if that assumption is true (i.e., did average SAT score stay the same between 2000 & 2003?)</p>

<p>why wouldnt it? theres a curve</p>

3

<p>munkeegirl: “don’t you have APs to study for?”</p>

<p>answer…the operative word in my screen name is “Papa”…no more studying for me, at least for school-oriented stuff. But good luck on your APs.</p>

4

<p>In relation to the Ivies, I wouldn’t say that Stanford is really “losing” anything because their SAT score dropped. They just are focusing on different things in the admission process. If they wanted, I’m sure they could admit everyone by SAT scores and have a middle 50% somewhere closer to 1550+ to 1660.</p>

5

<p>As munkeegirl said:</p>

<p>“more graduates –> more higher scores —> higher scores takes up seats in “better” colleges —> ppl with lower scores get bumped down to schools not in magazines.”</p>

<p>Additionally I would add that the schools are taking the best SAT scores of multiple sittings. Though they were doing that in the past I think that the number of times a student takes the SAT/ACT has been going up along with the amount of students that take a prep class.</p>

<p>One interesting phenomenon is the number of traditional SAT test takers who are taking the ACT and vice versa.</p>

6

<p>Looks like SAT scores are slightly on the rise, with these average scores:
2000=1019
2001=1020
2002=1020
2003=1026
2004=1026</p>

<p>That’s a 27 point average increase between 2000 & 2003.</p>

<p>found at:
<a href=“College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools”>College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools;