<p>The question that comes to mind, “why does the OP care?” Reading between the lines he got into one of the schools ranked lower than Wellesley…who cares?</p>
<p>Two problems:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>US News’s PA score applies quantitative figures to subjective estimations of quality. Just because numbers are involved, some people who don’t understand statistics think that the data is necessarily accurate and precise…but the mere use of numbers doesn’t ensure either. </p></li>
<li><p>Thinking that extremely small quantitative differences reflect significant qualitative differences. Yeah, a car whose top speed is 150.2 mph is “faster” than a car whose top speed is 150.1 mph. But what can you actually do in the faster car that you can’t do in the “slower” car? In what sense is the 150.1 mph car “better”?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Small quantitative differences can reflect significant qualitative differences. In baseball, there is a big difference between a 90 mph fastball and a 93 mph fastball. On a test, there is a huge difference between a 89.4 and a 89.6. I thought the differences were pretty big - as I said earlier 30-40 SAT points, I think, is a pretty big deal . . . </p>
<p>For the record, I didn’t apply to any of these schools. Its just I feel that since Wellesley is the best all female college in the country, it is given a historical advantage in the PA ratings at the expense of better institutions - which is unfair. Just my thoughts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only US News & World Report is not the Olympics and we’re not watching the men’s 100m race. These differences are meaningless.</p>
<p>A difference of 30-40 points on the SAT, in particular, is absolutely immaterial. Depending on the section curves you get and the mood of your essay graders, you can get a 2400 with the same raw scores as someone who got a 2310 the previous month. It is staggering that you seriously consider this proof of Wellesley’s, what, academic inferiority? To suggest there’s a correlation between quality of instruction and SAT scores is nonsensical in itself, but to use differences as marginal as these as arguments is the height of fatuity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really doubt it. I think more likely the LAC presidents and provosts who fill out those PA surveys are impressed by Wellesley’s faculty and its resources, which pretty much dominate the other colleges you’re comparing it to. And they’re less impressed than you are by 30-point differences in SAT scores. At the level we’re talking about, the difference between a 1500 (Bowdoin’s 75th percentile CR+M) and a 1470 (Wellesley’s) is the difference between a low 99th percentile and a high 98th percentile of everyone who takes the test. Or to measure it differently, out of 1.5 million test-takers, only about 10,000 more score a 1470 or higher than score a 1500 or higher. Stacked up against everything else Wellesley has going for it, that doesn’t sound like a terribly significant difference to me. Especially when you consider that Bowdoin gets such high test scores in part because it’s a test-optional school, which most people think is worth about 30 points in SAT medians.</p>
<p>Besides, as I pointed out earlier, it’s not just PA scores where Wellesley dominates these other schools. It’s also HS counselor reputation, faculty resources, and financial resources. I suspect if Wellesley’s test scores were just a bit higher it would be up in AWS territory, given its strong showing elsewhere in the rankings.</p>
<p>I completely disagree that a difference of 30-40 points is meaningless. I know students who have taken the test over (a few times) to increase their scores 30-40 points.
I’m not suggesting a correlation between quality of instruction and SAT scores, I’m suggesting a correlation between SAT scores and the strength of the student body. When a student is in a small class, that student doesn’t just learn from his/her professor, he/she learns from the other students in the class. In many classes, students work in small groups with other students. In others, student input is necessary to the discussions.</p>
<p>“Stacked up against everything else Wellesley has going for it . . .”
I guess what I was asking with this question, that no one has really answered, is: what else does Wellesley have going for it that the other colleges I have mentioned do not? Can you just give some examples?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then I pity you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So someone’s M+CR score being 1500 instead of 1470 would make that person more interesting in class? I am certain even the admissions officers at Bowdoin, Pomona and Wesleyan would disagree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://■■■■■■■.com/6gvj3zy[/url]”>http://■■■■■■■.com/6gvj3zy</a></p>
<p>You really think there is a meaningless difference between getting a 2160 and a 2200? </p>
<p>SAT scores are just one of several figures I cited, and saying that it isn’t a large difference does not convince me at all that Wellesley is a better school . . . neither does pointing to the US News criteria - Wellesley is ranked higher since it has a higher PA score - but why does it have a higher score?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@ SLUMOM: I don’t know what you’re insinuating, but I’m going to assume you think I’ve created another user callmejonas1 and that I’m ■■■■■■■■ around or whatever. I really think you need to relax.
I can 100% guarantee you that I’m a completely new legitimate user COMPLETELY different from callmejonas1. Ask a moderator to check the IP address of each of us. They’ll be totally different. </p>
<p>Secondly, the purpose of this website is to answer and ask questions relating to college isn’t it? So why are you, a mom I assume of your child who studies at SLU(?), an adult randomly accusing new users just because we’re asking questions that fulfill our personal knowledge regarding the college process? Does it really matter if I’m a returning user (which I’m not) or not? I’m free to ask whatever questions I like without having to deal with accusations. </p>
<p>Just to recap, you, a parent, realize you’re picking a fight with a high school student, right? I suppose urbandictionary is very right about collegeconfidential…</p>
<p>Oh and just as a sidenote, people DO pick out the “best blonde moms” or whatever out of a group of people. It’s called Miss America beauty pageants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Despite being the only meaningful part of Post Number 2, this is the simplest way to “explain” why Wellesley has been able to maintain its ranking. Since most of the scores are directly reflected by the last year’s rankings, Wellesley continues to benefit from the historical and geographical cronyism that translates in a very high Peer Assessment score, not to mention the obvious lack of competence and integrity of the responders. The same “bias” that also benefits the former members of the Seven Sisters. Probably a bit of a soft spot for the all-female girls and underdogs! </p>
<p>In addition, the lower selectivity indexes for all-girls schools are entirely masked by the lower expected graduation rates. In a nutshell, a school that shows lower scores will be expected to have a smaller graduation rate. The points “lost” by Wellesley in the selectivity index are easily recovered when the school exceeds its lower expected rate. In this case, it is beneficial to report lower standardized scores. Funny how that works!</p>
<p>Lastly, the impact of having much higher admit rates than peer schools is trivial as it accounts for only 1.5 percent of the total score. This is why the stratosphericly high admission rates in the ED rounds at a number of all-female schools have little impact in the USNews report. However, this is also where the USNews is effective as an astute observer would uncover the great benefit of applying at a highly ranked school in the most beneficial way.</p>
<p>In the end, the USNews report is what it is. While it offers a wealth of information (such as the selectivity ratio) the final ranking is highly suspect as it continues to mostly rely on highly subjective criteria and continues to turn a blind eye to the fact that the responders to the survey play games with numbers, reward their friends, and punish their foes by filling the PA survey in whimsical ways. The USNews also continues to reward schools that provide incomplete and misleading information (read Middlebury.)</p>
<p>In the end, however, it does not matter at all. The facts that all-female schools “look” better in the USNews report than they probably should and that colleges such as Harvey Mudd have been crucified by asinine criteria should have NO impact on the applicants as their pools are vastly different. Simply stated, there is hardly any overlap between the applicants to Smith, Wellesley, et al, and applicants to Harvey Mudd. </p>
<p>People who know the schools do also know the differences. On the other hand, people who build applications based on rankings and prestige might be misled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That intimates that presidents and provosts actually spend their time filling the survey as opposed to let some junior official copy and paste the previous entries. It also intimates that the responders have the ability to evaluate the other institutions for faculty and ancillary resources. Where do they find that information? Reading the older USNews or do they go spend some time on the other 200 or so LACs in the country? The idea that the president of Rhodes College could “evaluate” correctly the resources (or the areas of academic excellence) of Reed or Wesleyan is simply preposterous. The PA is a beauty and popularity contest. And nothing more than that!</p>
<p>Fwiw, this issue has been debated ad nauseam, and it seems that many simply prefer to refuse to accept what the presidents have admitted themselves, namely that they are unable to offer a VALID opinion on other schools and that some do engage in abject gamesmanship. </p>
<p>The survey is a reputational index, and accordingly represents what school officials do PERCEIVE. However, it takes a giant leap of faith to accept or pretend that the opinion is based on anything else than a distant and vague perception of what happens on hundreds of campus through the nation. </p>
<p>And, by the way, your position that Wellesley pretty much dominate the other peer colleges in terms of faculty and resources seems to be a matter of opinion. While it is obvious that a highly prestigious college such as Wellesley must possess great resources and faculty, it is less clear that it “dominates” other schools in general terms, or that it is even competitive in all areas, especially with LACs that have developed areas of specialization.</p>
<p>
This calculation is bogus. You can’t take an additional half off; it’s a percentage of the people who applied. The half is already taken off - the men didn’t apply.</p>
<p>"
Boston cost of living versus Brunswick Maine. Probably makes up that 16K."</p>
<p>Funny how no one seems to correct for that when it places Harvard so high. Or MIT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BClinton, inasmuch as your analysis of the resources and faculty resources seems to be accurate, there is a danger to reach for your conclusions regarding the rankings based on one particular year. In fact, the subscores for the categories you just analyzed tend to be pretty fluid as schools move up and down from one year to another … but with little visible impact on their rankings. </p>
<p>In addition, despite Morse’s sharing of the methodology, we do not really know how a ranking of 9th versus 13th translates into the numerical scale. For all we know, there is no difference in the final tabulation. Considering that changes in the subscores hardly translate in changes in the final ranking, one could conclude that movements between 1 through 20th are mostly trivial. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the PA continues to account for most changes. For better or worse. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Absolutely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. You can’t do that. It is fair to note that women’s colleges are inherently more self-selecting because x% of women won’t apply simply due to the no-male factor, but that doesn’t “cut the acceptance rate in half.” After all, plenty of colleges are inherently more self-selecting, whether it’s the (historical) quirky-U-Chicago schtick, a college that is geared towards practitioners of a certain religion such as BYU or Wheaton, or a college in a particularly undesirable city or region.</p>
<p>The women’s colleges in general are (relatively speaking) admissions bargains. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. Some students aren’t interested in the bargain, because of the no-male factor, which is fine.</p>
<p>Wellesley also has the 4th largest endowment among LACs, according to NACUBA (2010):</p>
<ol>
<li>Williams $1.527 billion</li>
<li>Pomona $1.459 billion</li>
<li>Amherst $1.386 bilion</li>
<li>Wellesley $1.307 billion</li>
<li>Grinnell $1.265 billion</li>
<li>Swarthmore $1.249 billion</li>
<li>Smith $1.244 billion</li>
<li>Washington & Lee $1.008 billion </li>
<li>Berea $847 million</li>
<li>Middlebury $783 million</li>
<li>Bowdoin $755 million
. . .</li>
<li>Wesleyan $504 million
. . .</li>
<li>CMC $466 million</li>
</ol>
<p>On an endowment-per-student basis, Wellesley ranks #6 among LACs, after Pomona, Swarthmore, Amherst, Grinnell, and Williams, in that order. Bowdoin ranks 9th; CMC and Wesleyan trail far back in the pack. Wellesley’s endowment-per-student is a little over 30% larger than Bowdoin’s, nearly 50% larger than CMC’s, and three-and-a-half times the size of Wesleyan’s. </p>
<p>Small wonder, then, that Wellesley dominates these schools in the “faculty resources” and “financial resources” categories of the U.S. News ranking, which together make up 30% of the total—or exactly TWICE as much as PA.</p>
<p>Here’s another way to think about it: At a standard 5% payout rate, Wellesley’s endowment produces $29,400 per student per year in extra disposable operating revenue. Wesleyan’s endowment produces $8,000 per student per year. That represents an enormous difference in the programs and amenities each college can provide.</p>
<p>Bck, aren’t you contradicting yourself when comparing Pomona and Wellesley? </p>
<p>And again, perhaps you should consider checking several years of USNews rankings to see if the correlations support your conclusions. I am quite certain that the size of the endowment does not track the subscores as well as you might think.</p>