<p>So I was looking at collegeboard and saw that Lehigh University’s Middle 50% ACT score was 27-31, while on the Lehigh website the Middle 50% ACT was 29-32. I got a 30 on my ACT and thinking I would not get into the college I applied Early Decision in trying to get in. But if collegeboard’s statistics are right I think I need to repeal my Early Decision agreement in order to receive better financial aid. Any opinions? Yes, I know applying Early Decision while Financial Aid is a factor is a bad idea, but I clearly thought that if I did not, I would have a small chance in being accepted.</p>
<p>Stick with the actual college’s website, since the College Board’s data may be dated or slightly different from what the school itself has observed and reported.</p>
<p>Alright then, I will stick with the ED plan then</p>
<p>“I know applying Early Decision while Financial Aid is a factor is a bad idea”</p>
<p>It’s a bad idea if you want to compare FA offers from other schools, but if Lehigh is by far your first choice, and you’re prepared to walk away from a FA offer that isn’t enough to support attendance, ED should be okay.</p>
<p>It could be the difference between stats for accepted students vs enrolled students. Or collegeboard might be using older information.</p>
<p>I think College Board and most other sites use the Common Data Set, which is enrolled students and is therefore lower. Accepted students is a higher number, because many in that top range (say ACT of 34) get into other schools and go there. The colleges seem to post their accepted students numbers, which are higher. Connecticut College, for instance, says ACT of 29-32, but the Common Data Set/College Board says 28-30.</p>
<p>CB’s data is usually inaccurate. Use the college’s own Common Data Set, or IPEDS.</p>
<p>Lehigh publishes its Common Data Set, so go with that number. You’ll note, however, that Lehigh is primarily a college with NE residents, so it receives few ACT scores and does not report them. It’s SAT is 1220-1340.</p>
<p>[Lehigh</a> University-Common Data Set](<a href=“http://www.lehigh.edu/~oir/cds/lucds2009.htm]Lehigh”>http://www.lehigh.edu/~oir/cds/lucds2009.htm)</p>
<p>Neither.</p>
<p>Google the “common data set” for “x University”. Then look at section C9.</p>
<p>CDS is the only format that is universal to all colleges conforming to its reporting categories. It’s the only common language. 95% of highly selective universities publish their Common Data Set. Those that don’t, well, I’ve always been suspicious of the competency of their Institutional Data department, their transparency, their markeing motives, or all three. Those that don’t publish CDS (a year ago, when I last checked) were:</p>
<p>-Duke,
-USC (Southern Cal), and
-Tulane. </p>
<p>One motivation to publish non-CDS data to the exclusion of CDS data would be that the data for ENROLLED students is significantly lower than the data for Admitted Students. I therefore don’t trust the self-published non-CDS SAT data for the above three schools as far as I can …</p>
<p><strong>edit</strong> I just remembered that DUKE did finally publish their CDS. Sure as shooting, their 1460 25/75 CR+M average of 1460 magically shrunk to 1435 overnight. My distrust of non-CDS reporting schools was confirmed in this instance.</p>
<p>Ran out of time. Now I’m waiting for USC’s self reported 1370 to magically shrink to 1345 or thereabouts whenever they get around to joining the CDS Integrity Party.</p>
<p>As far as I know WUSTL doesn’t report a CDS either, and there are others. Given that the instructions in the CDS clearly state to report GPA on a 4.0 scale yet many report scores like 4.15 there is nothing magical about the data in the CDS either. It is still self reported, there is nothing to keep them from lying or manipulating data here either. The whole thing is voluntary and it isn’t like anyone audits their findings. Whose to say that some are not still reporting accepted student averages rather than enrolled student averages for ACT and SAT scores?</p>
<p>Some universities list the stats of admitted students in their website, whereas collegeboard will list stats from the common data set.</p>
<p>“there is nothing to keep them from lying or manipulating data here either.”</p>
<p>Nor anything to prevent mistakes, for the non-cynical. 
When I have asked about a discrepancy, it has been readily corrected or explained.</p>
<p>
granted, good point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just to name names: “The U” (as in Miami). :)</p>
<p>Then, of course, there is Wake Forest that can’t follow simple directions. WF includes (or used to, I have checked lately) private loans in its definition of ‘meeting need’ despite clear CDS instructions to the contrary. At least WF does footnote the change in their report.</p>
<p>A couple of others that fail to publish a CDS: Boston College and Georgetown.</p>
<p>“Given that the instructions in the CDS clearly state to report GPA on a 4.0 scale yet many report scores like 4.15”</p>
<p>I would interpret the instructions to mean that A=4, B=3, etc., so the scale can still be 4.0 even if considering an AP A as, e.g., 5.0, or A+ as 4.3, so I don’t see a discrepancy.</p>
<p>vossron - That is a very liberal interpretation! It is widely understood in referring to a “scale” that the number you give is the top end of the measurement range. Besides, if every high school gave the same weighting to AP and Honors courses, that would be fine, even if not exactly what they meant. But in fact, of course, they don’t with some adding half a point for both, some adding 1 point for both, some adding 1 point for AP and 1/2 for honors, and some adding 2 points for AP and 1 for honors. And since this might be disproportionate by state, it could affect, say, Virginia (which also reports over a 4.0) differently than Miami. Also, it still makes the CDS less useful since I also know for a fact that some schools do in fact report on a 4.0 UW system, like most of the Ivies that report a CDS. Unless we all want to believe that Miami has a higher average GPA than Princeton.</p>
<p>I think it is pretty clear that they mean unweighted, but I suppose they should use that term to remove any ambiguity although I personally don’t think there is any.</p>
<p>“I think it is pretty clear that they mean unweighted …”</p>
<p>What makes it clear? Not the instructions, which are ambiguous: Average high school GPA of all degree-seeking, first-time, first-year (freshman) students who submitted GPA. Colleges recalculate applicants’ GPAs to make fair comparisons across high schools, but colleges do it in different ways, none right or wrong. Our D’s LAC’s CDS currently says “C12. … 3.9” but they have said in press releases that it is weighted so they are barely avoiding scorn here.</p>
<p>And what about reporting unweighted A+ as 4.3? That seems fair to A+ earners.</p>
<p>it would seem helpful to have CDS standardized in this regard, but it is not, so I see no reason to criticize any school for failing to follow a non-existent standard.</p>
<p>A friend is a past president of IPEDS; I’ll ask – maybe he can shed some light.</p>
<p>^^Except for the fact that the big three supporting the Common Data Set Initiative all state that 4.0 means a ceiling at 4.0…“standard scale…”</p>
<p>[How</a> to Convert Your GPA to a 4.0 Scale](<a href=“College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools”>How to Convert (Calculate) Your GPA to a 4.0 Scale – BigFuture)</p>
<p>Ditto, Petersons & USNews. It ain’t rocket science, but that doesn’t mean colleges have to follow the directions. :)</p>
<p>My IPEDS friend reports that there is no standard, IPEDS has no opinion about it, and it is a perennial problem. It’s one reason standardized tests are considered a useful tool by some schools.</p>
<p>One thing about the Feds (aka IPEDS) is of course, they will not take an official position that tells a private college how to report its gpa, i.e, mandate a “standard”. Heck, some of those policy-makers/researcher probably graduated from the non-standard-reporting colleges. But the feds also produce reams and reams of data. And one of IPEDS’s own reports clearly states an A=4.0 (not 4.3, or 5.0)…</p>
<p>See “Postsecondary Student Terminology: A Handbook of Terms and Definitions…”</p>
<p>The point being, even without a “standard”, if a high % of 3,000 colleges interpret directions exactly the same, the outliers choose to be outliers. Nothing wrong with personal choice which makes them look better, but also nothing wrong with some of us calling them on it. Obviously, Adcoms move around colleges, so a 4.0 ceiling is not a new or unknown construct.</p>