<p>@barrons: I’m not trying to predict first-semester grades, so I don’t see the relevance.</p>
<p>Anyway, I ran the residuals test. My sample was the 94 schools with High or Very High research activity and >640 M75 SAT and between 10% and 35% (inc) receiving federal grant aid. I included the last factor because the small number of schools outside those benchmarks warp the regression line in a fashion that I feel rewards discrimination against low-income students. The remaining sample has 0>-.38 correlation between grant aid and grad/retention, so this was not a significant issue in the final product. </p>
<p>MIT was removed because they were an outlier with research figures off the charts and distorted the results, but they still deserve some recognition for outstanding performance.</p>
<p>Here are the top 20 schools (in order) based on the residual size versus a regression line based on SAT M 75%ile data, which had almost 0.8 correlation:
Yeshiva University
Johns Hopkins University
Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus
Stanford University
University of California-Davis
Syracuse University
University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus
Georgetown University
University of Georgia
University of California-San Diego
University of Rochester
University of California-Santa Barbara
University of California-Irvine
Duke University
University of Washington-Seattle Campus
Texas A & M University
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Marquette University
Fordham University
Michigan State University
I’m not going to pick on any schools for underperforming, but those that did so significantly seemed to fit one of two types:
- Primarily ACT schools with SAT scores from OOS students that were significantly higher than comparable ACT scores from resident students. I may redo the test at a later point to correct for this.
- Tech schools with rigorous academics and perhaps less-than-stellar social opportunities that have good scores but abysmal retention and grad rates.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>