<p>It’s not necessarily hard to believe per se, except perhaps that Chicago has historically refrained from emphasizing SAT scores in admissions, hence putting the standardized test scores of its students in the range of Columbia or Stanford, opposed to say, Princeton or Harvard. It’s more that Chicago’s statistics should be the same as it has self-reported on its website. If it’s not a mistake by US News (and I personally think that it probably is), I wonder what data these actually are. Admitted students for Fall 2008? Entering students in Fall 2009? I really do wish US News would clear this up.</p>
<p>Pomona have had high SAT scores over the years. WashU’s SAT increased in the past decade after it decided to play the rankings game. In their case, what they report on their websites and on CollegeBoard match those reported by usnews. In UChicago’s case, those doesn’t match. phuriku’s explanation’s exactly right.</p>
<p>phuriku - you go to UChicago? your phenomenal analytic skill and unbiased replies are a testament to the excellence of UChicago.</p>
<p>this is interesting. i’m really curious to what USN has to say.</p>
<p>To add to what Juliett said . . . the scores also have a plus/minus of about 30 points.</p>
<p>Precision in numbers does not equal accuracy in assessment. </p>
<p>Kei</p>
<p>Kei-o-lei - right. However the reason for a discrepancy between the sources should be accounted for.</p>
<p>But I do have a question. If they used the same methodology for all colleges, why is this a problem? Is it possible that there’s a discrepancy between another school’s self-reported data and USNews’? Given the methodology they used, I think it’s very possible. I’m pretty sure the Chicago website accounts for the 25-75 percentile of the composite score (not 25 cr + 25 m then 75 cr + 75 m)</p>
<p>Also, if the discrepancy comes from USNews’ methodology, I don’t see how any blame could be placed on UChicago. They could’ve submitted the middle 50% of the combined scores (as they report on their own website) but USN would’ve had to use their own methodology for the sake of consistency. I don’t see any evidence that Chicago is fudging the numbers on purpose… It’s just bad math on the part of USNews.</p>
<p>I do agree that the USN methodology seems ridiculous, and I have thus never cared for them really.</p>
<p>spark09223 - The methodology is not flawed: 25 cr + 25 m then 75 cr + 75 m of enrolled students. We suspect there’s a mistake associated with bad data involved. The 25/75% range obtained using this methodology would be with in 20 points of the range of the composite score (very easy to prove mathematically). What we believed happened here is that usnews accidentally used the 25 cr + 25 m then 75 cr + 75 m of admitted students for UChicago. Our suspicion arose from the fact that other top 20 schools’ reported number is within 20 points of usnews’, while UChicago’s is 50 points away. The additional 30 points in UChicago’s case is believed to due to use of data for admitted students instead of enrolled students. We are currently awaiting usnews’ response to our inquiry before making any definite conclusions.</p>
<p>spark09223 - please see pages 5 and 6 for more detailed explanation regarding the hard mathematics of this.</p>
<p>No, I got that even without reading… (I’m a math major after all, haha) I wasn’t paying specific attention to the numbers themselves. My bad.</p>
<p>Interesting. I hardly doubt it was intentional on either USNews’ or Chicago’s part, because the discrepancy can be seen so easily, but interesting nonetheless.</p>
<p>spark09223 - true. I doubt that the mistake was made intentionally as well because it’s so obvious.</p>
<p>has anyone heard from USN yet?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s “gained acceptance.” I think very few people understand what US News is doing with these numbers, which are therefore highly misleading. By systematically misreporting SAT 25th and 75th percentiles, US News may needlessly discourage people from applying to some schools, and mislead them into applying to other schools where they have no realistic chance because the numbers in US News are, to put it bluntly, inaccurate. Say you’re looking for a “safety,” a school with a high acceptance rate where all your stats are in the top quartile. You look at school X in US News and see that it has an acceptance rate in the range you’re looking for, but your composite SAT CR+M score is just below the US News-reported 75th percentile. You may elect not to apply to school X based on this misinformation—when in fact your SAT scores do in fact fall within the top quartile of the school’s ACTUAL SAT CR+M scores.</p>
<p>Same at the bottom end. Some students may elect to apply to elite schools as “reaches” as long as their SAT scores fall into the “middle 50%” as reported by US News. But the US News-reported 25th percentile CR + M score at the most selective colleges is almost always going to be lower than the school’s ACTUAL 25th percentile CR+M. That’s because most of the enrolled students who scored in the bottom quartile in CR will not also have scored in the bottom quartile in M, and vice versa. You might think you’re just barely making the middle 50%, when in fact you may be down around the 15th percentile—i.e., such a longshot that you might well elect not to apply if you knew where you actually stood. So you’re wasting your money and your time on the basis of misinformation supplied by US News. People don’t “accept” that; they just don’t know it.</p>
<p>The US News methodology is also systematically misleading in another way: they don’t get these same distortions with schools that report ACT scores instead of SAT scores. That’s because everyone uses a single composite ACT score; consequently, there’s just a single, uniform 25th and 75th percentile ACT figures for schools reporting the ACT. There are simply not multiple scores to add together, as US News does with the SAT. Consequently, schools that report SAT scores are always going to look stronger at the top end (due to US News’ systematic distortion) than schools that report ACT scores. You see this sort of thing on CC all the time: “School A is stronger than school B because school A’s 75th percentile SAT is 1400 while school B’s i5th percentile ACT is 31, which translates to a 1380 SAT.” Yes, but you’re comparing apples and oranges because school B’s US News-reported ACT 75th percentile is accurate while school A’s US News-reported SAT figure is in all likelihood inflated by 10 to 30 points.</p>
<p>very true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the US News online edition tells us what percentage of students at each school submit SAT scores. At Harvard it’s 98%, at Princeton it’s 98%, and at Yale it’s 92%. All these figures are very high, by the way. But I don’t think the numbers of students not reporting SAT scores is much of a factor at these schools.</p>
<p>But in a way you just make my point. By adding 75th% CR to 75th% M, US News concludes the 75th% CR+M is 1580 at all three schools, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. I say preposterous because only 2,146 students in the entire country scored 1580 or higher in 2008, and if the 75th percentile at all three schools is 1580 that means half the kids in the country with 1580+ CR+M would need to be at Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, and that’s just wildly implausible. You say, not unreasonably, that many thousands scored 780+ on CR and even more thousands scored 780+ on M, so it’s plausible that the reported 75th percentile CR and M scores for these schools are right. And that’s true; I’m not for a minute doubting their reported 75th percentile CR and M scores. But look what we’re saying here: we’re looking at roughly an order of magnitude difference between the number of students who scored 790+ on EITHER CR or M, and those who scored 790+ on BOTH. In other words, roughly 90% of those who scored 790+ on one part of the test did NOT score that high on the other. Consequently, while it’s entirely plausible that Harvard, Yale and Princeton could all have 75th percentile CR scores of 790 and 75th percentile M scores of 790, it’s wildly improbable that they have 75th percentile CR+M scores (properly measured) of 1580. As everywhere, most of their 790+ CR scorers probably scored lower than 790 on M, and most of their 790+ M scorers probably scores lower than 790 on M—though probably not by a 9- or 10-to-1 margin as in the entire national sample, because they’ll get a lot of double-high scoring applicants and generally these will be favored in admissions, other things equal. Nonetheless, my best guess is that a 1580 CR+M more likely represents something like the 90th percentile at HYP—not the 75th percentile. And that’s a big difference. </p>
<p>And the distortion could be just as great at the low end: the figure US News reports as the 25th percentile SAT CR+M at HYP could actually be something like the 10th percentile. I don’t believe for a moment that a full 25% of Harvard’s 2008 freshman class had CR+M scores under 1390. That’s because the number of applicants who get in despite being in the bottom quartile in BOTH CR and M is likely to be quite small. Recruited athlete, legacy, URM, I don’t care who you are, you’ve got to have something in your record to redeem you if a school as selective as Harvard is going to admit you. They may overlook a weak CR score if you’re strong in M, or vice versa. But very few people are going to be weak in both and get admitted—a few coveted athletes and big-time development cases maybe, but certainly not 25% of the class.</p>
<p>In short, US News is wildly misleading on this whole subject. Don’t be misled. Don’t trust US News.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. It has always been mathematically wrong to sum the 75th percentile critical reading score and the 75th percentile math score (which are both figures reported through the Common Data Set) to guess the 75th percentile combined score on those two sections (which is NOT reported through the Common Data Set). This is a systematic error that U.S. News has been making for years.</p>
<p>^Exactly what I thought. Completely agreed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You may want to believe it.</p>
<p>Out of 59 enrolled (from NJ) at Harvard for the Class of 2012, TEN were from the following schools:</p>
<p>Avg. Total SAT (2400) – School</p>
<p>1574 – Wayne Valley High
1573 – Morristown High
1566 – Somerville High
1547 – Mt. Olive High
1484 – Collingswood Sr High
1459 – Jackson Memorial High
1425 – Bergenfield High</p>
<p>I can not tell the scores for each person, but it is very unlikely that all of them have remarkable scores. Some of the schools are the worst ones in NJ.</p>