Lewis and Clark’s acceptance rate is 74% when according to Princeton Review, their average gpa is 3.90 and 62% of admitted students have a gpa over 3.75. Compare this to Tulane’s 17% acceptance rate, who’s average gpa is 3.56 and only 35% admitted have a gpa over 3.75… I understand that some schools are more well known than others, but I just don’t understand why there is such a difference…:.
Self selection. Most people don’t apply to smaller regional schools without already knowing quite a bit about them and knowing they are a good fit. Don’t confuse acceptance rate with quality.
It’s tough to compare GPAs, because we don’t know how that’s calculated and there are no standard guidelines.
Many schools simply report the GPA on students’ transcripts (and do not recalculate in any standard way).
So the reported GPA ends up being a combination of weighted (all on different scales) and unweighted GPAs, and a combo of GPAs for core courses only and for all courses (Including gym and electives).
Regarding the 2 schools in your OP, they attract different types of students and Tulane is riding a wave (pun!) of popularity right now.
Some schools also really try to lower their admissions rate (play the yield protection game).
I agree that acceptance rate and quality of education as well as opportunities are completely different things.
That is interesting…must be a self-selected gruop…but then only about 10% actually attend.
@collegegal100: Interesting observation. For those seeking an outstanding LAC as a match or safety, what could be better than attending a school with a gorgeous campus, strong academics, located in one of the country’s most interesting cities.
How many apps does each school get? I would think the difference is simply marketing.
Lewis and Clark is located in a pretty pleasant part of the US and has a generous merit aid scholarship. I think Reed, although better funded, is FA only.