Cornell vs. Duke - which is more selective?

monydad
Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:23:20 +0000

“SATs are a better index of selectivity than acceptance rates.”

Not surprising an engineer would look at it that way. In schools practicing holisitic admissions things are not always so clear. Such schools frequently turn down some high scorers in favor of some lower scorers with exceptional personal stories and non-academic achievements. Even at Cornell’s various specialty colleges affinity for a particular program of study can trump a set of SAT scores. These schools are not necessarily less selective, rather they may be equally or more selective but are using somewhat different criteria, or weighting, to implement their selectivity.

Let’s see the 2400 SAT science nerd get admitted to the architecture school, with no demonstrated or evident affinity for its program of studies. I think it earns every % of its 14.6% acceptance rate, despite not having the highest SAT scores. It is highly selective, its just that those test scores are not the highest weighted criteria for admission to that school.

My son has the stats for Hum Ec, but he may not apply in part because he cannot really make the case that his background inevitably leads him to be considering Hum Ec. We feel he might well be rejected due to lack of obvious fit. (Also he’s not sure he wants that program of studies, but that’s another matter). Fit with their program is a criteria that they use (I think). It is not a reported “number” like standardized test scores are, yet it may still be quite important in implementing that school’s particular form of selectivity.

Etc.

Personally I think one ought to consider all relevant information, including scores, admit % and whatever else you know about a school, before deciding, for your own purposes how you consider its selectivity. I’ll bet Julliard’s SAT averages would not be impressive, but to me its pretty darned selective nonetheless.