A better assumption might relate to intelligence rather than work ethic/rigorous academic environment.
Intelligence: the ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
Standardized tests do not measure the above. Possibly, standardized tests measure the above when other factors are controlled for.
For instance, it is very possible that a student has attended a school and/or taken certain classes that do not necessary align with the exact material on SAT/ACT tests. The student could have exhibited a great ability to acquire, understand and use knowledge – however that knowledge may not be what is presented on the SAT/ACT tests.
In those instances, the ACT/SAT tests are completely useless in determining an individual’s inherent and/or learned intelligence. And that’s only one example of how standardized testing doesn’t actually measure intelligence.
Maybe instead of “intelligence” you meant to use “knowledge”?
No, I meant intelligence.
But I really appreciate your thoughtful insight. Thank you.
P.S. I do believe that there are different types of intelligence & that standardized tests such as the ACT & SAT do not measure all types of intelligence.
Georgia tech acceptance rate is much higher than Tufts
Notre Dame acceptance rate is also higher than Tufts
It’s been my experience that persons focused on rankings like the USNWR selectivity one above are not “job-obsessed”. Do you think the rankings above are well correlated with receiving desirable jobs? For example students attending #1 ranked Chicago can expect more desirable jobs than those attending #19 ranked GeorgiaTech or Berkeley?
If the weightings description is accurate, acceptance rate has no influence on rankings.
@ucbalumnus “heavier emphasis on SAT/ACT scores or a higher minimum to be considered possible for admission than others.”
It’s more than that, the kids applying to Cal Tech or MIT or Harvey Mudd are also the best math or science students in the country and the test scores are a correlation of that. They take Calc BC as sophs, and dual enrollment college math jr or sr years. They also win national and international awards and have the ECs, recs, essays to get in to not only the MITs of the world but the other non-tech schools on the list.
A couple of alums and students of schools ranked ahead of Cal Tech in US News sort of chuckled at that, they knew Cal Tech was a better school based on the caliber of students there (I have no personal connection with Cal Tech).
Fwiw, they have Chicago’s SAT scores as 1500-1570 and Caltech’s as 1530-1560 in their “Student Excellence” data section. ACT scores are not in the data they list for this metric.
Top 10% are both 99% so, with overlapping SAT ranges, the tied ranking seems appropriate.
USNews data:
Pomona - 1390-1540, 93%
Mudd - 1490-1570, 89%
A better assumption may be that students attending schools at the top of this list score better on the SAT.
Thanks about all it shows.
USN states they consider “standardized tests” for the student excellence category, while noting that the “test score that is published represents the test that the greatest [sic] percentage of entering students took.”
S/b → Mudd, 87%.
In terms of selectivity, it seems Stanford should rank higher than #5, perhaps since Stanford no longer reports its number of applications and acceptance percentage, it’s ranking is not really accurate. Also, as most schools like Williams and Princeton are test optional this year, will be interesting to see how US News handles the ACT and SAT scores as measure of selectivity across the Board (noted that they are now accepted scores for historically test optional schools like Bowdoin).
According to the USNWR methodology, they USNWR uses both ACT scores and SAT scores from the fall 2019 class in their student excellence calculation, weighted based on the portion of students taking each exam (see https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings ) . I’m not a subscriber to USNWR College Compass, so I can not see the fall 2019 scores as listed in USNWR,. However, they are expected to match the fall 2019 scores listed in external publications, such as the CDS and the respective college websites. Scores as listed in external publications are below, with references.
Caltech – http://finance.caltech.edu/documents/15190/cds2020.pdf
ACT – 35 to 36
SAT – 1530 to 1570
Chicago – https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/apply/class-2023-profile
ACT – 33 to 35
SAT – 1500 to 1560
All 4 scores were higher for Caltech, like they are almost every year. Comparing the (25th + 75th)/2 for the two schools.
Caltech – 35.5 ACT and 1550 SAT
Chicago – 34 ACT and 1530 SAT
Acceptance rate is isn’t considered in the USNWR selectivity rank. Stanford does publish acceptance rate in the standard federal reporting sources. For example, Stanford’s CDS at https://ucomm.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/12/stanford-cds-2019.pdf lists an acceptance rate of 4.3%. If USNWR considered acceptance rate, that’s the figure they’d use for Stanford.
Stanford has a history of having a little lower test scores than various other most highly selective schools… For example:
Caltech – ACT = 35 to 36
MIT – ACT to 34 to 36
Brown – ACT = 33 to 35
Chicago – ACT = 33 to 35
Columbia – ACT = 33 to 35
Duke – ACT = 33 to 35
Harvard – ACT = 33 to 35
Johns Hopkins – ACT = 33 to 35
Northwestern – ACT = 33 to 35
Penn – ACT = 33 to 35
Princeton – ACT = 33 to 35
Rice – ACT = 33 to 35
Vanderbillt – ACT = 33 to 35
Yale – ACT = 33 to 35
…
Stanford – ACT = 32 to 35
@Data10: Note that USN totals the section scores for its SAT data. For the schools you discussed, see https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/california-institute-of-technology-1131 and https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/university-of-chicago-1774/applying.
The linked pages seem to list scores in statements like below. This is a horribly inaccurate way to list scores of entering students. The scores of entering students are not the same as the scores of admitted students. More often than not, they are quite different, particularly at colleges with lower yields. As you said, they also seem to be assuming math 75th + writing 75th = composite 75th, which can lead to slight differences from the actual composite 75th, as you mentioned. In this example it was 1560 vs 1570.
@Luckyjade2024: If you seek the print edition, you will see that Tufts appears in a special “road trip” section on Boston area colleges.
That’s interesting, the average ACT scores for so many schools are 33 to 35, how does that compare to the average ACT scores for the LACS?
You’d think US News would know better than totaling up the sectional scores.
There aren’t as many LACs with 33 to 35 ACTs – Harvey Mudd has that range. I am not aware of any others. One contributing factor to the lower score ranges is LACs tend to have small student bodies, so a larger portion of students tend to be hooked kids, like athletes. With a larger portion of hooked kids, the 25th percentile is expected to be lower. Another is tech schools tend to have especially high ACT ranges, as do engineering/tech colleges within the school. LACs rarely have many engineering/tech students.