<p>If we talk about very selective colleges, I don’t think there aren’t too many Asian American in the bottom 25%.</p>
<p>haha I’m 1/2 Asian and my 1/2 Asian friend and I always joke about how we missed out on the ASian gene. Does that make me Asian-American on apps??</p>
<p>I know a few Asians/Asian Americans in the 25% or borderline 25%. Some of them are internationals w/very low Verbal scores for example (really shocking as internationals tend to be of more affluence so you think they would have adequate training in English). There may not be too many, but they do exist and for that matter, I bet I can go find another well-known school, not necessarily private or super elite, that has a high Asian population, and would find that many of them would fall in our bottom 25%. There is much more variation in the performance of Asian students than one is led to believe. I know Asians from my HS who could hardly go beyond a community college and those who could exceed a CC could still not even imagine getting into a selective school. Regardless, it doesn’t really matter. Most schools have enough support so that people in the 25% do well. This especially goes for selective private colleges. </p>
<p>A broad range of people can perform well at these schools, so they choose someone likely to contribute something interesting to the school and its environment as opposed to looking at standardized test scores. I’m also sure they find a way to look past many students who resume whore and try to pick out students where it seems as if the ECs were meaningful to them as opposed to something that appears merely as a long list of things solely meant to impress the school. This may be one reason, seemingly qualified applicants are rejected. They probably would perform well academically at the school, but may or may not seem as if they’ll genuinely contribute something to the school unless it is promised that w/e tasks will promise them a prestigious job or grad/prof. program as a follow-up (basically do essays and ECs indicate any degree of selflessness?). One can never tell how they are choosing students except that SAT scores don’t help but so much (basically, in terms of scores, it’s kind of like: “anyone that will not need remediation to handle our rigor has a shot”). You also have students w/lower range SATs who have done extremely well on AP exams, even many of the tougher ones which means they are better at prepping and performing well in specific topic areas which is really what is necessary for college. A person w/several 4-5s on APs can and will often do well at even a selective college. Some high SAT scorers who are more prone to complacency and arrogance who don’t do as well as one would expect. That is no surprise since the SAT (for the most part) is very general and is essentially a giant multiple choice exam (many places still ignore or assess writing results w/a grain of salt). Not as many of those in college (at least not in selective colleges) and standards for any multiple choice exams given are much more intensive than the likes of the SAT/ACT. Also, writing standards are much higher. SAT performance means little once you’re at more selective colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would disagree with the first sentence. Most schools have very high dropout rates freshman-to-sophomore and low graduation rates because they do not have support systems in place for the less-qualified students. But when you qualify it to selective private colleges, that’s a different story (depending on your definition of “selective”).</p>
<p>If the bottom 25% (and also some in the top 75%) are willing to work and get good results, they’ll do fine. If they don’t, you can throw the best tutors and assistance available at them and they’ll still fail.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would agree to the extent that those who are not willing to work are likely to fail. But there are lots of kids with the innate ability to succeed and willingness to work, but who have never learned to study effectively. They managed to succeed in high school, but then they get into college, and they’re simply lost. Good counseling can get many of these kids over the hump and make them successful.</p>
<p>annasdad, I was mainly referring to more selective schools. I didn’t want to say it flat out, but I was. I was kind of responding to “20’s” statement.</p>
<p>I agree to your response to Hubman: Even many people near or within the 75th percentile may have trouble doing this (I’m sure a fair share cruised in high school) in which case counseling and learning resources can make a huge difference. One pattern at Emory that we notice is that those w/pretty good grades use the learning/counseling resources more often than those who are in trouble. If those students can humble themselves to get help, so should others who are doing less well, even if they are supposedly in the 75%. Not even top students are perfect (mainly because our idea of perfection is judged vs. HS accomplishments. College is a whole different ballgame to many, especially more elite colleges. 75% incoming freshman does not necessarily=75% college student).</p>
<p>^I remember reading that in the Emory Wheel.</p>
<p>It’s definitely true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not a public-v.-private thing. UC Berkeley’s freshman retention rate is the same as Cornell, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, and USC, and better than Emory and Carnegie Mellon. Berkeley’s 6-year graduation rate is better than Caltech’s. And that’s with UC Berkeley taking a far higher percentage of low-income students, as bluebayou points out in post #18.</p>
<p>That’s true, but I don’t know if it’s completely fair and addresses the issue of those in the 25%. Also, I don’t know if retention rate can be used (especially at elite schools, public or private) to judge whether people are having a hard time academically. I mean, I’m betting that Emory has lower retention than Berkeley simply because the students that leave flat out don’t like it (institutional research surveys reveal a trend showing that those in and near the 75% generally didn’t have it as a first choice whereas those in the middle or lower were much more likely to do so). It is one of the few institutions in the top 20 w/no Division 1 sports (thus doesn’t provide what many consider the “real/traditional college experience” and certainly doesn’t have the amount of “school spirit” that others have) and it is number 20 among the private schools. Unlike a place like Berkeley, where it is the dream school to many in-state and perhaps out of state among those applying. Emory is competing against a lot of schools in which it is a last resort. This of course means that some people are dissatisfied upon stepping on campus w/o hardly giving it a chance. We can’t expect to have better retention than a place like Berkeley w/that happening. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, there may be no real way of telling how those w/incoming stats in the bottom 25% fare at elite schools b/c retention rate doesn’t cut it. Also, retention does not necessarily equal “drop out” (when I think of drop out, I think not transferring, removing themselves completely from college and/or failing out). I think the main point is that those in the HS 25% may fare quite well academically) at elites, and perhaps more so at private schools (smaller environment, more academically supportive) regardless of retention rates. But of course I have no proof. It just seems logical (however, college academic performance is sometimes unpredictable and defies logic). </p>
<p>Now, Carnegie Mellon, you may have an argument in terms of assessing the 25%. I believe the school is actually kind of hard.</p>
<p>
Hater much?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure of the point. Cal and Emory return 96% of matriculating Frosh, as does Vandy & Georgetown & USC & Cornell. CMU is really close at 95%. Of course, all numbers maybe rounded by the feds, but close enough for government work. (source: IPEDS)</p>
<p>Emory actually fluctuates between 94-97% (I guess that averages 95-96%) depending on the year. The one reported in IPEDS (2008 incoming class) was one of the better years I’m that year. Ironically, this may be a data point that challenges my earlier statement a little as my class currently has Emory’s peak SAT average( If class of 2013-14 indicate anything, I doubt we’ll be beat by 2015. I’ll bet Emory takes 1-3 more years to fully recover from it’s “2009 crash” where SAT average went from 1394 to 1353. And then only rebounding slightly to 1365 in 2010. At least this past year, our app. numbers recovered, you know something that tells nothing about student body quality as the student body was actually stronger stat. wise when we had only 12,000 applications. Yah, soupbowl curve! Emory should reinvent its marketing, advising, and admissions office). The subsequent year dropped to 94% or something and the last frosh year is yet to be seen. Either way, this data doesn’t tell us how well we do in the “supporting students w/scores on the lower end”.</p>
<p>^I withdrew from Emory this year (was class of 2014) so I am in the ~5%. I didn’t like the people there. It came to a point where I was starting to get really annoyed of the freshmen-bashing and some of the elitism going around. Maybe I am viewing things discriminatingly, but I have my reasons. Others have theirs.</p>
<p>Exactly, necessarily in the 25% though. You just didn’t like it. What’s frosh “bashing”? I don’t really notice it. That seems more like a thing that happens at public schools or those that “isolate” freshmen. If anything, many of the sophomores are jealous of the majority of y’alls housing lol. Unfortunately, all top schools (especially privates) will have a fair share of elitism/elitist students so I try not to associate w/such people (I do laugh at them though. Perhaps this makes me elitist) and wait for some of those to receive their piece of “humble pie” (many eventually do and learn to mellow out some). I hope you find a school that better suits you, sorry it rubbed you the wrong way). I don’t recommend searching at another elite private (this is of course assuming that you haven’t transferred) because unless you turn a blind eye or pretend that the social dynamics are much different (in terms of elitism, etc), you’ll probably run into the same thing. At least you won’t be a freshman 
.</p>
<p>How am I a hater when I’m a URM? Most URM’s, some athletes and people with special circumstances at Michigan have high GPA’s and low test scores.</p>
<p>^^^ haha elitism… you cant expect a school that cost more than 50k a year (almost all top 20 are) to not have some elitism. harvard has elitism too</p>
<p>The way I’ve always looked at it is, just because they’re not in the 50% doesn’t mean they’re far off from those scores. For all I know, if the 50% ACT scores are 28-32 at some school, the lower 25% could ALL be students who scored 27.</p>
<p>That’s what I’m thinking. If the 25% starts at say 1300-1310, I’m betting most people in it have between 12-1300 which is still a more than respectable score that indicates the student is probably able to handle the work, especially if they took challenging courses in high school</p>