<p>Since the correlation of the data doesn’t prove that A caused B (mistake most make when analyzing such data), I think it makes far more sense to develop you college application list based on the major you are interested in, the cost (i.e. is it within your parents budget?) and other such factors that will vary for each applicant.</p>
<p>I have developed my own model for evaluating colleges because I was wary about giving too much emphasis to the US News rankings or the Forbes ranking, or other rankings. I spent way too much time on this exercise, but I did draw some informative conclusions. Compared to the established ranking publications, my ranking does not show as high a correlation between quality and selectivity in admissions. For example, I evaluated about 120 schools at the top of the US News and Forbes lists. Of these, my top 30 schools exclude a few Ivy League schools, and three of my top 30 have acceptance rates at or higher than 50%. My advice would be for the student and parent to jointly decide on criteria that matter, and then find schools that meet your own criteria, using the very large amount of publicly available data. IF I had to pick one statistic to separate schools by quality, it would be the 4-year graduation rate, which I believe is a better indicator of quality than the admission rate. (Admittedly, the most selective schools tend to have high 4-year graduation rates.)</p>
<p>As for where to get quality info on each school, you could go to IPEDS (federal government data base). I found the following sources of info very valuable: the Common Data Set for each college (info on class size, graduation rates, percent of faculty with terminal degree, etc.), the NSF survey of earned doctorates (how many graduates go on to earn a Ph.D. from a given college), payscale.com (salary info over time for graduates of any particular school). I also like the National Survey of Student Engagement, which indicates how students spend their time.</p>
<p>After reading this thread, a community college student is very pleased to realize that his 100% acceptance community college is no different from the 6% acceptance Stanford. So, he tries to ask God for assurance if this is true. </p>
<p>Student: Is this true to you?</p>
<p>God: Sure, there is no difference as those people said. To me, getting into Stanford is like you getting into your community college, or a million years to you is like a second to me.</p>
<p>Student: Can you help me get into Stanford then?</p>
<p>God: Sure, but you have to give me a second.</p>
<p>Why do so many people suppose there is a correlation between selectivity and educational quality? How would one test whether this supposed correlation is real?</p>
<p>If you approach the problem by looking at outcomes (such as earnings differences), you need to control for the selection effects of admitting smarter, more motivated students (to ensure any differences in the outcomes aren’t just telegraphing those differences in the inputs). Studies by Alan Krueger and Stacy Dale find that after controlling for selection effects, for most students there is no significant earnings benefit to attending a more selective college. [On</a> the Payoff to Attending an Elite College](<a href=“http://www.nber.org/digest/dec99/w7322.html]On”>On the Payoff to Attending an Elite College | NBER)</p>
<p>Many people seem to assume that instruction will be more rigorous at a more selective college. One researcher, John Braxton, has looked at selectivity and rigor as reflected in examination questions. He reports that questions requiring a higher-order level of understanding of course content are asked more frequently on course exams at more selective liberal arts colleges than at less selective LACs. However, in investigating 4 academic fields at 40 research universities, Braxton does not find the same relationship between undergraduate admissions selectivity and more academically demanding course examination questions.
[“Selectivity</a> and Rigor in Research Universities” by Braxton, John M. - Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 64, Issue 6, November-December 1993 | Questia, Your Online Research Library](<a href=“Questia”>Questia)</p>
<p>Other research (by Arum and Roksa) finds a correlation between selectivity and performance on the Collegiate Learning Assessment. Summary:
“Controlling for a range of individual student characteristics, including academic preparation, the authors find that students at selective colleges make stronger gains on the CLAwhich measures critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skillsthan those at less selective institutions. Selective institutions are defined as those in which students at the 25th percentile have a combined math and verbal SAT score above 1150, and less selective are those in which students at the 25th percentile have a combined score below 950” (emphasis added)
[Learning</a> More at Selective Colleges - Innovations - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/learning-more-at-selective-colleges/28415]Learning”>Innovations: Learning More at Selective Colleges)</p>
<p>So I think there is some correlation between selectivity and educational quality, but it isn’t necessarily as strong and consistent as many people assume.</p>
<p>Sorry to be off topic, but can you help me? <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/canada/1465227-u-t-immunology-requirements-us-students-can-anyone-help.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/canada/1465227-u-t-immunology-requirements-us-students-can-anyone-help.html</a></p>
<p>They may not always be a fit but they’ll get you there If you work hard</p>
<p>Honestly, don’t even consider the admittance rate. It really doesn’t matter that much among schools of comparable quality (I’m assuming you’re looking at very selective schools). If you’re looking at the vast majority of universities in the United States, they have admit rates well over 50%. It’s only the top 50 or so that begin to get very selective, especially the top 25-30. Beyond that, just look for schools that fit your interests best. Something I learned from the admissions process is that the lowest admission rates don’t necessarily correlate to the best fit. Happy always beats unhappy, no matter how selective your school is. Just something to keep in mind.</p>
<p>High-stats students are students with the greatest freedom to choose a college. If they are choosing to enroll in high concentrations at some school, then I think it is reasonable to assume its quality must be high. However, it’s possible that some prestigious colleges have reputations that persist even after their quality declines. It’s also likely that some famous, prestigious colleges have reputations that overshadow some equally good colleges. </p>
<p>So, if you’re an excellent student just starting to look for colleges, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to consider high-ranking, highly selective schools. However, you should research them carefully. Look at statistics like average class size (which is fairly high at some fairly prestigious schools). Browse the online catalogs to see if they even have the courses you want. Visit schools on your short list to see if you like the atmosphere. Be open to the possibility that some smaller, less famous schools might suit you better.</p>
<p>Compare Grinnell college in Iowa to Bucknell University in Pennsylvania. Both are very good LACs. Grinnell has slightly higher entering class stats (1210-1430 middle 50% SAT CR+M at Grinnell, 1190-1390 at Bucknell; 28-32 middle 50% ACT at Grinnell, 28-31 at Bucknell). With a $1.4 billion endowment (#8 among LACs nationally), Grinnell is also a much wealthier school than Bucknell, whose endowment stands at about $600 million. That discrepancy is even greater when you consider that Bucknell has more than twice as many students (3,635, compared to 1,693 at Grinnell), so that Grinnell’s endowment per capita is almost 5 times that of Bucknell ($827,000 per student at Grinnell, compared to $166,000 per student at Bucknell).</p>
<p>Yet Grinnell’s 2011 admit rate of 50.9% was very nearly double that of Bucknell, at 27.6%.</p>
<p>Why the discrepancy? LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. Bucknell is located in the Northeast, a region where a far higher percentage of students attend private colleges and universities, and it draws its student body heavily from nearby population centers like New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore-Washington, all 3 hours or less away by car. Lots of students in the Northeast don’t want to leave the Northeast for college, and a fair number of students from other regions want to attend college in the Northeast, or at least will consider it.</p>
<p>Grinnell is located in the Midwest, where public universities are generally stronger and a far smaller percentage of students attend private colleges and universities. Worse for Grinnell, it’s in Iowa, a fairly low-population state without a major city of its own, and even a lot of students from the major population centers of the Midwest (Chicago and Mineapolis-St. Paul are both 4 and a half hours away by car) don’t aspire to go to college in Iowa, while many people from the Coasts wouldn’t dream of it. On top of that, Grinnell is in a small town in Iowa, surrounded by cornfields. Now I happen to like cornfields, but for many people that’s not exactly an idyllic location.</p>
<p>As a consequence, Bucknell gets roughly 3 times as many applicants as Grinnell (7,940 for Bucknell in 2011, compared to 2,613 for Grinnell). And consequently, Bucknell’s acceptance rate is much lower–even though it’s not landing stronger students than Grinnell, in fact that tilts slightly in Grinnell’s favor.</p>
<p>Conclusion: Although across a broad run of schools, there’s a moderately strong correlation between acceptance rate and academic quality, it’s a mistake to take any particular school’s acceptance rate as a proxy for academic quality, because there are many, many factors that go into a school’s acceptance rate that have nothing to do with academic quality. Bucknell and Grinnell are both great schools. Academically, I’d give a definite edge to Grinnell, even though it has a much higher acceptance rate than Bucknell. If Grinnell were located in the Northeast, it would almost certainly have an acceptance rate as low or lower than Bucknell, and many people think it might even crack the top 10 among LACs, not because of a lower acceptance rate per se but because with a larger applicant pool it would probably significantly upgrade its already quite strong entering class stats; and as it moved up the charts, it would attract even more and stronger applicants. As it stands now, though, Grinnell is one of the great admissions “bargains,” a terrific LAC that is much easier to get admitted to than other schools of comparable quality. You just need to not mind the location.</p>
<p>That’s pretty common, to a lesser extent though since these schools all have acceptance rates around 30%. But Reed, Macalester, Carleton, Oberlin, Kenyon would all have much lower rates if location was different. Also Haverford is to some extent higher acceptance rate becase it is overshadowed by Swarthmore, or maybe I’m just making that up.</p>
<p>More and more, there seems to be a correlation between the “ease” of the application process and the number of submitted apps to a college, thus impacting figures that impact ratings.</p>
<p>A school like WashU, which doesn’t require essays except from students applying for specific scholarships, received roughly the same # of apps this year as did UChicago, whose required essays are not easily tossed off by even the most able applicants.</p>
<p>I’m not really defending U Chicago, which apparently more or less hounded a large swath of college seeking juniors/ seniors over the past year (t-shirts, posters, near-daily postcards…) into applying, but one should view it and other schools (Tufts, Barnard, etc.) which require multiple, thought-provoking essays in perhaps a different light and consider that application #s for these schools may be more “impressive” by virtue of the “extra” work required of applicants.</p>
<p>Boston College just saw a 26% drop in the number of applications this year, because they added an extra required essay that is specific to BC. Does that mean the quality of their students or program went down? Absolutely not. It means the kids who applied to BC were actually truly interested in attending there, and the admissions reps had more time to devote to each application. I have no idea what it will do to their USNWR ranking, but I don’t think BC is terribly worried about it.</p>
<p>I believe there is certainly a correlation between acceptance rate and high school performance of student body. However, I think the notion that there is correlation between acceptance rate and quality of college is bogus. In some cases, this correlation may prove to be true, in other cases it may not. Regardless, you are talking about two mutually exclusive things for the most part.</p>
<p>Admission rate is nothing more than a measure of supply and demand. If a school in high demand but has a fixed number of open slots for new students, clearly the acceptance rate will drop. On the other hand, if a school has lower demand (perhaps because it is a specialty school), the acceptance rate will be higher. In either case, the quality of the institution is an independent factor. Things like knowledge/experience level of faculty, curriculum rigor, facilities and resources available to students, campus aesthetics, student support services, and overall school atmosphere are true measures of school’s quality.</p>
<p>Admissions rates do not reliably indicate the school’s selectivity either.</p>
<p>For example, Mississippi Valley State University has an admission rate of 16.1%, according to [Top</a> 100 - Lowest Acceptance Rates | Rankings | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate/page+2]Top”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate/page+2) . Does anyone think that it (with average frosh HS GPA of 2.75 and average frosh ACT score of 17) that it is more selective than the Coast Guard Academy, Chicago, Olin, Vanderbilt, WUStL, Williams, Cornell, and Northwestern?</p>