Let's quibble over semantics: what do we really mean by "highly selective" (Ex: Pitzer v Williams)?

stagalum
Sat, 23 Apr 2016 09:15:47 +0000

@Corinthian.
This is weird, because just yesterday I put up my first post on CC in a few months, consisting of a ‘re-post’ as it were, of how 4 of the top 5 colleges, based on the metric of selectivity alone, are located in Claremont (for the second year in a row), the only difference being Pomona (9.2% admit rate) and Claremont McKenna (9.4% admit rate) reversed the #1 ad #2 spots, which was not surprising…considering Forbes ranked Pomona #1 in the US, not among lacs alone, but among all colleges and universities.
But, my point is, in the body of my post, i used the exact same example of Pitzer vs Williams, in the sense that -although Pitzer is ranked higher than Williams In selectivity- I don’t believe it is a “better” or even more selective,
school, than Williams. Admit rate is merely one factor in overall selectivity, and I agree with the posters who have expressed that fit is more important than prestige or rankings, when an applicant is making the all-important decision
of where to spend his/her college years. Especially if the choice is between two institutions roughly comparable, (i.e.both top 20 schools for example) in terms of SAT scores,GPAs, and the rest.