<p>Is range of student academic ability considered by students and parents when selecting schools?</p>
<p>Two schools may have similar looking freshman classes when looking at high school GPAs and test scores, but one may have a much wider range than the other.</p>
<p>For example, a large public university in a state with few public universities may have students ranging from the marginal students just barely ready for college, to the top students in the state. But a public university in a state with many public universities may have a much narrower range of student abilities, and a small private university may have an even narrower range of student abilities.</p>
<p>The implication may be that “fit” in terms of academic ability may be a more important consideration at the “narrower” school, while a student at the “wider” school may be more likely to find a subset of students and course and major selections that match his/her academic ability, even if s/he is somewhat away from the median. Large public universities appear to be more likely to have honors courses or honors colleges catering to students far above the median student, for example. But they also tend to have low rigor courses for students at the opposite end of the range.</p>
<p>I have wondered about this myself. I have noticed that at many state flagships, certain majors seem to be unrealistic for students who do not come in at the top ranges of GPA and SAT scores, especially if they begin with a full load of weeder courses at their home institution. </p>
<p>Even at top universities, some schools seem to have a much narrower range of apparent abilites than others, going by 25% and 75% GPA’s and SAT’s. I am not sure what this means when it comes to selecting courses and majors, though. </p>
<p>It could be that at this level, any student would be poised to succeed at any major at their state flagship, especially if they are willing to work hard and do not insist on taking honors courses or advanced levels if they are not ready, but viable choices for the major at the top school might be limited to areas in which the student has excelled at levels beyond that measured by grades and standardized test scores, by virtue of “natural talent” or superior preparation or both, with perhaps just a few majors left over that might not be all that attractive.</p>
<p>Depends on the student. My younger d. would have been clearly in the bottom 15% of students SAT-wise in her school. Ended up graduating in three years, magna cum laude, top student in her department, and a fellowship to graduate school (where her graduate record exams were even worse than her SATs, and the graduate school dean simply ASKED her for permission to waivev]vthem.)</p>
<p>That your daughter performs worse on multiple choice standardized tests than in actual college work is a somewhat different topic from the width or narrowness of the range of ability at a given school, unless you are suggesting that she was better served at a “wide” school since her test scores did not allow her to get admitted to a “narrow” school that matched her actual ability in college work. Is this what you are suggesting?</p>
<p>OR the tests simply don’t measure her academic ability? (That seems obvious enough to me) Perhaps the “wide/narrow” distinction is simply not a particularly useful one? I really don’t know. But it’s great when there is a place for everyone!</p>
<p>Since mini’s D went to Smith, if I recall correctly, one would venture to guess that the “ability range” was narrower than at, say Michigan State. How that “ability” is estimated is a separate question. IIRC, Smith is SAT-optional, so they choose to consider other measures of aptitude in some cases. Also IIRC, mini’s D was homeschooled? She is an able student who was able to demonstrate that using something other than conventional grades, class rank, GPA, and standardized tests.</p>
<p>That does not mean that those measures fail to give a reasonable estimate of academic ability and achievement for other students.</p>
<p>To answer your original question: yes, the likely peer group in classes was a major factor for us in evaluating schools for S. Since he was drawn to discussion-heavy subjects, it was very important.</p>
<p>Second D. Went to American. (But at the time my first d. went to Smith, they weren’t SAT optional, which was just fine 'cause she had an 800 on the CR when she was 12.)</p>
<p>GPAs and test scores are probably reasonable in estimating the ability range of the students as a group, although they can frequently be inaccurate for individual cases (e.g. a good student who does poorly on multiple choice tests and is thus underrated, or a student with a 4.0 GPA from a grade-inflated high school and high test scores due to extensive test-specific coaching that is not very applicable to college work and is thus overrated.).</p>
<p>But, regardless of how one measures, would most people agree that the width or narrowness of the range can be important when selecting a school? One implication would be that a student whose ability is away from the median at a particular school (perhaps a “reach” or “safety” school?) may fit in better at a “wide” school than at a “narrow” school.</p>
<p>I noticed the same thing comparing the comparative quality of the graduate programs at Cajun State vs. Purdue (I attended both and found Purdue easier :-)). Talking about it with my cubemate, the PhD guy from Carnegie Melon, he said a very wise thing:</p>
<p>At the average schools, there’s a big difference between the good students and the bad students. The good students are, well, good, but the bad ones, well, they’re a C- short of academic probation…</p>
<p>In the good schools, be it HYPS, top 20’s, etc, he said he found that the BAD students of a good school were far better than the BAD students at the average schools. That allows the profs to NOT teach to the lowest common denominator, lifting the challenge level for everyone.</p>
<p>I think it is another one of those things you evaluate and take into account, and that you can’t generalize about.</p>
<p>A wide range will manifest differently in a large state school with 10,000 students per year versus 500 students per year. At a big state school a theoretical physics major and an elementary education major might be happy to dorm together and discuss politics and might both be A students, but they are unlikely to take the same level math courses, even if they both double major in math. A small school with a narrow range of students might be a problem and not offer courses of use to both students, but it might be fine in the larger school.
One more thought – sometimes ONE student needs a school with a wide range of students. To shine in one area, but not to be trounced in an area of interest but weakness.
Or, a particular student might not suffer fools gladly. (Whether the student should learn to do so is an entirely different question!)</p>
<p>I did a graph where I mapped out all the 25-75th percentiles on one vertical scale. It helped us rule out some of the original safety schools. For this particular student we were looking for a particular niche – we wanted the 75th percentile just at or below his scores (which are good, but his gpa is not stellar and he has other issues), but the 25th percentile to be respectable because he wants an intellectual atmosphere. (Of course the SAT percentiles were just indicators – the actual school atmosphere and facts ruled.) For S1 We looked at a group of schools where he was more in the midst of a narrower band of highish SAT’s, and a wider band of SAT’s, and he opted for an honors program at the state flagship over the small LAC.</p>
<p>Sorry for the long reply, I am in nervous waiting for EA response mode!</p>